You are not logged in.
Solve the second equation for
, the third equation for and the last equation for . (Did I read your handwriting correctly?) Now you should have expressions for , and .Substitute your equation for
into the the first equation (in your picture).You will see that the resulting equation now contains
, so substitute your expression for to eliminate it.Finally, you should be left with an expression that contains
. Substitute your expression for just like you did for and .That should be it.
EDIT: I agree with cmowla. Your handwriting is difficult to read here. If any of your equations contain the letter t or number 3, then I've misread.
Neither the exercise or me got it
Maybe... You might want to double check that you typed the equation properly in your original post. (Does your textbook really say
?)are you people mathematicians or proffesors
I'm just some guy from Australia lol. I'm studying at university right now, but I'm definitely not a professor! I'm not even studying to become a mathematician. Though math is needed in a lot of different subjects.
I'm getting 86 with the algebra solver you linked.
Sorry about my previous post. I subbed into the equivalent expression Wolfram Alpha came up with instead of the original. I don't see any reason the answer should be different though.
Why don't you show your working, Allo?
The brackets just make it clear which part of the sentence you want the "for all" quantifier to apply. In larger sentences you might want to quantify
for some of the equation but not the rest. I guess in this case the brackets weren't needed.The 'v' and upside-down 'v' you're talking about sound like the symbols for logical disjunction
and conjunction , respectively. There's a Wikipedia page which includes all these symbols and describes their meaning if you're interested:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ma … al_symbols
(Scroll down about half way for the dis- and conjunction symbols.)
This could be a way to write it:
This is hilarious!
I think they were getting confused not only with dollars and cents, but with kilobytes and kilobits.
Given a loan amount L, a term Y (in years) and a fixed monthly repayment P, I want to find (or at least approximate) the compound interest rate R. The loan is compounded monthly, once before each payment.
I've looked into geometric series, though it isn't too easy to solve for the ratio.
I'm using a computer to find the interest rate, so iterative methods are fine.
All the phony proofs in favour of 0.999... being equal to 1 are easily refuted:
thenewcalculus.weebly.com/uploads/5/6/7/4/5674177/proof_that_0.999_not_equal_1.pdf
Interesting paper, John. Though I'll admit I'm skeptical.
In particular, on page 6 you prove that
by induction -- which does make sense to me. Where I start to have my doubts is where you show that
is absurd. Didn't you only prove
for the natural numbers?If you mean to say that zero is neither positive nor negative, you're absolutely correct. But '-0' isn't the same as saying 'zero is negative'!
To see why 0 is the same as -0 and +0, imagine +1, +2, and so on, as a line starting from zero, like this:
A negative number is the same as a positive number, except you reverse the line. It's Stays the same length and still starts at zero, but it's flipped. For example, -2 looks like this:
You can imagine "flipping the line" with numbers closer and closer to zero (shorter and shorter lines). But what happens when your line gets so short that it doesn't really have length? (You could say "0 length").
By that stage, you don't really have a line anymore. You have a point which represents zero:
Because it doesn't have any length "flipping" it doesn't change it, so +0 is the same as -0.
Ten is the the acceleration of Earth's gravity, 9.82 m/s/s. Some versions of this clock have it written as
so it equals 10 exactly.Eleven is written in hexadecimal. In decimal, we have numbers 1 to 9, but in hexadecimal, as well as 1 to 9 there's 'a' to 'f' so you can keep counting: a equals ten, b equals eleven and so on. The zero at the front of '0b' doesn't make any difference here. It's just like writing the number three (in decimal) as 03.
Here's your main problem:
ElseIf
test2 = TextWindow.Read()
If test2 = "Testing Reply 2" Then
You need to put your test on the same line as the 'ElseIf' like this:
ElseIf test2 = TextWindow.Read()
If test2 = "Testing Reply 2" Then
And immediately after the test, Small Basic is expecting a "Then," just like with the if statements:
ElseIf test2 = TextWindow.Read() Then
If test2 = "Testing Reply 2" Then
Also, you can't test if TextWindow.Read() is equal to the variable 'test2' because you haven't set it to anything yet. But you already set the "test" variable to TextWindow.Read() on the second line of your program. What I think you meant to do is something like this:
ElseIf test = "Testing Reply 2" Then
Finally, with all that thinking, we get this:
TextWindow.WriteLine("Testing")
test = TextWindow.Read()
If test = "Testing Reply" Then
TextWindow.WriteLine("This is text.")
ElseIf test = "Testing Reply 2" Then
TextWindow.WriteLine("This is also text.")
Else
TextWindow.WriteLine("Sorry, this operation did not perform correctly.")
EndIf
Line by line, the program says this:
1. Show the user "Testing" (print it out on the screen).
2. Set the variable "test" to whatever the user types.
3. Check if the "test" variable is equal to "Testing Reply" (without quotes). If it is, go to step 4, otherwise go to step 5.
4. Show the user "This is text." (Without quotes, of course!) Then go to step 8.
5. Check if the "test" variable is equal to "Testing Reply 2" (without quotes). If it is, go to step 6, otherwise go to step 7.
6. Show the user "This is also text." Then go to step 8.
7. Show the user "Sorry, this operation did not perform correctly." Then go to step 8.
8. This is the "EndIf." It pretty much says "quit asking all these 'if' questions!"
Works fine over here. Your problem could be that you're entering "testing reply" instead of "Testing Reply".
Can you post some of your code involving ElseIf's?
I could only figure out that there's at least
.Swapping maximizes expected gain for player A and minimizes it for B.
Proof:
(Left as an exercise for the reader.)
I don't think they got it from line 3. With or without that term, the statement is the same:
This is because
Seems pretty good to me. I think it might be a good idea to restrict the range of the numbers so they always fit properly in their boxes. Other than that I can't complain.
Just out of curiosity, why haven't you written this in JS/HTML instead of flash? (I'm not suggesting that you do, I'm just curious).
It's a rimshot sound. I'd post a link, though I'm not an established member yet. Just Google it and listen to a Youtube video.
*ba dum tishhh*
Nah, come on! It's an easy mistake to make. Keep going!