How can you simplify the quadratic formula using completing the square?

  • Thread starter agentredlum
  • Start date
In summary: The reason for the question is that the integral is not zero, because the log should be evaluated at the limits of integration and ln(-1) is not defined. Therefore, the statement is not correct.In summary, the conversation started with a request to share math tricks from all areas of mathematics. A trick was shared involving a quadratic formula, followed by another trick involving the value of i^i. There was then a discussion about the validity of the first trick, and a proof was shared for the existence of two irrational numbers whose product is rational. However, the proof was incorrect as the integral used was not zero and the statement was not true.
  • #36
An old trick about differentiation from Feynman's book "Tips on Physics":

If f(x) is a function whose rule has the form f = k . u^a . v^b . w^c . ...
where u,v,w,... are also functions of x (you can think of u,v,w,... as "sub-expressions" in the rule for f),
and k,a,b,c,... are constants, then

f' = f . (a u'/u + b v'/v + c w'/w + ...)

It can be proven by induction on the number of factors.

Note that the sum within parenthesis has as many terms as "sub-expression" factors in the original, and a sum of zero terms should be regarded as 0.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
I always admired the fact that [itex]\int_{-1}^1 \frac{\mathrm{d}x}{x} = i\pi[/itex]. By a symmetry argument, intuition would suggest the integral is zero since there is infinite negative area from -1 to 0 and infinite positive area from 0 to 1.
 
  • #38
I love the fact that the number of partitions into odd parts is the same as the number of partitions in distinct parts. Far from intuitive and finding a bijective proof is difficult (easy to prove using generating functions though). Not really a trick, but the discussion also seems to include curiousities. Sorry if OT.
 
  • #39
Samuelb88 said:
I always admired the fact that [itex]\int_{-1}^1 \frac{\mathrm{d}x}{x} = i\pi[/itex]. By a symmetry argument, intuition would suggest the integral is zero since there is infinite negative area from -1 to 0 and infinite positive area from 0 to 1.

this can be obtained by SCHOKSTKY'S FORMULA (i do not how to spell the name)

[tex] (x+ie)^{-1}= -i\pi \delta (x)+P(1/x) [/tex]

since P(1/x) is odd the integral over it vanishes and only the delta function contributes.
 
  • #40
chiro said:
You can use whatever symbol you want, but you can only use that symbol.

O-K Suppose I choose to use 0. Then 1 + 1 has no solution in base 1?

Also note that you get a big problem in the left-most position of any base 1 representation (when using 0) because that asks for 'how many powers of 0^0

the answer of course is 0*0^0 so are you saying that since i don't have any powers of 0 then i don't have to compute 0^0?

Are you saying we make 0 = 1 so even if i pick the SYMBOL 0 we pretend its the NUMBER 1?

Thank you for the post, PLEASE POST MORE!:smile:
 
  • #41
Guffel said:
I love the fact that the number of partitions into odd parts is the same as the number of partitions in distinct parts. Far from intuitive and finding a bijective proof is difficult (easy to prove using generating functions though). Not really a trick, but the discussion also seems to include curiousities. Sorry if OT.

Thanx for the post, no need to apologize, it is interesting from Number Theory isn't it?

I remember when i was struggling with Number Theory almost all problems at the end of any chapter required a bit of genius.

You never know when someone might look at your post, then the ones above and below and come up with a great idea.

Is this what you are posting about?

http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/TheNumberOfPartitionsIntoOddPartsEqualsTheNumberOfPartitions/

Heres an explanation of partitions. Personally I find partitions fascinating:smile:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_(number_theory [Broken])
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #43
Dodo said:
An old trick about differentiation from Feynman's book "Tips on Physics":

If f(x) is a function whose rule has the form f = k . u^a . v^b . w^c . ...
where u,v,w,... are also functions of x (you can think of u,v,w,... as "sub-expressions" in the rule for f),
and k,a,b,c,... are constants, then

f' = f . (a u'/u + b v'/v + c w'/w + ...)

It can be proven by induction on the number of factors.

Note that the sum within parenthesis has as many terms as "sub-expression" factors in the original, and a sum of zero terms should be regarded as 0.

