You are not logged in.
It's late and my brain is tired, but darn. This is the polynomial:
I know how to find possible factors:
So the possibilities are:
But none of them are factors! I used my graphing calculator and it calculated a zero at about 2.5, which is 5/2. The calc is telling me 2.4448652, but the y value isn't exactly zero though. Whatever. I solved the equation using 5/2 and it doesn't solve to zero. Please help me understand this.
It's fairly simple but for the life of me I can't figure it out. What am I missing here. The last problem I was stuck on the method for solving was a lot simpler than what I was trying. I am thinking this one is the same.
This is as far as I'm got:
This is what I noticed:
But I can't do this this:
Because one of the binomials has an exponent of 3 and the other does not.
Ahhhh you know what, I feel so stupid. My brain is cooked. Well it's not now because i actually got some good sleep after doing so much math homework. I figured out what it is that what confusing me about all this while driving to work. Solving quadratic equations for solutions is only to see if the equation intercepts the x axis. If i get a complex solution this means there is no x intercepts and thats it. There is no solving it anymore. the solution is not used to draw the graph. I dont know why i thought this. Thanks for your help.
That I know. But how do I derive values from what I posted originally? when I put the equation into the graphing calculator it draws a graph. I want to know how it came up with the values despite having a complex solution.
Sorry for the late reply. A+Bi? I'm aware that "i squared" equals -1 but the i isn't squared.
This is the problem:
Solved. No real solution.
My question is, how do you calculate values with the imaginary number? I know how to verify that I solved it correctly but how do I generate values with the imaginary number? What do I do with the "i"?
Thanks.
Wow bobbym! 94? Whats the secret man!
Ok. Thanks:)
Can you please just verify if I am right?
The problem:
Solving:
Proof:
I'm not going to work out the negative proof because it works out the same way. I just want to know if I worked the imaginary number out right. My professor for Algebra 2 cover this some but not really in depth. My current pre-calc teacher didn't cover it at all because he said we all should know it already. Thanks.
Thanks Bob. I know all of what you mentioned. Thanks though. I know that if you restrict the quadratic so that all x values are positive, it would then be one to one and an inverse function can be worked out. But for the life of me I can't figure out how to do it. I won't ask my professor because I know he won't do it. Thanks Bob.
I know in general how to find inverse functions but holy hell I can't figure this out. It seems so simple but I can't see the way. I was initially asked to use a graphing calculator graph the function:
Then use the calculators draw inverse feature to draw an inverse relation. Determine whether the inverse relation is an inverse function. Before doing that I decided to just solve for the inverse function algebraically. I learned real quick that I didn't know how. So I used wolfram-alpha and it gave some crazy inverse function that I would of never got as an answer. I wasn't going to ask you guys to help solve that so I got one that has a more simple answer but still can't figure it out.
The thing is is stumbling me is the "+ x". If there was no "+ x" it would be easy to solve.
Also,... I'm wondering, I'm taking Pre-Calc A right now. Should I already know how to do this? Things like this make me feel like I'm behind or not smart enough to do this. But I don't recall my professors ever really going over this. I think. When I see that function I keep thinking to factor.
I think the (R1 + R2) in the numerator and demonitor like that would all cancel out leaving 1's. I don't even think my attempt is right. I don't have time to keep trying even though I would really love to.
No problem.
Thanks you for the reply:) It's makes sense now. I have moments where I just can't seem to figure things out but when I do I kick myself but it's so simple. LOL.
Here's my attempt:
Answer:
Skipped a few steps.
Which leavs us with this:
I don't know if this is right. If someone can confirm that would be great. I am only a student so I can't say for sure it's right. Spent a good portion of the night trying to figure this out when I should of been doing my homework.
Oh I just found out what I was doing wrong. Sorry. No imaginary numbers. It's a simple as:
Sorry. I feel stupid.
Square Root Function:
Reflection of the Square Root Function across the y-axis:
Now, I know the domain of a square root has to be equal to or greater than zero. So that's when imaginary numbers are used. Right?
It makes sense but at he same time it doesn't because when I pump the reflected square root function into my graphing calculator and view the table of values, I'm a bit confused as to how these value are calculated. I know that:
And that:
So if I have something like:
Solving this leaves me with:
So, how do I get 2 from 2i? Among the table of values, one of the many coordinate pairs are (-4,2). How is the value 2 acquired from 2i? What am I missing here? Thanks in advance. Oh, I asked my teacher and he said to seek tutoring. Lovely right?
The function is odd and I'm trying to prove it with f(-x) = -f(x). I think I figured it out but not sure. It might be because I'm just tired.
Is this right? When I pull the negative sign, I don't change the signs of the term within the square root right? I'm pretty sure I don't. For some reason I was do that before and I couldn't prove that it's odd. Please let me know.
Yea. My teacher emailed me back (which is pretty surprising) with the correct way of doing it. I didn't put the substitution for f(2) in parenthesis. Thanks.
You can not simply derive measurements such as height, width, and depth for a complicated shape such as a human body or car with more data. Even if you had this data, its extremely difficult to do. If your object was simple such as a cube, cylinder, or triangle and had more data,... we could calculate this a lot easier.
Not knowing any more than just the SA of say a box,... we can derive dimensions for say a box but there are infinitely many dimensions. This means the box can be of any shape or even size. If you give us the SA, L, and W, we can calculate the depth for example. If you only give the SA and L, that would mean the width and depth would be infinite.
I am studying and came across this problem:
The book says this is the answer but for the life me I can't figure out how they got this answer. I plugged the equation into wolfram alpha and the answer it produced wasn't that of the book either.
This is what I worked out:
This is as far as I can get:
If someone can help me that would be great. I have been trying for 45 minutes now.
Awesome. Thanks so much. Going to save that site for future use. I know I'm to need it and this site again:) Thanks again:)
It's funny because i did notoce that. I know that the opposites such as (2-k) and (k-2) when one is in the numerator and one is in the denominator they cancel out and leave behind a -1. I forgot you could do what you showed me:) Thanks:)
Hey, how do you post the arithmetic the way you did? As oppose to the way I did it.
For the life of me I can't figure out how to solve this problem. Please help me understand this.
1/(k+2) - 4/(k-2) - k^2/(4-k^2) = 0
I got as far as this: -k^4 + 3k^3 + 14k^2 -12k - 40 = 0
I can't figure out what's next or even if I came to the correct point. I've wasted so much time trying to figure this out. I have to skip it and move on to complete my homework.
Thanks in advance:) Oh by the way,... I love this website!!! So helpful! I use it all the time.