- » Help Me !
- » Inequality having Absolute Value and Constant on its 2 side
Topic review (newest first)
- 2012-08-16 09:41:03
Thanks everyone! You guys are so cool!
- 2012-08-15 23:48:23
Yes! Congrats on passing your exam. It's always nice to show others that you know the material, but the real joy is in knowing that you really understand the concepts and can carry on insightful
interactions with others. Not to mention that your mind kicks in and starts getting creative and
asking neat questions and coming up with new ideas (most of which someone else has already done but the fun us in coming up with it yourself).
Keep those brain cells buzzing! You are apparently blessed with a bunch of them.
- 2012-08-15 22:17:37
That is a very good result, well done!
- 2012-08-15 22:03:29
First of all, getting a perfect score should never be a necessity.
Second, congrats on passing your exam. I hope you do good on all your exams.
- 2012-08-15 21:15:50
Hello anonimnystefy! It's been a long time! I just want to keep my promise to you...
I just got the result of my exam earlier this day.
I didn't got the perfect score due to carelessness but anyway, I still passed. Better luck next time, I guess.
Have a great day!
- 2012-08-09 12:36:51
That copy and paste worked OK. I'm not sure what I was doing that didn't work. I think I was using
the quick post and then copying from it and trying to go to the post reply. At any rate I was jumping
around amonst pages and lost something in the process.
Yeah, I like the x symbol for the multiplication better than the *. Thanks for the suggestion.
- 2012-08-09 10:05:59
Also I tried copy/paste for the latex command, but alas it wouldn't paste.
Were you trying to copy the LaTeX output, maybe? Just do this:
- left click in your equation entry box;
- do Ctrl+a (keyboard) to select all your entered text;
- do Ctrl+c (keyboard) to copy that selection to your clipboard;
- do Ctrl+v (keyboard) in your MIF Message panel to paste the clipboard contents there;
- select the pasted text and click on the 'Math' button under the Message pane.
That should work.
To use the 'times' symbol for multiplication instead of the asterisk (as shown below), that is available from the drop down menu above the brackets' menu, and is the symbol directly above the asterisk.
- 2012-08-09 02:41:29
Hi again phrontister
I found it easy to get the expression below. I couldn't get the "*'s" to float between the fraction and
the quadratic so I just left them in the fraction.
Also I tried copy/paste for the latex command, but alas it wouldn't paste. So I tried separate panes
for the forum and for the code site. Then I selected and dragged the code over to the forum and it
worked great! Thanks again.
I finally figured out how to get the "*" to "float."
- 2012-08-09 02:13:03
Thanks a bunch for showing me the link and you too bobbym for showing phrrontister. Seems to be
just what I was looking for! Yeah!
- 2012-08-08 13:28:35
I use the Online LaTeX Equation Editor by Codehogs, found here.
bobbym gave me this link quite some time ago, and it's the only LaTeX editor I've ever used or tried. I don't know what others use, nor its strengths and weaknesses, but it's done everything I've asked of it.
- 2012-08-08 08:17:17
Thanks for the input.
True. One might have to do some 'splainin' to make sure the difference between regular multiplication
of fractions and enlarging are understood. It could save a bit of writing when the argument is large:
2x+3 * 2
------ (3x - 4x + 7) instead of
(2x+3)(3x - 4x + 7)
(3x+4)(3x - 4x + 7)
The LaTex for the complex fraction 3/3 over 6/3 has 31 characters if I have counted right. The
output of the Latex is only 7 characters. So the two dimensional output is much easier to read
and understand than the one dimensional Latex input.
Do you know of a good "front end" for Latex that could be used easily to get the LaTex code for this
forum? I know there are several programs that allow inputting the math in a mathematical format
but I don't know of one that then allows you to view the equivalent LaTex.
- bob bundy
- 2012-08-07 17:51:38
You've got to be able to make clear this difference:
For reducing I would show:
- 2012-08-07 04:39:35
Hi bob bundy!
Yes indeed! One would have to specify by what factor to "enlarge" the fraction. So given a word
line enlarging or complicating we would probably naturally say for 1/2 to 6/12 "enlarge 1/2 by a
factor of six." But we could also reduce 6/12 by a different factor, so we could say something like
"reduce 6/12 by a factor of three."
But still there is no standard mathematical notation for either of these. To make the typing fairly
easy I do this:
1 x 3
- 3 = - (Spacing gets squirrely unless a monospaced font is available.)
2 x 6
6 / 2
--- 3 = - (But I use the regular division symbol with the two dots about a "-" instead of "/")
12 / 4
This way if we are reducing or enlarging by a more complicated expression, we would only have
to write it once.
Most of the typing I do is on Word Perfect with Courier New font. That way I can get most of the
normal arithmetic and algebra to come out looking fairly nice without a strain.
- bob bundy
- 2012-08-07 04:22:56
I call reducing simplfying. So I have occasionally said 'complicating' for antireducing.
Trouble with finding a word for it is this:
Reducing a fraction to its lowest terms gives a unique answer. But there's no one result for antireducing.
But, in maths, you are allowed to make up new terms, as long as you define them clearly. So here's your chance to put your stamp on the process, and become famous for devising the term.
Maybe you could make it a compound word, incorporating the amount by which you are enlarging the top and bottom of the fraction.
eg. evans-three-ing the fraction 1/2 would give the result 3/6
You define your term and I'll (for one) use it.
- 2012-08-07 03:49:30
The language of math was created over many hundreds of years by people who were not able for the most part to communicate effectively with each other (like we can today!). As such we have sort of a hodgepodge of language that is not nearly as perfect as most believe. Sometimes symbols and words are misleading, sometimes we don't have words or symbols to communicate ideas, sometimes we are given algorithms that are not as good as others available, sometimes we are given notation that is cumbersome. My main interest is to find examples of such and try to help overcome these problems.
Here's a simple question. So far over the years I have asked this question of people of all levels
of mathematics up to and including PhD's. None have had an answer yet.
Here goes! Nearly everyone knows that going from 4/8 to 1/2 is called reducing. What is it called
when one goes from 1/2 to 4/8? I used to call it antireducing for lack of a better term, but I don't
like that, so I have begun to call it enlarging. There seems to be no common name for the
process. And of course when we are taught to add two fractions like 3/4 and 2/3 by the LCD
process we do this operation on both fractions in getting fractions with a least common denominator.
Also reducing and enlarging are both operations we are doing on fractions, but there seems to be
no symbol for these operations.
Have you seen a name for the "antireducing" or symbols for these operations?