You are not logged in.
#27 2012-08-01 01:17:07
- anonimnystefy
- Real Member
Offline
Re: Equation Involving Radicals
Hi bobbym
That is based on the simplicity of the solution. If it was something worse, you wouldn't be able to substitute and check easily without a computer.
The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't.
“It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman
“A secret's worth depends on the people from whom it must be kept.” ― Carlos Ruiz Zafón
#28 2012-08-01 01:26:32
- bobbym
- Administrator
Offline
Re: Equation Involving Radicals
You are missing the point.
1) Why must it be easy to plug in? Does that invalidate the solution?
2) There are some obvious faults with the whole idea and I only presented it when I was sure the OP had already been satisfied.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics.
I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on.
#29 2012-08-01 01:34:10
- anonimnystefy
- Real Member
Offline
Re: Equation Involving Radicals
I never said it di have to be easy. i am just saying that there should be another way of checking that doesn't require plugging in, because the solution may not be always pretty and a computer might not always be the when you need it.
The solution has no flaws except that you didn't set any restrictions.
The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't.
“It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman
“A secret's worth depends on the people from whom it must be kept.” ― Carlos Ruiz Zafón
#30 2012-08-01 01:38:26
- bobbym
- Administrator
Offline
Re: Equation Involving Radicals
Does that invalidate the quadratic formula, or completing the square or any other way to get roots? You are always required to check the roots! Also with combinatoric problems too...
Kaboobly doo with the restrictions.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics.
I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on.
#31 2012-08-01 03:27:17
- bob bundy
- Moderator
Offline
Re: Equation Involving Radicals
I agree. You should always check any answers you get.
Consider this:
A rectangle is 3 cm longer than it is wide. It has an area of 40 cm^2.
So, let the width be x => the length is x + 3 => the area is x(x + 3)
So answers may appear than are not solutions (unless you want to make a new topic in maths with 'negative lengths'
)Bob
You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei
#32 2012-08-01 03:49:25
- anonimnystefy
- Real Member
Offline
Re: Equation Involving Radicals
The concept of negative length I think already exists, but not in regular geometry.
The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't.
“It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman
“A secret's worth depends on the people from whom it must be kept.” ― Carlos Ruiz Zafón
#33 2012-08-01 04:15:45
- bobbym
- Administrator
Offline
Re: Equation Involving Radicals
There is also one more reason to check.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics.
I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on.