GoHabsGo's Thread of Algebra help

  • Thread starter Thread starter gohabsgo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Algebra Thread
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on algebraic concepts, particularly the confusion around cross-multiplication and exponentiation. The author initially struggles with the equation 1/x^3 = -1, questioning how cross-multiplying leads to x^3 = -1 without changing the sign. Clarification reveals that multiplying both sides by x^3 correctly yields 1 = -x^3, which is equivalent to x^3 = -1. Further confusion arises with the equation y^(2/3) - 8 = 0, where the author seeks to understand why raising both sides to the 3/2 power leads to the expression (2^3)^(3/2). Ultimately, the discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding equivalent equations and the role of prime factorization in simplifying expressions.
gohabsgo
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
I don't want to keep making threads when I come across some puzzling algebra concepts or problems, so I'll just use this thread as a reference point in the future when this may happen.

I'm having trouble understanding the following:
1/x3 = -1 The author of my text says to cross multiply and yield the answer: x3 = -1 What am I missing here? I thought by cross multiplying x3 became -x3. For example, another piece of this larger equation has me cross multiply 2/x3 = 3 which yields 3x3 = 2. What step have I forgotten here in the cross multiplication that isn't changing the x3 negative?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What does it matter? How is x3 = -1 any different from -x3 = 1?
 
gohabsgo said:
I don't want to keep making threads when I come across some puzzling algebra concepts or problems, so I'll just use this thread as a reference point in the future when this may happen.

I'm having trouble understanding the following:
1/x3 = -1 The author of my text says to cross multiply and yield the answer: x3 = -1 What am I missing here? I thought by cross multiplying x3 became -x3. For example, another piece of this larger equation has me cross multiply 2/x3 = 3 which yields 3x3 = 2. What step have I forgotten here in the cross multiplication that isn't changing the x3 negative?

What the author is doing here is multiplying both sides of the equation by x3. This yields a new equation, 1 = -x3, or equivalently, x3 = -1.
 
Mark44 said:
What the author is doing here is multiplying both sides of the equation by x3. This yields a new equation, 1 = -x3, or equivalently, x3 = -1.
The embarrassing thing about this is that I'm not understanding how 1 = -x3 is equivalent to the x3 = -1. Because I can't use the first equation in the Multiplication Property of Zero. I eventually have to take the cubed root of -1, yielding -1. If I take the cubed root of 1, I get 1. To be clear on everything, I'm solving for 2x-6 -x-3 -3 = 0 if that helps. The two answers the author leaves in the book are x= the cubed root of 2/3 and x= -1. I believe I'm over-thinking everything.
 
If you multiply both sides of an equation by a nonzero number, you get a new equation that is equivalent to the first equation. "Equivalent to" means that both equations have exactly the same solutions sets.
 
gohabsgo said:
The embarrassing thing about this is that I'm not understanding how 1 = -x3 is equivalent to the x3 = -1. Because I can't use the first equation in the Multiplication Property of Zero. I eventually have to take the cubed root of -1, yielding -1. If I take the cubed root of 1, I get 1. To be clear on everything, I'm solving for 2x-6 -x-3 -3 = 0 if that helps. The two answers the author leaves in the book are x= the cubed root of 2/3 and x= -1. I believe I'm over-thinking everything.

You multiply both sides of the equation by -1:
\begin{aligned}<br /> 1 &amp;= -x^3 \\<br /> (-1)(1) &amp;= (-1)(-x^3) \\<br /> -1 &amp;= x^3<br /> \end{aligned}
 
Mark44 said:
If you multiply both sides of an equation by a nonzero number, you get a new equation that is equivalent to the first equation. "Equivalent to" means that both equations have exactly the same solutions sets.

eumyang said:
You multiply both sides of the equation by -1:
\begin{aligned}<br /> 1 &amp;= -x^3 \\<br /> (-1)(1) &amp;= (-1)(-x^3) \\<br /> -1 &amp;= x^3<br /> \end{aligned}

Thanks Mark and Eumyang! I can't believe I forgot about that! I sometimes forget such small concepts when learning new ways to work equations. :blushing:
 
Ok guys and gals, I'm getting stumped, again, on the following small problem. Hopefully I've written everything out with clarity to explain why I'm confused.

y2/3 - 8 = 0

y2/3 = 8

(y2/3)3/2 = 83/2

I'm getting confused after these steps. My book gives the following:

y=(23)3/2 : Firstly, why was the cube root be taken from 8 resulting in 83 with 3/2 outside the brackets?

Anyways, from there I understand that it becomes 29/2.

