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

You are not logged in.

## #126 2013-07-24 21:31:39

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

I think 5 is raising to the power nothing therefore should be equal to  zero and not one.

## #127 2013-07-24 21:31:49

bobbym

Online

### Re: Simplify the following:

2^4 * 2^0

when we multiply the same bases we are allowed to add the exponents.  4 + 0 = 4 so 2^4 * 2^0 = 2^4 so 2^0 must equal 1.

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.

## #128 2013-07-24 21:44:23

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

But is it possible to add the exponents of the following?

Last edited by EbenezerSon (2013-07-24 21:45:13)

## #129 2013-07-24 21:51:03

bobbym

Online

### Re: Simplify the following:

No, it is not. They do not have the same base.

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.

## #130 2013-07-24 22:06:56

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

It is due to such situations why I could not solve the previous problem since it has 6*3^2n+3. the six made it hard for me to manipulate. One cannot reduce it to be three. Or if the six had been three I would multiply it with the three to get nine and then reduce it to three, so I could manipulate. Since nine would be a perfect square.

## #131 2013-07-24 22:09:25

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

Then the final answer would be 9*16 = 144, is that right?

## #132 2013-07-24 22:11:10

bobbym

Online

### Re: Simplify the following:

6 = 2 * 3 so you could have combined that statement into

6*3^(2n+3) = 2 *3 * 3^(2n+3)=  2 * 3^(2n+4)

and you are done.

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.

## #133 2013-07-24 22:19:52

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

#### bobbym wrote:

6 = 2 * 3 so you could have combined that statement into

6*3^(2n+3) = 2 *3 * 3^(2n+3)=  2 * 3^(2n+4)

and you are done.

I don't understand yours, I thought it would be

2*3*3(2n+3) = 2*9^(2n+3) = 2*3^3(2n+3) = 2*3^(6n+9)

Last edited by EbenezerSon (2013-07-24 22:20:56)

## #134 2013-07-24 22:24:35

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

I must review your procedure with the previous problem to comprehend.

## #135 2013-07-24 22:25:02

bobbym

Online

### Re: Simplify the following:

2 * 3^1 * 3^(2n+3)

2n +3 + 1 = 2n + 4 so

2 * 3^(2n+4)

Are you saying that

because that is incorrect.

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.

## #136 2013-07-24 22:30:16

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

Errrr okay I have got you, then what would one  make of the two, I mean the base.

Last edited by EbenezerSon (2013-07-24 22:33:59)

## #137 2013-07-24 22:35:55

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

#### bobbym wrote:

2 * 3^1 * 3^(2n+3)

2n +3 + 1 = 2n + 4 so

2 * 3^(2n+4)

Are you saying that

because that is incorrect.

The two I have underlined above.

## #138 2013-07-24 22:37:49

bobbym

Online

### Re: Simplify the following:

Hi;

You can only do this:

6 * 3^(2n+3)

2 * 3 * 3^(2n+3)

2 * 3^1 * 3^(2n+3)

Add the exponents on the threes.

2n +3 + 1 = 2n + 4 so

2 * 3^(2n+4)

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.

## #139 2013-07-24 22:43:17

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

Okay I digest it. But can I  use that procedure to arrive on that answer 7 you had in the previous problem?

Last edited by EbenezerSon (2013-07-24 22:44:58)

## #140 2013-07-24 22:46:04

bobbym

Online

### Re: Simplify the following:

That problem is a real bear and I recommend the other method, the one I posted.

I am going to get a little bit of sleep see you later.

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.

## #141 2013-07-24 22:49:48

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

Okay,  Thanks God bless. I shall solve more problems.

## #142 2013-07-25 00:43:47

bobbym

Online

### Re: Simplify the following:

How did you do?

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.

## #143 2013-07-25 01:52:01

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

Hi, bobbym I have come across another confusing one with different bases.

Solve for X.

3^x * 2^x-1 = 1.

Last edited by EbenezerSon (2013-07-25 02:01:51)

## #144 2013-07-25 01:53:51

bobbym

Online

### Re: Simplify the following:

Is that

because if it is...

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.

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

## #146 2013-07-25 02:43:12

bobbym

Online

### Re: Simplify the following:

That is correct if you round my answer to 2 decimal places.

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.

## #147 2013-07-25 04:58:42

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

#### bobbym wrote:

Is that

because if it is...

## #148 2013-07-25 12:58:41

bobbym

Online

### Re: Simplify the following:

I can show you the steps but unless you have a little knowledge about logarithms it will be confusing.

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.

## #149 2013-07-25 18:46:43

EbenezerSon
Full Member

Offline

### Re: Simplify the following:

I had solved much problems on logarithms.
Usually I had encountered problems on indices with unequal bases, and the book used log to solve but I can't percieve this would need logarithm application.

## #150 2013-07-25 18:56:55

bobbym

Online

### Re: Simplify the following:

Okay, I will provide the steps:

Take the log of both sides.

Divide both sides by ( log(2) + log(3) ).

And we are done.

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.