MHB Arranging Formula to Calculate M35 from 18733.59

  • Thread starter Thread starter dipster307
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formula
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on rearranging the formula to calculate M35 from the equation 18733.59 = M35 - (((M35-I41)*I40) + ((M35-M36)*I39)). The user seeks to isolate M35 to determine its value when X is known. Initial attempts to simplify the equation led to a derived formula, but substituting known values resulted in an incorrect output. The conversation highlights the importance of correctly applying algebraic principles and ensuring no errors in calculations. The user expresses frustration over discrepancies in the results, indicating a need for further clarification or correction in the formula.
dipster307
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I am having problems trying arrange the formula below. I want to change it so the formula starts with "M35" equals to.

18733.59 = M35-(((M35-I41)*I40)+((M35-M36)*I39))

The equation above is use in MS Excel, this is why you see the variable M35, I41 etc.

Now the values used to get the value 18733.59 is as follows:

M35 = 23823.52
M36 = 8105
I40 = 0.12
I41 = 7605
I39 = 0.2

Say if 18733.59 is equal to X. I used the formula to calculate X as I know all the values. But I want to arrange the formula to calculate M35, so I I know the value of X and I don't know the value of M35, I can calculate it, if I had the formula re-arrange, I could than calculate it.

Can someone please help.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
dipster307 said:
I am having problems trying arrange the formula below. I want to change it so the formula starts with "M35" equals to.

18733.59 = M35-(((M35-I41)*I40)+((M35-M36)*I39))

The equation above is use in MS Excel, this is why you see the variable M35, I41 etc.

Now the values used to get the value 18733.59 is as follows:

M35 = 23823.52
M36 = 8105
I40 = 0.12
I41 = 7605
I39 = 0.2

Say if 18733.59 is equal to X. I used the formula to calculate X as I know all the values. But I want to arrange the formula to calculate M35, so I I know the value of X and I don't know the value of M35, I can calculate it, if I had the formula re-arrange, I could than calculate it.

Can someone please help.

X = M35-(((M35-I41)*I40)+((M35-M36)*I39))

First you have a redundant set of brackets, so we get rid of them:

X = M35 - ((M35-I41)*I40) - ((M35-M36)*I39)
Expand the brackets:

X = M35 - M35*I40 + I41*I40 - M35*I39 + M36*I39

Now collect the terms with M35:

X = M35*(1 - I40 - I39) + I41*I40 + M36*I39

so:

M35*(1 - I40 - I39) = X - I41*I40 - M36*I39

giving:

M35 = (X - I41*I40 - M36*I39) / (1 - I40 - I39)CB
 
Last edited:
Sounds like a good answer, however this is my problem.

M35 = 23823.52 and X = 18733.59

These values are correct and can't be changed.

So when I use your formula, your answer. I put in X and do the calculation, I get 16689.99 and not 18733.59.

Using the BODMAS.

I am doing something wrong or is there an error in your solution?
 
a=M35, b=M36, c=I39, d=I40, e=I41

a = (x - bc - de) / (1 - c - d)
a = 23823.514705882...

CB has a couple of sign typoes...
 
Wilmer said:
CB has a couple of sign typoes...

Not any more, thanks

CB
 
CaptainBlack said:
Not any more, thanks
CB

You still need to stand in the corner for 15 minutes !
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top