You are not logged in.
sqrt(-1) doesnt exist because it is indefined.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** Edit*** I will stop posting to this subject thread for the foreseeable future.
Yes but check this out! You are forgetting there are also complex answers.
This is one answer for (-1)^(1/3)
Are not the roots of
, ,
Hi;
That is not correct.
No, the odd root of a negative integer is some type of negative real number.
It must be.
How did you calculate that it would approach -1?
They should have been complex numbers, with positive real part.
Notice in the folowing lines how I will use fractions that
necessarily have odd denominators (for odd indices)
Let me show three of my examples worked out:
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
I will use a fraction relatively much closer to 0:
-------------------------------------------------------------
and this is 1
Look at all of those negative x-values approaching 0 from the left where x^x is real.
For example, x =
-1/5, -1/25, -1/125, -1/625. -1/3125, ...
For these, x^x is approaching -1.
hi reconsideryouranswer
Where did that line come from?
If c = 3 then b le 1.6666 which would force b to be 1 ??
I think the end of your proof needs a re-think.
Bob
My post has been reedited to show the
correct denominator of (c - 1).
a + b + c = abc
abc - a = b + c
a(bc - 1) = b + c
I am not "forgetting about" ln(1 - x). I was looking right at it and working with it, regardless if I mishandled it. x approaching 0 from either side is not an issue for ln(1 - x), as it is 0. But x approaching 0 from the left side of ln(x) is a problem, just as it is for x approaching from the left of, say, x^x, as those limits do not exist. And where is ln(-x) = ln(x) + ipi coming from? And then, why isn't your alleged expression this
instead of what you typed, because you assumed x --->0-? ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- And -----------------------------------------------------In the xy-plane, look at
(0, 8), (-15, 0), (-6, 0), (0, 0), (6, 0), (15, 0), (0, -8)
And look at all of the distances of the 7 C 2 = 21 pairs of these 7 points.
This concept can be extended to greater numbers of Pythagorean triangles
an integer distances using additional points.
16)
The limit needs to approach from the right side of 0,
as amended above. There aren't any real values for
ln(x) from the left side of 0, so it is undefined there.
solve in R
In solving, I would try to make use of the fact that the sum of the coefficients
of the left-hand side radicands equals the sum of the coefficients of the
right-hand side radicands.
I agree with survival. Friends last aquaintances dont. Differentiate between
the two in your life and might find it more enjoyable to have friends! <3
To me, these are the sets that cover the relationships, with the overlapping
of certain sets:
{strangers}
{acquaintances}
{friends}
{lovers}
{frenemies}
{enemies}
zee-f, the name of this thread is "Help Me!"
not "Do it for me."
You should always show your own attempts and where
you're stuck.
No posters here should be giving you the answers.
9)
I couldn't come up with another method, can you?
Let x = 1/y. As x --> 0, then 1/y --> 0.
So y --> oo (or -oo).
The limit could be expressed as:
Notes:
--------
Step 2 to step 3 used the Binomial Theorem.
Step 3 through step 5 could use some
justification/details to support the
continued patterns of terms and expressions,
respectively.
7)
Message
Hi gAr,
Nice and well explained solution to Post no. 23.My attempt at 7
Message
Hi 123ronnie321,
That's correct, good job!
Actually, the last line of the solution is wrong, as it violates
the Order of Operations.
It must use grouping symbols, such as
|
2)
Problem:
Let A = (1 + 1/2 + ... + 1/n)
Let B = [1/(n + 1) + 1/(n + 2) + ... + 1/(n + n)]
Let C = A + B
Then B = C - A
in a game, not as they are now where consecutive strikes have more
weight in the total score, in my opinion.
Can't the index for a root only belong to the
set of positive integers?
I am asking this, because in the digit number puzzles, I saw
(The index is shown as .4 as a portion of a solution.)new soln for 24 included below, plus numbers to 30 (so far)
11 33 8 8
26 33 8/8;
27 33 8 + 8
28 33 + 8/8
Here is another:-
But this proves 2 > 3.
3 < 2
You're missing required grouping symbols, ganesh.
One of the lines above can be fixed by typing:
#1064. What is the sum of the infinite series
The hide feature was edited in.