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

You are not logged in.

## #101 2013-07-24 00:08:45

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

27^n+2 - 6*3^3n+3/3^n9^n+2
That is it.

Thanks.

## #102 2013-07-24 04:39:13

bobbym

Online

### Re: Simplify the following:

Okay, so far I have this,where is the 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.

## #103 2013-07-24 04:52:16

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

That's perfect no mistake!

## #104 2013-07-24 04:56:41

bobbym

Online

### Re: Simplify the following:

How about doing some factoring there?

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.

## #105 2013-07-24 05:03:21

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

It says we should simplify it. But I don't know if it could be factorized. I tried doing it but the six has given me a tough time, it cannot be reduced to have  3 in order to have the same base as the others.

## #106 2013-07-24 05:08:07

bobbym

Online

### Re: Simplify the following:

How about simplifying 27^{3n+3} to start?

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.

## #107 2013-07-24 05:15:46

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

Okay,
= 3^3(n+2) = 3^(3n+6). You changed the exponent, please look at the original one above.

Last edited by EbenezerSon (2013-07-24 05:19:10)

## #108 2013-07-24 05:21:30

bobbym

Online

### Re: Simplify the following:

I was thinking of

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.

## #109 2013-07-24 05:26:04

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

At the back of the book the answer given was 21.

## #110 2013-07-24 05:31:13

bobbym

Online

### Re: Simplify the following:

That is incorrect. If post #102 is correct the answer I am getting is 7. Please look closely at post #102 and make sure I have the right problem as you see it in your text 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.

## #111 2013-07-24 05:37:50

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

Yes, they are the ones in the book, the book could be wrong so please let proceed.
I have instances,  I had my calculations correct while it had it wrong.

I will post a question I know I am correct while it has it wrong.

Last edited by EbenezerSon (2013-07-24 05:59:38)

## #112 2013-07-24 05:52:58

bobbym

Online

### Re: Simplify the following:

Hi;

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.

## #113 2013-07-24 06:12:56

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

But I don't seem to understand those methods

## #114 2013-07-24 06:22:20

bobbym

Online

### Re: Simplify the following:

Hi;

They are based on the laws of exponents. As far as I can see that is a tedious problem. There maybe something simpler but I can not see it.

What step is a problem?

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.

## #115 2013-07-24 06:35:29

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

This problem is from indices. So I had thought  all the bases would be equal so I can take them off and simplify the exponent.
So I multiplied the six and the three which is eighteen and cannot be reduced to three, so that all the bases would be equall(to be three).

## #116 2013-07-24 06:40:22

bobbym

Online

### Re: Simplify the following:

You mean multiple 6 * 3^(3n+3) ?

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.

## #117 2013-07-24 06:42:58

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

Yes to be > 18^(3n+3). But I see the eighteen cannot further be reduced to three, in order to have the same base with the others.

## #118 2013-07-24 06:45:54

bobbym

Online

### Re: Simplify the following:

That is incorrect. You can not say

6 * 3^(3n+3) = 18^(3n+3).

You can always test an idea by substituting some numbers for the variable. Try n = 1 and use a calculator.

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.

## #119 2013-07-24 06:48:29

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

Because so far all the problems I solved have the same bases, which is easy for me to take them off and simplify the exponent.

So I thought I could apply that on this problem.

## #120 2013-07-24 06:53:35

bobbym

Online

### Re: Simplify the following:

That is why I turned them all into the same bases, that way you can cancel and multiply when needed.

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.

## #121 2013-07-24 06:56:10

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

Then I need to learn the laws of exponents, or do indices also teaches that? If not then please could you assist me learn it?

Thanks for your assistance, God bless!

## #122 2013-07-24 07:15:25

bobbym

Online

### Re: Simplify the following:

Yes, we can over the laws of exponents. Try here first.

Please look at these pages, they will help a lot.

http://www.mathsisfun.com/exponent.html

http://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/varia … tiply.html

http://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/exponent-laws.html

Do not worry if you can not absorb it all. It will come in time. Ask questions about anything you do not understand.

I am going to take a little break to do some chores be back later. Please look over those pages in the meantime.

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.

## #123 2013-07-24 21:08:47

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

A^n = A*A*A*.....A*

I think it should be impossible in that regard, because it has raised to the n. Meaning n is dividing the A, like n/A.

## #124 2013-07-24 21:24:34

bobbym

Online

### Re: Simplify the following:

A^n means A * A * A ... n times.

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.

## #125 2013-07-24 21:26:58

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

I have learnt that 5^0 = 1. Can you explain to me why it is equal to one?