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

You are not logged in. #201 20130804 05:05:28
Re: Simplify the following:Sorry but I can not make any sense out of the second one. There are just too many ways to group that. Please group it. 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. #202 20130804 07:26:34
Re: Simplify the following:But that was how it exists in the book and I tried to solve. Last edited by EbenezerSon (20130804 08:00:14) #203 20130804 08:25:07
Re: Simplify the following:I know the book is right, but I can not figure out as to why it applied the law of division on the left equation only. I could see the right equation also has a negative sign between it and I think should be #204 20130804 09:25:18
Re: Simplify the following:Notice that your right hand side isn't the same as in the original problem from post #194. 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 “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #205 20130804 14:58:04
Re: Simplify the following:That book has lots of mistakes in it:
I am getting 4 not 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. #206 20130804 21:51:35#207 20130804 21:52:30
Re: Simplify the following:I have not asked him that yet. 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. #208 20130805 00:57:42
Re: Simplify the following:Anonynmstify, if I am getting you right I think youre right, but then when you work it down you would arrive on the division sign, watch: #209 20130805 01:09:27
Re: Simplify the following:
Now just cancel the log(3) on the top and bottom. 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. #210 20130805 01:16:20
Re: Simplify the following:Bobym, please could you produce the methods here, if the log3^1 were to be log1/3. What would be the answer? #211 20130805 01:19:52
Re: Simplify the following:The method is in post #209, I showed the three steps. 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. #212 20130805 01:34:22
Re: Simplify the following:Thanks, Bobbym! #213 20130805 01:36:41
Re: Simplify the following:p=1000. 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 “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #214 20130805 01:45:16
Re: Simplify the following:1/3logp=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. #215 20130805 01:59:54
Re: Simplify the following:See, I am taking aback as to why the answer is 1000. #216 20130805 02:13:25
Re: Simplify the following:I mean #217 20130805 02:15:27
Re: Simplify the following:Line 3 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. #218 20130805 02:36:53
Re: Simplify the following:Okay, then is the following correct? #219 20130805 02:38:31
Re: Simplify the following:First one is okay.
You mean cube root. 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. #220 20130805 02:45:29
Re: Simplify the following:yes, yes, cube root instead. #221 20130805 02:54:52
Re: Simplify the following:Yes, they are 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. #222 20130805 04:50:59
Re: Simplify the following:Have you sorted out the x and y problem? 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 “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #223 20130805 04:52:39
Re: Simplify the following:What x and y 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. #224 20130805 05:29:20
Re: Simplify the following:
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 “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #225 20130805 07:56:52
Re: Simplify the following:I have solved it but this way: Last edited by EbenezerSon (20130805 08:14:08) 