You are not logged in.
Ooooh, that's worked perfectly, thanks very much!
Ah thanks Bob, I'll give it a try, it just seemed that using the a,b and c terms would be easier, I didn't think to let the the determinant = D, thanks!
You're a clever man Bob, how did you do it?
Hi guys, I'm stuck with a really horrid set of simultaneous equations, after some working, I found out that:
Which I'm fairly sure is correct, since plugging in the answers which the answer book gives does give the right answers. Now from this, I think I'm right in saying that:
Which I simply cannot solve. Can anybody help me to solve this, or is there perhaps a simpler method which I've completely missed
Thanks Bob!
Hi Bob,
Thanks, once again, for replying when I'm in need of help. I don't think I made my question clear, however - for which I do appologise. I was able to do those questions with a reasonable degree of ease, but, since they are 'show that' questions, I wanted to finish my answer with a mathematical conclusion. So, let's take my first question as an example, my approach was to find the determinant of the given matrix A, which, when evaluated came out to be abc-abc. What I then wanted to state is:
Therefore, for all values of a, b and c, the matrix A is singular.
Which, of course, follows from the result that the determinant is equal to abc-abc and is what the question had asked me to show.
However, I wished to state it in set builder notation.
My actual question, then, was about set-builder notation, I have a good idea of the workings of it, but expressions such as 'a, b and c are all elements of the set of real numbers' and quantifying over natural language sentences, as opposed to mathematical expressions are examples of things which I do not fully understand. So I was asking if anybody has any good articles or books on set builder notation (or even set theory in general) which I could have a look at, or has the time to give a quick tutorial in set-builder notation, such that I can fix problems similar to the ones above. These were merely examples of the kind of thing which I was struggling to express in set-builder notation.
Thanks
Hi Guys,
Does anyone have any tutorials on how to use set-builder notation. I know the basics, but there are still a few things which I'm not 100% clear about.
For example, for one question, I needed to show that 'for all values of a, b and c, the matrix A is singular' and this how I tried to translate that into set-builder notation, but I don't know if I've done it correctly:
Similarly, for another question, I needed to show that 'for all real values of x, the matrix A is non-singular' and this was my attempt at a translation:
Merry Christmas
Hi Bob;
I wish I knew for sure.
I really do not know how to enlarge ordinary text, ganesh seems to know more about that then anyone. But he is unavailable till Christmas. I do it in latex like this:
Hi Bobbym, what you've done is absolutely fine for enlarging LaTeX. The forum, as you may well have notice uses BB code and there are ways to enlarge the font size in BB code, however, I don't believe that this forum supports them - it's not very common to, since its rarely needed. Whilst I agree that LaTeX can make doing simple things quite a chore, it is very powerful and pretty and, if you typeset entire documents using it (as I often do) you do get used to it, lol . Wikibooks has a complete and very instructive manual which you may find helpful, mandy jane, in learning LaTeX, which would certainly make your algebra a lot clearer
.
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/LaTeX
It also links to a pdf, which, in my opinion is much better than the online version.
Ah, thanks bob, so it would seem that I did indeed make a mistake with the modulus signs - thanks!
Oooh, well found, thanks!
Thanks Bobbym for the trouble. You are absolutely right, I've decided to move on. I have to say, I really don't think much of this textbook, but what can you do
Hmmm you're quite right, thanks Bobbym.
Certainly, it is the newest edition of:
Edexcel AS and A Level Modular Mathematics FP1 (Further Pure Mathematics 1). This is the textbook accompanying the Advanced Level examinations set by the examining body Edexcel in Britain.
The ISBN number is: 978-0-435519-23-0 and is distributed by Heinemann.
See:
http://www.pearsonschoolsandfecolleges.co.uk/Secondary/Scotland/Maths/EdexcelModularMathematicsforASandALevel/ISBN/FurtherPureMathematics/EdexcelASandALevelModularMathematicsFurtherPureMathematics1.aspx (http://tinyurl.com/34dgwdm)
Hmmm, how very curious, given that the question explicitly states
'The rectangle R has vertices at the points (-1,0),(0,-3),(4,0) and (3,3).'
I must say I am thoroughly confused Thanks for all of your help, once again!
Hmmmm...That's interesting, but surely the area of a rectangle is given by the width multiplied by the height.
Hmmm that's a good point I get a = 8 from A = 15, too, but I'm still getting A = 5√10, here's what I did
Hi Bobby
Thanks, 15 sounds like exactly the right answer, maybe I'm just tired and am doing something silly, but when I drew the rectangle I got a 5 x √10 rectangle. I assume it should be 5 x 3, but surely if the coordinates of our two points are (-1,0) and (0,-3) we need to do pythagoras, or have I constructed the rectangle incorrectly. It's entirely possible I have .
Hi guys, I have another matrices question.
The rectangle R has vertices at the points (-1,0),(0,-3),(4,0) and (3,3).
The matrix
Where a is a constant
a) Find, in terms of a, the coordinates of the vertices of the image of R under the transformation given by A.
By simple matrix multiplication, we can find that the answer to this is: (2,-1), (3a-9,-3a), (-8,4) and (3-3a,3a+3)
b) Find det(A), leaving your answer in terms of a
This is
Given that the area of the image of R is 75
c) Find the positive value of a.
In fairness, I'm not sure if I've done the modulus right, it's been a while since I did that . Even so, the answer should be 2, and I don't see how to get there
Does anyone have any ideas?
Thanks,
Au101
Hi Aartt, to truncate something is literally to shorten, or to cut off. So, if you truncate a decimal, e.g. 0.7456464, you simply shorten it, without regard to rounding, i.e. 0.745 would be a truncation of that decimal.
Thanks Bobbym, your comments are always helpful and interesting and you seem to have mastered the art of tailoring your comments to the level of the person who you are helping very well
That's a very good point Bobbym, I completely overlooked that, for which I appologise.
Well it was a pleasure, please let me know if you get to the bottom of this :s
Okay, well you will need that formula to answer my more advanced question. If you like we could discuss that now, however, I'm still perplexed by these questions. I can say with some degree of certainty that there are no values of x which satisfy those equations. In mathematics, that is a perfectly reasonable result, indeed it can be a useful result. Indeed in formal texts it would not be uncommon to see something like:
Obviously you don't need to worry about that, it just says there aren't any values of x which satisfy that equation, I just thought you might be interested to see how we can conclude that the our equation has no answers. However, having finally got to the point of my post, it's not very useful in teaching algebra to give students equations which have no solutions. Does the book have any answers, or does the question say, at any point, something like which of these equations can you solve for x? For those which can be solved, find x?
With regard to your second question, this is much more difficult, have you ever done the quadratic formula before: