Help solving a system of linear equations

Whitebread
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
I haven't done this in a long time so please bare with me.

I need to solve this system to find the percent abundance of 2 isotopes.

68.9257x + 70.9249y=69.723
x+y=1

In order to solve the system by addition/subraction one would multiply 68.9257 through the second equation, then procede to subract right? I've been doing this, but I haven't been getting the right answer...

Help... :confused:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
...which should work. Then substitute the value of y you get into either equation. This method's called Gaussian Elimination followed by back substitution.
 
Well, if you show your work, maybe we can find your error.
 
"I haven't done this in a long time so please bare with me."

Hey, this isn't that kind of website!
 
The simplest way in this case is:
1. Rewrite your second equation as y=1-x
2. Substitute this expression for "y" into "y"'s place in the first equation
3. Collect the "x"'s on the left-hand side on your equation, and the "constants" at your right hand side.
4. Divide the resulting equation on both sides with the numerical factor appearing in front of your "x" symbol.
The resulting equation will look like:
x=some number.
5. Put "some number" into "x"'s place in the equation y=1-x to find the y-value
 
Thank you very much guys, I seem to have found my mistake.
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...

Similar threads

Back
Top