Can you post a slmple example? How would you do f(x) = (4x^5)*(3x^2) using this trick. I know how to get the right answer the usual way f'(x) = 84x^6 but i couldn't get the trick to work. Hopefully a worked out example will help. THANX FOR THE POST! POST MORE!:smile:
 
  • #44
sorry for the late reply, here's an image of my post on fractional calculus you asked for.
[PLAIN]http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/5461/fraccalculus.png [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #45
(Sorry, elegysix, I was replying to the post before yours. :)

Well, maybe your example (4x^5)*(3x^2) = 12 x^7 is a bit too simple to use this.

But try to differentiate instead something like

f(x) = (3x+1)*sqrt(x^2-2)*(x+3)^3

which would be very lenghty if you have to apply the product rule repeatedly, instead you can write in a moment,

f'(x) = (3x+1)*sqrt(x^2-2)*(x+3)^3 . ( 3/(3x+1) + (1/2)*2x/(x^2-2) + 3*(1/(x+3)) )

and then simplify to your taste. Although for me it's more the elegance of the formula.
 
  • #46
Dodo said:
(Sorry, elegysix, I was replying to the post before yours. :)

Well, maybe your example (4x^5)*(3x^2) = 12 x^7 is a bit too simple to use this.

But try to differentiate instead something like

f(x) = (3x+1)*sqrt(x^2-2)*(x+3)^3

which would be very lenghty if you have to apply the product rule repeatedly, instead you can write in a moment,

f'(x) = (3x+1)*sqrt(x^2-2)*(x+3)^3 . ( 3/(3x+1) + (1/2)*2x/(x^2-2) + 3*(1/(x+3)) )

and then simplify to your taste. Although for me it's more the elegance of the formula.

WOW! This is a great trick! I did your example above both ways, the long way and the 'trick' way 'trick' way was much better. Then i did my example using trick way and it worked.

So as i understand it in words 'To find the derivative of a product of many different funtions, find the derivative of each, divide by the function, add them all up and multiply by the original function.

Words are crude so in formula.

f = (u)(v)(w)

f'= (u)(v)(w)[u'/u + v'/v + w'/w]

And this can be used for the product of any number of functions.

This is fantastic! And quite elegant i agree. Thanx for the post! PLEASE POST MORE!:smile:
 
  • #47
elegysix said:
sorry for the late reply, here's an image of my post on fractional calculus you asked for.
[PLAIN]http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/5461/fraccalculus.png[/QUOTE] [Broken]

Thank you so much for the picture. I really appreciate it. PLEASE POST MORE!:biggrin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #48
If you use the common denominator (u)(v)(w) then

f' = (u)(v)(w)[u'(v)(w) + v'(u)(w) + w'(u)(v)]/[(u)(v)(w)]

so f' = u'(v)(w) + v'(u)(w) + w'(u)(v)

Which is a result I've seen in Calculus texts but it's still a neat trick.:smile:
 
  • #49
Dude x being the root of a quadratic expression two values are expected in your case you took only + when it is +\-. As an expample consider x^2+x-6=0. By your formula roots become complex when they are 2&-3.
 
  • #50
TejasB said:
Dude x being the root of a quadratic expression two values are expected in your case you took only + when it is +\-. As an expample consider x^2+x-6=0. By your formula roots become complex when they are 2&-3.

Look at the post again i have plus minus as +-

Now your example x^2 + x - 6 = 0

Step 1 isolate ax^2 term

x^2 = -x + 6

Step 2 identify a,b,c a = 1, b = -1, c = 6

Step 3 plug them into (b +- sqrt(b^2 + 4ac))/(2a)

(-1 +- sqrt((-1)^2 + 4(1)(6)))/(2(1))

(-1 +- sqrt(1+24))/2

(-1 +- 5)/2

x = -6/2 = -3 or x= 4/2 = 2

In perfect agreement.

Thanx for the post! POST MORE PLEASE!
 
