Solve 320+(x*y)=x*z for x: Excel Formula & Analysis Tips

  • Thread starter Thread starter wasya152
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around solving the equation 320 + (x*y) = x*z for x, with the rearranged formula being x = 320/(z - y). Participants suggest that if x, y, and z are positive integers, the relationship can be simplified to 320/x + y = z. The conversation highlights the need for clarity on whether integer constraints apply to the variables. Additionally, there is a mention of using a 3D grapher program for visualization, although the original poster does not have access to a Mac. The focus remains on finding an Excel formula to solve for x effectively.
wasya152
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
i'm going an analysis for work, but at stuck at this point. it's been a while since i took math or really used it to this extent. i need to know what the equation would look like in order to solve at what x will both sides be equal. need to put it in as an excel formula. thanks all help is greatly appreciated.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
rearranging:

x=320/(z-y)

Do you have access to a Mac? Its 3D 'grapher' program will show you what this looks like in an instant.
 
thanks. that really helped. and unfortunately i don't have a mac.
 
solve? meaning what?
 
wasya152 said:
i'm going an analysis for work, but at stuck at this point. it's been a while since i took math or really used it to this extent. i need to know what the equation would look like in order to solve at what x will both sides be equal. need to put it in as an excel formula. thanks all help is greatly appreciated.

I'm going to take a guess here (because it makes the problem a little more interesting) and assume that x, y and z have to be integer positive numbers? In which case look at it like this:

320/x + y = z

Now if y and z are an integer, that means 320/x has to be, so what are the only possible values of x?

While you can determine the possible values of x, you can only determine a linear (with constant) relationship between y and z, not unless there is some sort of other restriction on the problem.
 
Zurtex said:
I'm going to take a guess here (because it makes the problem a little more interesting) and assume that x, y and z have to be integer positive numbers?

Yes it makes it more interesting but I'm pretty sure that the OP wanted nothing more than to make x the subject of the formula. :)

to solve at what x will both sides be equal. need to put it in as an excel formula
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
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...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top