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

You are not logged in. #251 20130808 23:29:21
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. #252 20130809 18:17:58
Re: Simplify the following:
I was interrupted by some errand, boring one indeed. Last edited by EbenezerSon (20130809 18:32:27) #253 20130809 21:55:51
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. #254 20130811 02:13:56
Re: Simplify the following:Please, I mean the problem itself. #255 20130811 02:23:37
Re: Simplify the following:The first line is 3(x+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. #256 20130811 02:54:29
Re: Simplify the following:Please look at #252. #257 20130811 02:58:00
Re: Simplify the following:You are not understanding what I am saying. Post #244 is wrong at the second line. 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. #258 20130811 03:12:22#259 20130811 03:17:15
Re: Simplify the following:And what did you get for an answer? 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. #260 20130811 03:28:19
Re: Simplify the following:I am not at home now, I will post the original when I get there. #261 20130811 03:30:38
Re: Simplify the following:Okay, see you then. 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. #262 20130811 23:54:51
Re: Simplify the following:Hi, Bobbym. #263 20130812 00:02:16
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. #264 20130812 02:02:37
Re: Simplify the following:
How did you get, Last edited by EbenezerSon (20130812 02:17:33) #265 20130812 02:10:03
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. #266 20130812 02:21:11
Re: Simplify the following:Please, I double check it I have edited. #267 20130812 02:26:08#268 20130812 02:48:58#269 20130812 02:49:48
Re: Simplify the following:You can say a = (n+2), same principle. 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. #270 20130812 03:00:55
Re: Simplify the following:I suppose the base must always be the same in each case. So I percieved it to be, #271 20130812 03:02:00
Re: Simplify the following:I am sorry, I can not follow that. Please bracket it off. 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. #272 20130812 03:10:29
Re: Simplify the following:In fact I have not seen an indicial problem being split to get different numbers as the base. like what is in #269. #273 20130812 03:13:25
Re: Simplify the following:You should learn to latex or to use parentheses better. 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. #274 20130812 03:30:07
Re: Simplify the following:27^n+2=27^n * 27^2 #275 20130812 03:34:05
Re: Simplify the following:All of that is correct but I have to interpret every bit of it. It is properly written 27^(n+3) this means Notice they are both very different. 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. 