  • #51
TylerH said:
[tex]\int_0^x darctanx=\int_0^x \frac{dx}{x^2+1}=\int_0^x \frac{i}{2(x-i)} - \frac{i}{2(x+i)} dx = \frac{i}{2} ln \left( \frac{x-i}{x+i} \right) \Rightarrow \forall x \in \Re, \: arctanx = \frac{i}{2}ln \left( \frac{x-i}{x+i} \right)[/tex]
Suppose we consider the integral[tex]\int\frac{1}{x-i}{dx}[/tex]

The path of integration has not been specified
[Interestingly the integrand does not satisfy the CR equations[Cauchy-Riemann equations] and hence it is not an analytical function. The derivative cannot be defined uniquely at any particular point.But given a path/route we should be able to define the derivative uniquely for points on the given path[by taking the tangential direction] rendering the integral suitable for the process of integration.Could anybody confirm or de-confirm the last statement?]

Sorry for the mistake.One may replace x by z=x+iy and specify the path along the x-axis.The CR equations do hold.
 
Last edited:
  • #52
[tex]{z=}\frac{1}{2i}{ln}\frac{x-i}{x+i}[/tex]

or,
[tex]{z=}\frac{1}{2i}{ln}\frac{{-}{(}{1}{-}{x}^{2}{)}{-}{2xi}}{{x}^{2}{+}{1}}[/tex]

We substitute,
x=tan[theta]

Now we have,
[tex]{z}{=}{-}{\frac{1}{2i}}{ln}{[}{cos}{2}{\theta}{+}{i}{sin}{(}{2}{\theta}{)}{]}[/tex]

[tex]{e}^{-2iz}{=}{cos}{2}{\theta}{+}{i}{sin}{2}{\theta}[/tex]
[tex]{cos}{(}{-2z}{)}{+}{i}{sin}{(}{-2z}{)}{=}{[}{cos}{(}{2}{\theta}{)}{+}{i}{sin}{(}{2}{\theta}{)}{]}[/tex]

Therefore,
[tex]{-2z}{=}{2}{\theta}[/tex]
z=-theta=-arctanx
The minus sign is causing trouble
 

Attachments

  • math_cal.bmp
    219.8 KB · Views: 458
Last edited:
  • #53
Anamitra said:
[tex]{z=}\frac{1}{2i}{ln}\frac{x-i}{x+i}[/tex]

or,
[tex]{z=}\frac{1}{2i}{ln}\frac{{-}{(}{1}{-}{x}^{2}{)}{-}{2xi}}{{x}^{2}{+}{1}}[/tex]

We substitute,
x=tan[theta]

Now we have,
[tex]{z}{=}{-}{\frac{1}{2i}}{ln}{[}{cos}{2}{\theta}{+}{i}{sin}{(}{2}{\theta}[)]{]}[/tex]

[tex]{e}^{-2iz}{=}{cos}{2}{\theta}{+}{i}{sin}{2}{\theta}[/tex]
[tex]{cos}{-2z}{+}{i}{sin}{-2z}{=}{[}{cos}{(}{2}{\theta}{)}{+}{i}{sin}{(}{2}{\theta}{)}[/tex]

Therefore,
[tex]{-2z}{=}{2}{\theta}[/tex]
z=-theta=-arctanx
The minus sign is causing trouble

THANX FOR THE POST!

Too bad my browser does not decode Tex, can you post a picture of the derivation? :smile:
 
  • #54
Lets examine the following:

[tex]{z=}\frac{1}{2i}{ln}\frac{{-}{(}{1}{-}{x}^{2}{)}{-}{2xi}}{{x}^{2}{+}{1}}[/tex]

When ever we use ln(x) in calculus we mean ln[abs(x)]
Using the above information[rather by extending it to the area of complex numbers:we are actually utilizing the liberty of changing the sign] we may remove the negative sign from the above relation and obtain what we expect.

[tex]\int\frac{1}{x}{dx}{=}{ln}\mid{x}\mid[/tex]

[The above is of course a standard result]

Just think of integrating 1/x from -500 to -36

Evaluation of ln x from -500 to -36 should first read as ln[-36] - ln[-500] before we can simplify to cancel the minus sign.This will happen if the absolute value is not considered.
Our formula is:

[tex]\int {f(x)}{dx}{=}{f(b)}{-}{f(a)}[/tex]
Integration on the LHS is from a to b.
 
