I will use the almighty formula for the factorization, I presume I will get some decimal figures as answers.

bob bundy

2013-07-23 07:50:40

So now the question has become:

It still will not lead to those answers:

x = -1

x = -2

Closest equation with those answers that I can find:

Bob

bobbym

2013-07-23 06:55:23

If you are marked wrong about it then you will have the consolation of knowing that I would have been marked wrong too.

EbenezerSon

2013-07-23 06:53:08

Yeb I must believe you, c'os the author stated explicitly that, a student should forgive any mistake that would be found in the book. Is just at the beginning of the book . :-) But still you're darling!

bobbym

2013-07-23 05:53:41

I could not solve that by hand. It takes a computer to solve it. The answer involves complex numbers further showing that the problem is mistyped.

EbenezerSon

2013-07-23 05:45:58

Then please how exactly would the final answer be?

bobbym

2013-07-23 05:35:04

It still looks like a mistake in the book. -1 and -2 are not roots of that equation.

EbenezerSon

2013-07-23 05:09:34

bobbym wrote:

It is obviously some sort of typo.

The book is before me now and has positive 1 just at the end.

bobbym

2013-07-23 05:04:42

It is obviously some sort of typo.

EbenezerSon

2013-07-23 05:01:28

bobbym wrote:

Hi;

This is exactly what is in the book then?

Yes Sir!. Positive 1 is at the end

EbenezerSon

2013-07-23 05:00:19

bob bundy wrote:

I just wanted to be clear that the problem is:

If so then x = -1 and -2 are not solutions:

This is not zero.

Bob

Yes that's how it is arranged, in the book.

bobbym

2013-07-23 04:58:21

Hi;

This is exactly what is in the book then?

EbenezerSon

2013-07-23 04:51:24

bobbym wrote:

Hasn't he raised a good point with

bob bundy wrote:

I think it is unlikely that a book would use the symbol ^

I would agree, but you say it is there! But then his post #5 is correct and that is not a solution.

The book did not use the symbol ^, I rather used it , because the 2x +3 is at the top of the 3 in the book.

bobbym

2013-07-23 04:44:58

Hasn't he raised a good point with

bob bundy wrote:

I think it is unlikely that a book would use the symbol ^

I would agree, but you say it is there! But then his post #5 is correct and that is not a solution.