SmartmanApps

joined 1 year ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Man you’re dense

Says person citing Google results instead of Maths textbooks! 😂

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Are you a high school math teacher by chance?

Yep.

Because you’re using a rigid definition of simplify that I don’t necessarily agree with.

You don't agree with Maths textbooks? 😂

"And told you to simplify, what would you do?" - I would ask you what on Earth it's supposed to say, given it's formatted all weird! 😂

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 0 points 2 months ago (6 children)

My point (made poorly) was there is “expand and simplify” and also “factor and simplify”. Two different things.

And my point is there's no such thing as "factor and simplify", since they are opposite operations to each other.

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago (8 children)

My stipulation was that the x-x term didn’t exist, such that the equation would be fully simplified

And it STILL wouldn't be simplified.

“factor and simplify”

Factorising is the opposite process to expanding, so no, there's no such thing as "factor and simplify".

I would argue the result of that would be less simplified than the factored version. Eye of the beholder type thing.

It's a definition of Maths thing. Simplified answers don't have brackets in them.

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago (8 children)

Or “factor and simplify”

Factorising is the opposite process to expanding, so no, that isn't simplifying.

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago

The variables a, b, c, and z must have a stated correlation

They do! a is the pronumeral in the 1st factor, b is the pronumeral in the 2nd factor, c is the pronumeral in the 3rd factor - i.e. the first 3 terms in a sequence - and the nth factor has the pronumeral z, and you think that ISN'T stating a relationship between term t of the sequence and the t-th pronumeral? 😂

"the series can only be inferred using the rules of the English language" - well, they haven't used Greek letters for it, have they?? 😂

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 3 points 2 months ago

a multiplicand in this case refers to one of the (n-x) terms

Well, that's what was apparently meant, but in fact the correct terminology here is factors. There's only multiplicands (and multipliers) with an explicit multiplication sign. axb - multiplicand a and multiplier b, ab - Term with factors a and b, and a is the coefficient of this Term.

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago

Yes for numbers, which these are not

Pronumeral literally means stand-in for a numeral. They are all numbers, we just don't know the value of them.

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago (10 children)

Expand

As in "expand and simplify". If you only expanded then you haven't simplified yet.

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago

because each coefficient

There's only 1 coefficient - in this case it's (a-x) - the rest are just factors.

they’re not constants

They could be - we haven't been given that information.

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 2 points 2 months ago

33,554,432 terms

Actually it would be that many factors. The whole thing is a single Term.

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago (10 children)

is already simplified (fully factored)

No it isn't, given one of the factors is equal to zero. That's like saying 2/4 is fully simplified when clearly it isn't. Students lose marks in tests for not simplifying their answers. Writing 2/4 as an answer would only get half-marks. Similarly, the only full-marks answer to this question is 0.

view more: ‹ prev next ›