MHB Simple algebra solve (1-x)(1-0.03)^2 = 0.667

  • Thread starter Thread starter bzsmtp
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Algebra
bzsmtp
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I am following a book and can't arrive at the same answer. Not sure what to try next.

(1-x)(1-0.03)^2

the book then says = 0.667
x= 0.291

my attempt
(1-x)(1 - .03)(1 - .03)

then i get confused
(1-x)(0.9409)

not sure ><
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hello, and welcome to MHB! (Wave)

Can you post the original problem in its entirety?
 
MarkFL said:
Hello, and welcome to MHB! (Wave)

Can you post the original problem in its entirety?

its a poker book. it says
x is the probability that the original raiser defends, and 1-0.03 is the probability that each blind folds.

then just writes

(1-x)(1-0.03)^2 = 0.667 therefore x = 0.291

- - - Updated - - -

ooooooo i get it

(1-x)(1-0.03)^2 = 0.667 means (1-x)=0.667/(1-0.03)^2=0.667/0.97^2=0.7089 so x=1-0.70289=0.2911

can delete thread now thank you
 
Glad you got it squared away. :)
 
MarkFL said:
Glad you got it squared away. :)
Don't you be no square...:)
 
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...

Similar threads

Replies
22
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
962
Back
Top