Last edited:
  • #55
Anamitra said:
[tex]{z=}\frac{1}{2i}{ln}\frac{x-i}{x+i}[/tex]

or,
[tex]{z=}\frac{1}{2i}{ln}\frac{{-}{(}{1}{-}{x}^{2}{)}{-}{2xi}}{{x}^{2}{+}{1}}[/tex]

We substitute,
x=tan[theta]

Now we have,
[tex]{z}{=}{-}{\frac{1}{2i}}{ln}{[}{cos}{2}{\theta}{+}{i}{sin}{(}{2}{\theta}{)}{]}[/tex]

[tex]{e}^{-2iz}{=}{cos}{2}{\theta}{+}{i}{sin}{2}{\theta}[/tex]
[tex]{cos}{(}{-2z}{)}{+}{i}{sin}{(}{-2z}{)}{=}{[}{cos}{(}{2}{\theta}{)}{+}{i}{sin}{(}{2}{\theta}{)}{]}[/tex]

Therefore,
[tex]{-2z}{=}{2}{\theta}[/tex]
z=-theta=-arctanx
The minus sign is causing trouble

Thanx for the picture. I follow you up to x = tan[theta]

I don't see how you made the substitution in line 7 of the picture. Can you please explain?

Also, z had imaginary values associated with it in line 1, where did it become a real number?

Let me point out as well that Cos(-2z) + iSin(-2z) = Cos(2z) - iSin(2z) so if z is real your equation on line 9 becomes Cos(2z) - iSin(2z) = Cos(28) + iSin(28) and so it is DANGEROUS to say 2z = 28

I have used 8 for theta because of keyboard limitations.

I would love to read your thoughts on this.:smile:
 
  • #56
We start with:
Integral=
[tex]{z}{=}\frac{1}{2i}{ln}{\mid}\frac{{-}{(}{1}{-}{x}^{2}{)}{-}{2xi}}{{x}^{2}{+}{1}}{\mid}[/tex]

[tex]{=}\frac{1}{2i}{ln}{\mid}{-}\frac {{1}{-}{x}^{2}}{{1}{+}{x}^{2}}{-}\frac{2xi}{{1}{+}{x}^{2}}{\mid}[/tex]
[tex]{=}\frac{1}{2i}{ln}{[}\frac {{1}{-}{x}^{2}}{{1}{+}{x}^{2}}{+}\frac{2xi}{{1}{+}{x}^{2}}{]}[/tex]

Now,
[tex]\frac{{1}{-}{tan}^{2}{\theta}}{{1}{+}{tan}^{2}{\theta}}{=}{cos}{2}{\theta}[/tex]
And,
[tex]\frac{{2}{tan}{\theta}}{{1}{+}{tan}^{2}{\theta}}{=}{sin}{2}{\theta}[/tex]
Substituting x=tan[theta] we may proceed.
 
Last edited:
  • #57
Anamitra said:
We start with:
Integral=
[tex]{z}{=}\frac{1}{2i}{ln}{\mid}\frac{{-}{(}{1}{-}{x}^{2}{)}{-}{2xi}}{{x}^{2}{+}{1}}{\mid}[/tex]

[tex]{=}\frac{1}{2i}{ln}{\mid}{-}\frac {{1}{-}{x}^{2}}{{1}{+}{x}^{2}}{-}\frac{2xi}{{1}{+}{x}^{2}}{\mid}[/tex]
[tex]{=}\frac{1}{2i}{ln}{[}\frac {{1}{-}{x}^{2}}{{1}{+}{x}^{2}}{+}\frac{2xi}{{1}{+}{x}^{2}}{]}[/tex]

Now,
[tex]\frac{{1}{-}{tan}^{2}{\theta}}{{1}{+}{tan}^{2}{\theta}}{=}{cos}{2}{\theta}[/tex]
And,
[tex]\frac{{2}{tan}{\theta}}{{1}{+}{tan}^{2}{\theta}}{=}{sin}{2}{\theta}[/tex]
Substituting x=tan[theta] we may proceed.

unfortunately my browser did not decode. Can you send a picture like last time i asked please?
 
