Solving for x (this should be easy but somehow I keep messing it up)

  • Thread starter Thread starter ilovemynny
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a college student struggling with a simple algebra problem in a vector geometry class. The student received a different answer than the textbook and sought help to resolve the discrepancy. A fellow forum member provided guidance on simplifying the expression and correcting the student's approach. The student expressed gratitude for the assistance, noting that the problem was causing significant stress. Overall, the exchange highlights the importance of clarity in algebraic manipulation and the value of peer support in academic settings.
ilovemynny
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Intro:
I'm starting college this fall. I asked one of my professors if we had a textbook and he said that there's an online version and I should read a bit of it if I wanted to.
On the first chapter they were talking about simple (I mean really simple algebra, this is a vector geometry class) but I got completely stumped on one of the problems.

I got an answer but it seems to be different from the textbook answer. I tried putting in number valves for the variable in the 2 different solution but i got different solutions. I probably did this wrong s0 can someone help me solve this I don't want to be stumped on my first week of college with the engineers >.<

Problem:
It should be uploaded on this message as an attachment.

What I Did:

called "problem my way" attachment

Supposed Answer: attachment called "answer"
 

Attachments

  • problem.PNG
    problem.PNG
    830 bytes · Views: 549
  • problem my way.jpg
    problem my way.jpg
    34.4 KB · Views: 517
  • answer.PNG
    answer.PNG
    1.1 KB · Views: 532
Mathematics news on Phys.org
You're answer is the same as the given solution. You just have to clean your expression up a bit.
x = \frac{e}{\frac{c - a}{a + 1/b} - d} - c
Take the fraction in the denominator and multiply by \frac{b}{b}
x = \frac{e}{\frac{b(c - a)}{ba + 1} - d} - c
Perform the subtraction in the denominator by finding the LCD (which is ba + 1):
x = \frac{e}{\frac{b(c - a)}{ba + 1} - \frac{d(ba + 1)}{(ba + 1)}} - c
x = \frac{e}{\frac{b(c - a) - d(ba + 1)}{ba + 1}} - c
Multiply the entire fraction by \frac{ba + 1}{ba + 1}
x = \frac{e(ba + 1)}{b(c - a) - d(ba + 1)} - c


Note to mods: I don't think I'm giving too much away here. This is not in the HW subforum and the OP did show a lot of the work.
 
I find it useful to do some substitutions when solving these, you could clean up the expression given and make things a lot easier
 
Oh, THANK YOU! I tried using substitution to check but yeah since it's so messy I probably messed up somewhere. Thank you so much! This problem was really starting to freak me out. Thank you, eumayang, for cleaning it up! I tried converting my answer to the book's answer but I was really confused on how to do it.
 
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