Simplifying Equation: Where Am I Going Wrong? | Get Help with Math"

  • Thread starter Thread starter ojsimon
  • Start date Start date
ojsimon
Messages
56
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I am trying to simplify this equation and it won't work using this method, although i can do it using another method, so this method should work too. Could someone please look at my working and tell me where I am going wrong?

-t^-1=-2A-(1/2)+1
2A^-(1/2)=t^-1 +1
A^(-1/2)=(t^-1 +1)/2
A^(1/2)=2/(t^-1 +1)
A=(2/(t^-1 +1))^(1/2)


Surely this should work, but the answer which is correct and i can get using another method is A=(4t^2)/(1+t)^2

Thanks for your help
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
ojsimon said:
A^(1/2)=2/(t^-1 +1)
A=(2/(t^-1 +1))^(1/2)

This step is incorrect. The right hand side of the last line should be raised to the power of 2, not 1/2. Once this error is fixed to get the "correct" form, just multiply top and bottom by t^2. (Or in the first line in the quote above, multiply by t on top and bottom, and then square both sides).
 
Thanks so much, i thought it must be something stupid..
 
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
12
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top