  • #58
An Alternative Treatment

[tex]\frac{1}{{1}{+}{x}^{2}}{=}\frac{1}{2i}{[}\frac{1}{x-i}{-}\frac{1}{x+i}{]}[/tex]

[tex]{=}{-}\frac{1}{2i}{[}\frac{1}{i-x}{+}\frac{1}{i+x}{]}[/tex]

[tex]{=}{-}\frac{1}{2i}{i}^{-1}{[}{{(}{1}{-}{x}{/}{i}{)}}^{-1}{+}
{{(}{1}{+}{x}{/}{i}{)}}^{-1}{]}[/tex]

Applying the binomial expansion and after cancellations we have:

Integrand=[tex]{[}{1}{-}{x}^{2}{+}{x}^{4}{-}{x}^{6}...{]}[/tex]

On integration we have,
Integral=[tex]{[}{x}{-}{{x}^{3}}{/}{3}{+}{{x}^{5}}{/}{5}{-}{{x}^{7}}{/}{7} ...{]}[/tex]
= arctan{x}

[link for the expansion of arc tan(x): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_series ]
 

Attachments

  • maths_post.bmp
    235.1 KB · Views: 447
Last edited:
  • #59
Integrand=[tex]{[}{1}{-}{x}^{2}{+}{x}^{4}{-}{x}^{6}...{]}[/tex]

The above series is convergent for abs[x]<1. Integration is allowed for such cases.

When abs[x]>1 we may proceed as follows:
Let y=1/x
Now, abs value of y is less than 1

[tex]\int\frac{1}{{1}{+}{x}^{2}}{dx}{=}{-}\int\frac{1}{{1}{+}{y}^{2}}{dy}[/tex]

Since y<1 , we may proceed exactly in the same manner and get the same
result preceded by a negative sign as expected.

[tex]{tan}^{-1}{(}{1}{/}{x}{)}{=}{\pi}{/}{2}{-}{tan}^{-1}{(}{x}{)}[/tex]

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_trigonometric_functions
 

Attachments

  • Cal_M.bmp
    259 KB · Views: 468
Last edited:
  • #60
An attachment[.bmp file] in relation to #56 has been uploaded.
 

Attachments

  • math.bmp
    224 KB · Views: 423
  • #61
Anamitra said:
An attachment[.bmp file] in relation to #56 has been uploaded.

Thank you sir. It is a clever trick. I understand now almost all of line #7 of picture in post #52, just one more thing, how did minus sighn appear outside the ln? If this is trivial i beg your forgiveness.

Thanx again.:smile:
 
  • #62
You can't take a minus sign outside the log symbol.It is important to note the log of a negative number is undefined. The base has to be positive[but not one or zero]. But the log of a number can be negative.

Let [tex]{y}{=}{log}_{b}{A}[/tex]

[tex]{-}{log}_{b}{A}{=}{log}_{b}{A}^{-1}[/tex]
By definition A and b are positive. But y can be negative or positive or zero.In the second relation the negative sign outside the log symbol becomes a power of A and not its coefficient.
What I have said so far [in this post] is basically in relation to the logarithm of real numbers.

For complex numbers , you may go through the link below:

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_logarithm

[You cannot take a minus sign out side the log symbol in any situation: real or complex.]
 
Last edited:
  • #63
Anamitra said:
You can't take a minus sign outside the log symbol.It is important to note the log of a negative number is undefined. The base has to be positive[but not one or zero]. But the log of a number can be negative.

Let [tex]{y}{=}{log}_{b}{A}[/tex]

By definition A and b are positive. But y can be negative or positive or zero.
What I have said so far [in this post] is in relation to the logarithm of real numbers.

