HOME | DD
IAmImmortalRain — Math Stamp
Published: 2008-04-12 20:15:47 +0000 UTC; Views: 7437; Favourites: 297; Downloads: 96
Redirect to original
Description
I suck at math so dont ask me for the awnser.
sucks for you.
Related content
Comments: 358
Hurrr assuming that all that = (3x+1)/(x+1) = 0, x = -2/3 lol ;D
I'm sure you love hearing people blabbering on about this all the time but as a physics major I can't help but solve things when I see them 8D
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
People have to be careful not to just cancel something out of the top or bottom. Such as, you can't simply remove the 2 or the (x+1). So instead:
2(x+1)+x
---------
2(x+1)1/2
separate by denominator and 2*(1/2) = 1
2(x+1) x
------ + -----
( x+1) (x+1)
(x+1) cancel, so:
x
2 + ----
(x+1)
That is as simplified as it gets.
For fun, we can set it equal to zero.
subtract 2 over
x
----- = -2
x+1
multiply x+1 by both sides
x = -2(x+1)
multiply -2 through
x = -2x - 2
bring the all the x to one side
2x+x = -2
pull out the x
x(2+1) = -2
divide by 3
-2
x = ---
3
ta-da!
A little free time goes a long way.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Why are you seperating the 2 that multiplies x+1 and attach it to the +1/2 ?
If you seperate all of them you will get:
(2/2) * ([x + 1] / [x + 1]) + (x / [1/2])
without seperating the (x + 1).
Now solving that would give you:
(1) * (1) + (x / [0.5]) = x / 0.5
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You need to keep common denominators when separating fractions.
For example:
2-x
----
(2x+1)
becomes
[2/(2x+1)] - [x/(2x+1)]
See how the 2x+1 stays intact?
Also, in the original equation, the denominator has 2*(x+1)*(1/2). By the associative property of multiplication, you can do 2*(1/2) first, which makes 1. Therefore the denominator is really only (x+1).
On a final note, re-reading my earlier post, I see that my number placement has been skewed due to deviant art. So that may lead to some confusion. It's all for fun anyway.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
2(x+1)+x
_____
2(x+1)1/2
cancel 2 and you get
(x + 1) + x
_________
(x + 1) .5 (i converted it)
now cancel (x + 1)
x
_
.5
5 goes into 1 twice, so multiply the top and bottom by 2
2x
__
1
anything over 1 is the same, so it simplifies to 2x.
hope that helped!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It was a rhetorical question but thanks XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
i know, my nerdy compulsion just took over, lol.
also, all the ppl telling your stamp's x EQUALS something is wrong. THERE IS NO EQUAL SIGN PPL!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That, and you could only really factor with this. It's just simplifying.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Also very true. Wow, my grammar used to be deplorable XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
well, it simplifies to 2x...
huh? what? pssh. no, i didnt just do that
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I believe that that is not an equation, as there is no equal sign. For it to be an equation, it must equal something.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
God I hate algebra! Geometry rules! I don't even use a ruler or anything, I just do it free handed. My teacher can't beleive it
Anyway, sice math and alfabeth "had an affair" and algebra was born, the little I knew about numbers, had to be destroyed by letters, so algebra -.-', geometry <3.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Our Math teacher doesn't teach us anything.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I miss this math.... i'd much rather do more algebra than take geometry
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Pfft, this is an easy problem, you need something from calculus XD ahaha
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
EVERYTHING.
I've just spent the last two hours on math homework. Guess how many problems I got done?
... two.
I've decided that cheating of my friends' papers is much easier.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
2[x+1]+x
------------
2[x+1]1/2
2x+2+x
------------
[2x+2]1/2
3x+2
------
x+1
3+2
5
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ok, just a couple of questions...
2x+2 ( how the hell did this get here ?? )+x
------------
[2x+2]1/2
3x+2
------ ( oh yeah I totaly understand how this became -.-')
x+1
God I hate algebra, geometry rules!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm pretty sure that equation cannot be evaluated, as it is not equal to anything. You cannot solve for an equation when you don't know what that equation equals. Thus, the variable cannot be solved for as it is a component of the mathematical expression that must equal something to be an equation. Don't know if that makes sense. lol.
If you take a look at the supposed answer (which is 5), it cannot be. As if you plug in 5 back into the original equation, there is an output since there is no equal sign and that even if an output came out, you cannot confirm it as there was nothing there in the first place.
Hope I helped.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Correction: As if you plug in 5 back into the original equation, there is NO output since there is no equal sign and that even if an output came out, you cannot confirm it as there was nothing there in the first place.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ok, this makes sense!!! Why are you not my math teacher?? DAMMIT!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
hahaha. Good to know that it did make sense! Thanks for the erm... compliment. lol. I try to help when I can.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Oh come on, that's easy stuff 
Just wait for trigonometry and determinants, and then tell me that you don't get it
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Oh come on, that's easy stuff
Just wait for trigonometry and determinants, and then tell me that you don't get it
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Dear Math, I dont want to solve your problems, I have my own to Solve
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
WTF are there letters in a math problem? Thats why i dont understand. plus you get formulas mixed up and crap
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
lol I learned this shit in 6th grade and it was easy for me... >.>
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The part I don't understand is the 1/2. Is it (2(x+1)*1)/2 or 2(x+1)*(1/2)?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
What part of %e^(%pi*%i) + 1 = 0, don't you understand?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Gah! x =/= -1
Damn I can't type.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
None XD it's easily solve < ~ < -2 over 3 equal x ' ~ ' yus!!! I luff math < ~ < this mention in calculus ' 0 '
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
| Next =>