@Committingtoachallenge OK. I am not great myself, but there are so many people who are so bad that it just surprises me they even think of going to grad school.
@Dave yes, you have answered your question. the goal is to find x, and you know how to find x, and you're following all the rules of math.
@Dave when we translate "x is number" from plain english to symbols in order it becomes x=number. stating it backwards just sounds plain funny out loud.
So the number of things in the set and the number of sets is irrelevant(as long as the number of things is the same), it is only a matter of how they multiply
I am reading Shilov's book linear algebra. He explains how to compute determinants. Basically, for the plus terms you write
\begin{equation}
x_{a1}x_{b2}x_{c3}x_{d4}x_{e5} x_{f6}
\end{equation}
and then permute the left side indices, giving
\begin{align}
&x_{a1}x_{b2}x_{c3}x_{d4}x_{e5} x_{f6}\\
&
remember slow and steady wins the race! if you have to take more steps to get there then you won't risk as many mistakes and also will be able to help your teacher follow
That could work. Anything else you could pick? A good plan is to always get one x by itself which is what you're doing, but would adding 1 to the RHS make it easier when you have to simplify x/4?
Because we have to multipy that tricky fraction at somepoint. What you want to do works perfectly fine if you want to do it that way, but could make it messy
Well let's see what would happen. That would be x/4-1+1=4x-104+1
Or x/4=4x-103
Do you think that looks nicer to work with? It's a personal choice
That's great! That's an ugly fraction that doesn't simplify well so we'll leave it as a fraction. Let's plug it in to our original equation to double check!
You said you want to teach uni? This is the math group I want to teach :) Pre-algebra, algebra 1, algebra 2, maybe even calculus. It's awesome to help build the foundation for all the big time math stuff
oh that sounds fabulous @commit . I'm taking a course called problem solving through computational...something. It's basically coming at new types of problems in different ways. It's cool. We talked about immortal rabbits to discuss fibonacci, etc. Very good for future educators. Gets those creative juices going!
It is but it's worth it. That same kind of joy and adrenaline people get from solving a hard math problem is what you get when you succeed in Physics. Actually math will probably make more sense once you start Physics. It did for me :)
Yeah it still looks slightly alien to me haha and I've take 6 high level math courses already
If you have any other questions feel free to tag me and ask away. I'm heading to bed. It's about 2 a.m. here :)
@StanShunpike Do you understand the underlying principal behind this method? Sometimes understanding how the car runs can help you in timmes of trouble
@Nick maybe I do not. I thought I explained the basic method in my post. See the link above. Does what I say there sound like I understand it? I thought I did, but I must admit I haven't figured out this issue so I must be missing something.
Hello, please i have a small question about sets: if i have $A=F_1\cup F_2$ such that $F_1,F_2$ are closed and disjoint, and $B$ closed such that $A\cap B\subset F_1$ why $F_2$ and $F_1\cup B$ are disjoint , please
I am reading Shilov's book linear algebra. He explains how to compute determinants. Basically, for the plus terms you write
\begin{equation}
x_{a1}x_{b2}x_{c3}x_{d4}x_{e5} x_{f6}
\end{equation}
and then permute the left side indices, giving
\begin{align}
&x_{a1}x_{b2}x_{c3}x_{d4}x_{e5} x_{f6}\\
&