For complex numbers , you may go through the link below:

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_logarithm

Thanx, it all makes sense now, so the minus sign was causing trouble because it was a typo.
For myself, I liked that derivation very much because you used clever algebra and sqrt(-1) that is why i tried so hard to understand it.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR POSTS! THANK YOU FOR YOUR RESPONSES! PLEASE POST MORE!:smile:
 
  • #64
A Simple Paradox to Sort Out

[tex]\sqrt{16}{=}\sqrt{-4*-4}[/tex]
[tex]{=}\sqrt{-4}{*}\sqrt{-4}[/tex]
[tex]{=}\pm{2i}{*}\pm{2i}[/tex]
[tex]{=}\pm{4}{i}^{2}[/tex]
Therefore,
[tex]\pm{4}{=}\pm{4}{i}^{2}[/tex]
[tex]{=>}{i}^{2}{=}\pm{1}[/tex]
Are you ready to believe that?
 
  • #65
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brun%27s_theorem" [Broken] states that the sum of the inverses of the twin primes converges, i.e.
[tex]\sum_{p:p+2\in{\mathbb{P}}}\left(\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{p+2}\right)=B[/tex]
where B is Brun's constant. So, even if there are infinitely many twin primes (which has not yet been proven), the above sum converges. This is not the truth for the naturals and the primes, i.e.
[tex]\sum_{p\in{\mathbb{P}}}\frac{1}{p}=\infty[/tex] and
[tex]\sum_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}\frac{1}{n}=\infty[/tex]
But for the squares (and cubes etc) of the naturals, the sum converges.
[tex]\sum_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}\frac{1}{n^2}=\frac{\pi^2}{6}[/tex]
Brun's theorem is in my opinion a beautiful result and is worth a post in itself.

BUT, I have been thinking that this is somehow related to cardinality. Let's define a measure
[tex]\mathcal{M}\left(A\right)[/tex]which is the sum of the reciprocals of the elements in the set A. Then
[tex]\mathcal{M}\left(\mathbb{N}^2\right) < \mathcal{M}\left(twin primes\right) < \mathcal{M}\left(\mathbb{P}\right) = \mathcal{M}\left(\mathbb{N}\right) = \infty[/tex]
So in the sense of the measure M, the set of all squares is a "less dense" set than the twin primes, which in turn is "less dense" than the set of the primes and so on.
This measure can be generalized to any function f(n).
[tex]\mathcal{M}_f\left(A\right)=\sum_{n\in{A}}f\left(n\right) [/tex]
My guess is that this (or something related) has been done before. In that case, where can I find more information?

Fake edit: Of course I found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_set_%28combinatorics%29" [Broken] about two seconds before I was about to post my ramblings. Well, since I spent an hour trying to figure out how to use LaTeX, I'll post it anyway. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #66
Anamitra said:
A Simple Paradox to Sort Out

[tex]\sqrt{16}{=}\sqrt{-4*-4}[/tex]
[tex]{=}\sqrt{-4}{*}\sqrt{-4}[/tex]
[tex]{=}\pm{2i}{*}\pm{2i}[/tex]
[tex]{=}\pm{4}{i}^{2}[/tex]
Therefore,
[tex]\pm{4}{=}\pm{4}{i}^{2}[/tex]
[tex]{=>}{i}^{2}{=}\pm{1}[/tex]
Are you ready to believe that?

The problem with this is the transition to the second line. Fact is, square roots only for-sure have this property:

[tex]\sqrt{xy} = \sqrt{x}\sqrt{y}[/tex]

When x and y are positive.
 
  • #67
Char. Limit said:
The problem with this is the transition to the second line. Fact is, square roots only for-sure have this property:

[tex]\sqrt{xy} = \sqrt{x}\sqrt{y}[/tex]

When x and y are positive.

The problem with the poster is even more fundamental. He says that

[tex]\sqrt{16}=\pm 4[/tex]

which is simply untrue. The square root is defined to be a positive value, no exceptions.
 
  • #68
Char. Limit said:
The problem with this is the transition to the second line. Fact is, square roots only for-sure have this property:

[tex]\sqrt{xy} = \sqrt{x}\sqrt{y}[/tex]

When x and y are positive.

This is definitely the correct answer. And Evo has provided a prompt reply.In fact I got the same answer from Ask Dr Math when I sent them this problem a few months back.

