MHB Simplifying radicals - Help with basic number manipulation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on simplifying the expression (sqrt6/sqrt7) * sqrt21. The correct method involves moving sqrt7 to the denominator of sqrt21, simplifying it to sqrt6 * sqrt3, which equals 3sqrt2. A participant initially made an error by incorrectly multiplying by sqrt7/sqrt7, leading to confusion in their calculations. The conversation emphasizes the importance of simplicity in mathematical operations and encourages using straightforward methods for clarity.
Comscistudent
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Hi I'm trying to give myself a refresher in Leaving Cert maths and I'm running through some problems. Here's one which has me stumped (sorry I can't figure out how to show the actual symbols on the post, it's just showing as raw LaTEX when I try )

Combine terms and simplify the expression of -

(sqrt6/sqrt7) * sqrt21

The actual answer is that you move the /sqrt7 to the sqrt21 to end up with sqrt6 * sqrt3 = 2sqrt3

I missed this and instead multiplied the right hand term by sqrt7/sqrt7 but my answer is different. Can someone explain why my logic is incorrect?

(sqrt6/sqrt7) * ( (sqrt21*sqrt7)/sqrt7 )
sqrt6/sqrt7 * sqrt147/sqrt7
sqrt882/sqrt7
3sqrt14
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hi TubeAlloy and welcome to MHB! :D

$$\dfrac{\sqrt6}{\sqrt7}\cdot\sqrt{21}=\sqrt{18}=3\sqrt2$$

TubeAlloy said:
(sqrt6/sqrt7) * ( (sqrt21*sqrt7)/sqrt7 )
sqrt6/sqrt7 * sqrt147/sqrt7
sqrt882/sqrt7
3sqrt14

Your logic is fine but you've made an error in your calculation. Can you spot it?

Quote this post to see how I coded the $\LaTeX$.
 
Oh wow I feel so silly, thanks a million for the help once I knew I wasn't doing something wrong I was able to spot the error.

$$\dfrac{\sqrt6}{\sqrt7}\cdot\dfrac{\sqrt147}{\sqrt7}$$

This is $$\dfrac{\sqrt882}{\sqrt49}$$ not $$\dfrac{\sqrt882}{\sqrt7}$$ as I had thought

So then it's $$\sqrt18$$ == $$3\sqrt2$$
 
Good work!

To get all of the numbers in a radical under the square root sign use \sqrt{123}. Note the curly braces. :)
 
TubeAlloy said:
Combine terms and simplify the expression: \frac{\sqrt{6}}{\sqrt{7}}\cdot\sqrt{21}

The actual answer is that you move the /sqrt7 to the sqrt21 to end up with sqrt6 * sqrt3 = 2sqrt3

I missed this and instead multiplied the right hand term by sqrt7/sqrt7 . Why?
but my answer is different. Can someone explain why my logic is incorrect?

(sqrt6/sqrt7) * ( (sqrt21*sqrt7)/sqrt7 )
sqrt6/sqrt7 * sqrt147/sqrt7
sqrt882/sqrt7
3sqrt14
Did some teacher tell you, "To simplify radicals,
introduce more radicals into the expression" ?

Here is the recommended way to simplify it:

. . \begin{array}{ccc}<br /> \dfrac{\sqrt{6}}{\sqrt{7}}\cdot\sqrt{21} &amp;=&amp; \sqrt{6}\cdot\dfrac{\sqrt{21}}{\sqrt{7}} \\ <br /> &amp;= &amp; \sqrt{6}\cdot\sqrt{\dfrac{21}{7}} \\ <br /> &amp; = &amp; \sqrt6\cdot\sqrt{3} \\<br /> &amp; = &amp; \sqrt{18} \\<br /> &amp;=&amp; \sqrt{9\cdot2} \\<br /> &amp;=&amp; \sqrt{9}\cdot\sqrt{2} \\<br /> &amp;=&amp; 3\sqrt{2} \end{array}


 
soroban has made an excellent point: the simpler the better! It's good to see experimentation with other methods though, and I think it's good that the error was spotted. Sometimes the simpler approach is not always realized so it's a good thing to be able to adapt one's skill set to the problem at hand. But at the end of the day, I think striving for simplicity is the best approach.
 
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...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
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