You are not logged in.
I would do it like this:
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
3x^2x+4 - 3x ^x+2 = 0
With this, how would you have solved it if you don't want to move 3x^x+2 to the RHS?
I know only one thing - that is that I know nothing
Offline
You mean if you did not want to equate coefficients?
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Couldn't you have removed the 3's without moving 3^x+2 to the RHS?
I know only one thing - that is that I know nothing
Offline
You could have used the quadratic idea.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Quadratic idea? I see.
See what I mean;
3^2x+4 - 3^x+2 = 0
When you were solving you moved 3^x+2 to the RHS, and I am saying, in case you did not want to move 3^x+2 to the RHS how would you have equated the exponents?
Last edited by EbenezerSon (2014-09-16 02:24:09)
I know only one thing - that is that I know nothing
Offline
That I do not know.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Why do you not want to move it?
Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.
Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment
The knowledge of some things as a function of age is a delta function.
Offline
Why do you not want to move it?
Co's I have solved similar problems which I did not move any to RHS and then went on to solve the exponents after I have gotten rid of the bases
Last edited by EbenezerSon (2014-09-16 10:54:46)
I know only one thing - that is that I know nothing
Offline
I don't think that is possible here.
Have an example?
Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.
Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment
The knowledge of some things as a function of age is a delta function.
Offline
Either way it is not difficult to move it to the otherside.
You can also solve as a quadratic like before.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Have an example?
The examples are not in the book I am using currently, but I will search for that particular book and then show you those examples.
Thanks Anonym
I know only one thing - that is that I know nothing
Offline
Thank you Bobbym!
Please these are confusing me;
(1)(x - m/g - f)^2
are the above the same as;
(2)x^2 - m^2/g^2- f^2
Please, confirm
Last edited by EbenezerSon (2014-09-18 01:35:47)
I know only one thing - that is that I know nothing
Offline
Is this what the problem is?
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Regarding #1 the 'x' minus 'm' are all on one plateform, and the 'g' minus 'f' are the denominator
With respect to #2 the 'x' is squared and the 'm' is also squared a minus sign is in between, and are on one plateform which is over 'g' squared minus 'f' squared.
And my question is, are both #1 and #2 the same expression?
Last edited by EbenezerSon (2014-09-18 01:48:07)
I know only one thing - that is that I know nothing
Offline
Hi;
I hope you are not saying
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Yes, that is it!
And are they the same expression?
I know only one thing - that is that I know nothing
Offline
They are not and you can prove that by choosing two arbitrary numbers and substituting.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
I was thinking they're the same, because according to the laws of exponents (ab)^2 is the same as (a^2^b2)
Is evident that the square(2) is multiplied to the variables. What do you say?
I know only one thing - that is that I know nothing
Offline
But (a + b)^2 does not equal (a^2 + b^2)
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
I see the difference now!
Thank you!
I know only one thing - that is that I know nothing
Offline
Is 27^(n+2) the same as 9^(n+2) 3^(n+2)?, If so I tried multiplying the latter expression back, but didn't get the former.
Please help with these.
Thank you
Last edited by EbenezerSon (2014-09-18 11:09:31)
I know only one thing - that is that I know nothing
Offline
Hi;
Yes, that is true.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Please have you tried multiplying 9^(n+2) 3^(n+2) back to get 27^(n+2)? And was it possible for you?
Last edited by EbenezerSon (2014-09-18 22:13:00)
I know only one thing - that is that I know nothing
Offline
First change it so they are all powers of 3.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline