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

You are not logged in. #126 20130724 21:31:39
Re: Simplify the following:I think 5 is raising to the power nothing therefore should be equal to zero and not one. #127 20130724 21:31:49
Re: Simplify the following:Supposing you had 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 20130724 21:44:23
Re: Simplify the following:But is it possible to add the exponents of the following? Last edited by EbenezerSon (20130724 21:45:13) #129 20130724 21:51:03
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 20130724 22:06:56
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 20130724 22:09:25
Re: Simplify the following:Then the final answer would be 9*16 = 144, is that right? #132 20130724 22:11:10
Re: Simplify the following:6 = 2 * 3 so you could have combined that statement into 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 20130724 22:19:52
Re: Simplify the following:
I don't understand yours, I thought it would be Last edited by EbenezerSon (20130724 22:20:56) #134 20130724 22:24:35
Re: Simplify the following:I must review your procedure with the previous problem to comprehend. #135 20130724 22:25:02
Re: Simplify the following:You add coefficients: 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 20130724 22:30:16
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 (20130724 22:33:59) #137 20130724 22:35:55
Re: Simplify the following:
The two I have underlined above. #138 20130724 22:37:49
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. #139 20130724 22:43:17
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 (20130724 22:44:58) #140 20130724 22:46:04
Re: Simplify the following:That problem is a real bear and I recommend the other method, the one I posted. 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 20130724 22:49:48
Re: Simplify the following:Okay, Thanks God bless. I shall solve more problems. #142 20130725 00:43:47#143 20130725 01:52:01
Re: Simplify the following:Hi, bobbym I have come across another confusing one with different bases. Last edited by EbenezerSon (20130725 02:01:51) #144 20130725 01:53:51
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. #145 20130725 02:36:19#146 20130725 02:43:12
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 20130725 04:58:42
Re: Simplify the following:
Please help me understand this. #148 20130725 12:58:41
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 20130725 18:46:43
Re: Simplify the following:I had solved much problems on logarithms. #150 20130725 18:56:55
Re: Simplify the following:Okay, I will provide the steps: Add log(2) to 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. 