Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun.   Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ • π ƒ -¹ ² ³ °

You are not logged in.

## #251 2013-08-08 23:29:21

bobbym

Online

### Re: Simplify the following:

Hi;

Okay, take all the time you need.

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

## #252 2013-08-09 18:17:58

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

#### bobbym wrote:

I was interrupted by some errand, boring one indeed.

Bobbym, it seems you mistakenly made a negative sign a positive sign.
The original is the same as the one Anomnystify solved please check the sign at #244. I mean;
3(x-1)/x-9,

3(x+1)/x^2-9.

Last edited by EbenezerSon (2013-08-09 18:32:27)

## #253 2013-08-09 21:55:51

bobbym

Online

### Re: Simplify the following:

Hi;

I wrote, that there is a mistake in line 2 of post #244

#### anonimnystefy wrote:

Hi EbenezerSon

With a careful look at signs I think should be,
x-3x-3-3/x^2-9 =

-2x-6/x^2-3^2 =

-2(x+3)/(x-3)(x+3)
= -2/x-3

Thanks.

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

## #254 2013-08-11 02:13:56

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

Please,  I mean the problem itself.
You made a negative sign a positive sign.

Here ;

3(x-1). Which you made it 3(x+1).

You check it from one of your post.

## #255 2013-08-11 02:23:37

bobbym

Online

### Re: Simplify the following:

The first line is 3(x+1)

The second line changes that to 3x - 3, that is a mistake.

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

## #256 2013-08-11 02:54:29

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

That is the original question.

The first line is -3(x-1).

And changes the second to be,
-3x+3

## #257 2013-08-11 02:58:00

bobbym

Online

### Re: Simplify the following:

You are not understanding what I am saying. Post #244 is wrong at the second line.

Please post the original problem from the book.

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

## #258 2013-08-11 03:12:22

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

1/1+3 - 3(x-1)/x^2-9.

That is it.

## #259 2013-08-11 03:17:15

bobbym

Online

### Re: Simplify the following:

And what did you get for an answer?

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

## #260 2013-08-11 03:28:19

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

I am not at home now, I will post the original when I get there.

Thanks.

## #261 2013-08-11 03:30:38

bobbym

Online

### Re: Simplify the following:

Okay, see you then.

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

## #262 2013-08-11 23:54:51

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

Hi, Bobbym.

This is the one from the book;

1/x-3 - 3(x-1)/x^2-9

## #263 2013-08-12 00:02:16

bobbym

Online

### Re: Simplify the following:

Hi;

That is correct!

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

## #264 2013-08-12 02:02:37

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

#### bobbym wrote:

Hi;

How did you get,
9^n+2 * 3^n+2  out of 27^n+2?

I have edited it.

Last edited by EbenezerSon (2013-08-12 02:17:33)

## #265 2013-08-12 02:10:03

bobbym

Online

### Re: Simplify the following:

Hi;

I did not get that. Where does 23^n come from?

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

## #266 2013-08-12 02:21:11

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

Please,  I double check it I have edited.

Thanks.

## #267 2013-08-12 02:26:08

bobbym

Online

### Re: Simplify the following:

27^a = 9^a * 3^a

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

## #268 2013-08-12 02:48:58

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

It's 27^n+2, and not 27^a.

## #269 2013-08-12 02:49:48

bobbym

Online

### Re: Simplify the following:

You can say a = (n+2), same principle.

27^(n+2) = 9^(n+2) * 3^(n+2)

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

## #270 2013-08-12 03:00:55

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

I suppose the base must always be the same in each case. So I percieved it to be,

27^n+2=27^n*27^2=3^3n * 3^3+2.

I had thought should be so.

## #271 2013-08-12 03:02:00

bobbym

Online

### Re: Simplify the following:

I am sorry, I can not follow that. Please bracket it off.

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

## #272 2013-08-12 03:10:29

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

In fact I have not seen an indicial problem being split to get different numbers as the base. like what is in #269.

.ThiÅŸ problem is from indices.

## #273 2013-08-12 03:13:25

bobbym

Online

### Re: Simplify the following:

You should learn to latex or to use parentheses better.

That modern notation they are using in that book is not good.

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

## #274 2013-08-12 03:30:07

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

27^n+2=27^n * 27^2

ThÄ±s is how I mean, I will learn parenthesis in it proper way as you say.

For instance, 6^n+3=6^n * 6^3.

Because, for instance, 3^2 * 3^2=3^(2+2).

What do you say.

## #275 2013-08-12 03:34:05

bobbym

Online

### Re: Simplify the following:

All of that is correct but I have to interpret every bit of it.

When you write 27^n+3 in mathematics that means

It is properly written  27^(n+3) this means

Notice they are both very different.

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.