Final answer:
Neither Jay nor Ted is definitively correct based on the statements alone. Jay's claim would be accurate if the points are equidistant from the origin on opposite sides, while Ted's would be right if the points are different distances from the origin. Understanding absolute value as distance from 0 is key to resolving their disagreement.
Step-by-step explanation:
When Jay says that the absolute values of the numbers represented by points P and Q are the same, he is suggesting that the points are the same distance away from 0 on the number line but could be in different directions. This means that if one point were at +3, the other would be at -3; they are mirror images of each other across the origin. On the other hand, Ted believes that the absolute values of the points are different, suggesting that they are at different distances from 0, such as one point at +3 and the other at +4 or -5.
To determine who is correct, we must understand the concept of absolute value, which is the distance a number is from 0 on a number line, regardless of direction. So, if Jay's assertion that the absolute values are the same is accurate, then the points are equidistant from 0, and it wouldn't matter which side of 0 they are on. Ted would be correct if the distances of the points from 0 were different.
In conclusion, neither of these statements accurately confirm who is right without additional context, but we can infer that the absolute value of a number refers to its distance from the origin, not its position relative to another point.