Reviewing Algebra for CAT6 Test: 3 Challenging Problems

  • Thread starter Thread starter Imparcticle
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Algebra Test
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on reviewing algebra problems in preparation for the CAT6 test, highlighting three challenging problems related to roots and factoring. The first problem involves simplifying (6x^2x)^(1/2), where the correct answer is (6x)^(5/2), not the user's answer of (36x^3)^(1/2). The second problem, y^3/y^(1/4), should yield y^(11/4) instead of the user's x^(3/4). The final factoring problem reveals confusion over the distribution of terms, where the user incorrectly attempted to factor out (x+16) after simplification. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding exponent rules and proper application of the distributive property in algebra.
Imparcticle
Messages
572
Reaction score
4
I am currently reviewing my whole algebra textbook for a CAT6 test on tuesday. Apparently, it is very difficult, so I'm taking every minute to review.
Anywho, I ran into 3 problems that are currently driving me crazy. :-p

One concerns roots.
Here is the problem the book presents:
(6x2x)x1/2

My answer was (36x3)1/2. But the book says the answer is (6x)5/2

BTW, how do you write root signs using the latex program?

another root problem:

y3/y1/4

My answer was x3/4. The book says x11/4 is the answer.

Now, here is a factoring problem:
-4(x+16)4 + 9(x+16)2 + x + 16

On this problem, the part that confuses me is the answer:
[-4(x+16)3 + 9x + 145) (x+16)

I arrived at this answer on my own, except I went one step further:
when I got to [-4(x+16)3 + 9x + 145) (x+16) , I went ahead and rewrote (x+16)3 as (x+16)(x+16)2 so that I could distribute the -4. I then arrived at (x+16)3 (5x+81). Apparently, my final step was incorrect. I would like to know why.

Also, I did most of these operations in my head (as it is easier for me to do so), so if you would like me to explain anything that I did, I should point out that I may sound unmathematical in a sense.

Thank you for your time.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The book is wrong on the first problem, and so are you. ;) Remember the rule that says a^xa^y = a^{x + y}. This rule works even when x or y are fractions.

(6x^2x)x^{1/2} = (6x^3)x^{1/2} = 6x^3x^{1/2} = 6x^{3 + 1/2} = 6x^{7/2}

For the second problem, remember \frac{a^x}{a^y} = a^{x - y}, even when x or y are fractions.

\frac{y^3}{y^{1/4}} = y^{3 - 1/4} = y^{11/4}
 
And the last part on factorization. It's just wrong. You cannot pull a factor of x+16 out of the expression again after you've simplified it once. What do you mean to do in "distributing the -4"? You have done something that is against the laws of arithmetic and algebra, that's all.
 
Muzza: Thank you for your kind explanation. It seems to me that from now on, it is far more efficient to calculate roots exponentially; without using a radical.

Mattgrime: When I said "distribute the -4", I meant applying the distributive property.

But I see the mistake now. They weren't like terms? (I am referring to the factoring problem)
 
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