However I become discombobulated when the following is given: 24 X 21/2. What just happened here?

The result becomes y = 16squareroot2(i don't know how to make the squareroot brackets.) This I understand though. It's those two areas above that are stumping me, as I can't seem to ever recall doing other problems like this.
 
gohabsgo said:
Ok guys and gals, I'm getting stumped, again, on the following small problem. Hopefully I've written everything out with clarity to explain why I'm confused.

y2/3 - 8 = 0

y2/3 = 8

(y2/3)3/2 = 83/2

I'm getting confused after these steps. My book gives the following:

y=(23)3/2 : Firstly, why was the cube root be taken from 8 resulting in 83 with 3/2 outside the brackets?
Your question doesn't make sense. Starting with
y2/3 = 8
they raised each side to the 3/2 power. This resulted in
(y2/3)3/2 = 83/2

gohabsgo said:
Anyways, from there I understand that it becomes 29/2.

However I become discombobulated when the following is given: 24 X 21/2. What just happened here?
29/2 = 24 + 1/2 = 24 * 21/2

gohabsgo said:
The result becomes y = 16squareroot2(i don't know how to make the squareroot brackets.) This I understand though. It's those two areas above that are stumping me, as I can't seem to ever recall doing other problems like this.

There is something missing here, since there should be two solutions, unless they explicitly said that y > 0.

The other solution is y = -16\sqrt{2}
You can click the square root expression to see how I did it.

As a check, I will square this expression, and then take the cube root.
[(-16\sqrt{2})2]1/3 = [256*2]1/3 = 5121/3 = 8
This shows that -16\sqrt{2} is a solution of the equation y3/2 = 8.
 
  • #10
Mark44 said:
Your question doesn't make sense. Starting with
y2/3 = 8
they raised each side to the 3/2 power. This resulted in
(y2/3)3/2 = 83/2

29/2 = 24 + 1/2 = 24 * 21/2



There is something missing here, since there should be two solutions, unless they explicitly said that y > 0.

The other solution is y = -16\sqrt{2}
You can click the square root expression to see how I did it.

As a check, I will square this expression, and then take the cube root.
[(-16\sqrt{2})2]1/3 = [256*2]1/3 = 5121/3 = 8
This shows that -16\sqrt{2} is a solution of the equation y3/2 = 8.
Mark, The bold problem is the problem from the beginning. It's a factor of a larger quadratic-like problem. The other factor I was able to easily solve for when set to 0, but this one is confusing me regarding the exponents. I don't know what to do, or why the author took those steps to achieve the end result.

Why did 8 result in (23)3/2 when both sides were powered by 3/2? That's one thing confusing me. The other is how 29/2 became 24 X 21/2
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Here's a little hint

y2/3 - 8 = 0
y2/3=8

Next, what you do to one side of the equation, you must do to the other side. To cancel the 2/3, raise y to the 3/2 power.

This will yield:

(y2/3)3/2= 83/2

y= 83/2

now.. if we use prime factorization,

y= (23)3/2

Which will...

y= 29/2

y= 24.5 if you prefer..

--->
sqrt(2^9)

sqrt(512)

Now do the rest...------> Simplify exact or appropriate. Whatever neccessary.

Atleast that's how I do it
 
  • #12
gohabsgo said:
Why did 8 result in (23)3/2 when both sides were powered by 3/2? That's one thing confusing me. The other is how 29/2 became 24 X 21/2
8 did NOT result in (23)3/2. These two numbers are not equal.

What happened was that both sides were raised to the 3/2 power. After this, the right side was 83/2, and they rewrote 8 as 23, so 83/2 = (23)3/2.
 
  • #13
Mark44 said:
8 did NOT result in (23)3/2. These two numbers are not equal.

What happened was that both sides were raised to the 3/2 power. After this, the right side was 83/2, and they rewrote 8 as 23, so 83/2 = (23)3/2.
Thanks Mark! I realize now that prime factorization was involved in that step. But now I'm struggling to grasp the latter part. How 29/2 = 24 X 21/2

EDIT: I do understand it now, as I totally missed what I was supposed to do. Simplifying squareroot of 512. I just don't get why the above notation was used for that step.
 
  • #14
gohabsgo said:
Thanks Mark! I realize now that prime factorization was involved in that step. But now I'm struggling to grasp the latter part. How 29/2 = 24 X 21/2

I just PMed you about it:bugeye:
 
  • #15
BloodyFrozen said:
I just PMed you about it:bugeye:
Thanks again BloodyFrozen for helping me see the light!
 
  • #16
Sure, no problem
 

Similar threads

Back
Top