Now to make the definition of "i" consistent we have the rule indicated by Evo.It is there in the texts.
Query: If the definition of "i" is re-formulated so that i^2 is =1 in certain exceptional cases it is going to have interesting effects in many areas of physics for example in the area of general relativity. Is it necessary to do that , to keep such a provision?
[This is of course a speculative query. I am not staking any type of claim anywhere in regard of this.]
 
  • #69
For Applications of the Exception:
[tex]{i}{=}{{(}{i*i*i*i}{)}}^{1/4}[/tex]
[tex]{i}{=}{(}{-i*-i*-i*-i}{)}^{1/4}[/tex]
[tex]{i}{=}{{(}{i}^{3}*{i}^{3}*{i}^{3}*{i}^{3}{)}}^{1/4}[/tex]
[tex]{i}{=}{{(}{i}^{12}{)}}^{1/4}[/tex]
[tex]{i}{=}{i}^{3}[/tex]
[tex]{i}{=}{-i}[/tex]
Could any anybody provide me with the full list of exceptions in relation to “i” ?
 
Last edited:
  • #70
Anamitra said:
For Applications of the Exception:
[tex]{i}{=}{{(}{i*i*i*i}{)}}^{1/4}[/tex]
[tex]{i}{=}{(}{-i*-i*-i*-i}{)}^{1/4}[/tex]
[tex]{i}{=}{{(}{i}^{3}*{i}^{3}*{i}^{3}*{i}^{3}{)}}^{1/4}[/tex]
[tex]{i}{=}{{(}{i}^{12}{)}}^{1/4}[/tex]
[tex]{i}{=}{i}^{3}[/tex]
[tex]{i}{=}{-i}[/tex]
Any anybody provide me with the full list of exceptions in relation to “i” ?

Every single line is wrong. The nth-root is multivalued on the complex numbers. You are not allowed to just throw three quarters of your solution set away. This is like saying
[tex](-1)^2 = 1^2[/tex] and therefore -1=1.
 
<h2>1. What are some examples of math tricks for everyone?</h2><p>Some examples of math tricks for everyone include the "11 Times Trick" for multiplying by 11, the "9 Times Trick" for multiplying by 9, and the "Finger Counting Trick" for multiplying by 9 or 6.</p><h2>2. How can math tricks benefit everyday life?</h2><p>Math tricks can benefit everyday life by making calculations faster and easier. They can also improve mental math skills and help with problem-solving in various situations.</p><h2>3. Are math tricks suitable for all ages?</h2><p>Yes, math tricks can be suitable for all ages. Some tricks may be more advanced and require a basic understanding of math concepts, but there are also simple tricks that can be taught to young children.</p><h2>4. Can math tricks be used in academic settings?</h2><p>Yes, math tricks can be used in academic settings. They can be helpful for students who struggle with math or for those who want to improve their mental math skills.</p><h2>5. Are there any downsides to using math tricks?</h2><p>One potential downside to using math tricks is that they may rely on memorization rather than understanding of mathematical concepts. This could lead to difficulties in more complex math problems that cannot be solved using a trick. It is important to also have a strong foundation in math principles.</p>

1. What are some examples of math tricks for everyone?

Some examples of math tricks for everyone include the "11 Times Trick" for multiplying by 11, the "9 Times Trick" for multiplying by 9, and the "Finger Counting Trick" for multiplying by 9 or 6.

2. How can math tricks benefit everyday life?

Math tricks can benefit everyday life by making calculations faster and easier. They can also improve mental math skills and help with problem-solving in various situations.

3. Are math tricks suitable for all ages?

Yes, math tricks can be suitable for all ages. Some tricks may be more advanced and require a basic understanding of math concepts, but there are also simple tricks that can be taught to young children.

4. Can math tricks be used in academic settings?

Yes, math tricks can be used in academic settings. They can be helpful for students who struggle with math or for those who want to improve their mental math skills.

5. Are there any downsides to using math tricks?

One potential downside to using math tricks is that they may rely on memorization rather than understanding of mathematical concepts. This could lead to difficulties in more complex math problems that cannot be solved using a trick. It is important to also have a strong foundation in math principles.

Similar threads

Replies
19
Views
2K
  • STEM Educators and Teaching
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
762
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
11
Views
405
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
10K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top