1 - 19 of 19 Posts

heres a link to how my previous formula would look. hehe

Joined

·
11,409 Posts

I read the first line (a=b=1) and thought, well that is pretty simple. Both a and b are 1 since they both equal 1. That would make the next 4 statements true when the values are substituted in. However, the next line (a=b + a) is an invalid statement unless b is 0. But since I thought b was was it seems invalid. Then the next statement (a=1+1) would only be true if a=2 and again I had a=1 earlier. (You are losing me at this point in case you couldn't tell ) And then the final statement that 1=2 was the real kicker. Because I learned all through school that they were indeed two different numbers altogether. So I guess they reinvented math since the day I took it.

this line "works" because both sides are being divided by the quantity (b - a), which in and of itself is legal (before taking into account the values of the variables). however, since (b - a) = (1 - 1) as per the first line, division by zero occurs, which cannot be defined, as someone else pointed outHowever, the next line (a=b + a) is an invalid statement unless b is 0.

Joined

·
11,409 Posts

Actually that statement does not "work" because if it were true the b would equal 0 which the first line of the problem already stated that b=1...which is what a equaled as well.this line "works" because both sides are being divided by the quantity (b - a), which in and of itself is legal (before taking into account the values of the variables). however, since (b - a) = (1 - 1) as per the first line, division by zero occurs, which cannot be defined, as someone else pointed out

I guess I just don't see the merit to the solving of the equation since the values are clearly stated in the first line. That and the fact that 1 can not equal 2.

taken out of context from the rest of the problem, it does "work", which is what I said:Actually that statement does not "work" because if it were true the b would equal 0 which the first line of the problem already stated that b=1...which is what a equaled as well.

which in and of itself is legal (before taking into account the values of the variables).

hehealright seethe your equation has had me stumped, (probably because I haven't used calc in a while.) integral e^x = e^x +c I follow that but the rest is a total blur to me. please enlighten.

its really not solvable, it is just how you write the original equation. if you use the integral symbol and rewrite the equation it looks sort of like this:

Se^x = f(u) n

quite sophomoric. my calc teacher told us this last quarter.

Joined

·
3,307 Posts

Amen...I guess I just don't see the merit to the solving of the equation since the values are clearly stated in the first line.

That's sorta like an architect sketching blueprints for houses when he has never picked up a hammer nor seen a 2x4.

Sure...it might work...but in all reality it would not make sense to ever have it happen.

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

Join the discussion

Ohio Game Fishing

A forum community dedicated to Ohio’s fishers and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about safety, gear, tackle, tips, tricks, reviews, reports, accessories, classifieds, and more!

Full Forum Listing
Recommended Communities

Join now to ask and comment!