Testwiki:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2013 September 16

From testwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Error:not substituted

{| width = "100%"

|- ! colspan="3" align="center" | Mathematics desk |- ! width="20%" align="left" | < September 15 ! width="25%" align="center"|<< Aug | September | Oct >> ! width="20%" align="right" |Current desk > |}

Welcome to the Wikipedia Mathematics Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


September 16

help understanding my math homework.

Hi I'm not asking for the answer to my math homework. I just need help understanding *why* the correct answer to my homework is correct. I'm having a bit of trouble with the radical, logarithmic and exponential equations I'm being assigned.

For example, I'm told that the answer to the equation 3^(-6x-7)= the 7th root of 81 is x = -53/42. BUT WHY?

Here's as far as I get when trying to solve the equation. I know that 81 is 3^4. so there fore the 7th root of 81 can also be expressed as 3^(4/7).

On the other side I can do a bunch of things. For example, 3^(-6x-7) is another way of saying (3^-6x)/(3^-7). But I don't know what to do to get the -53/42. Any hints you can give me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.18.97 (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Good, you are almost there:
3(-6x-7) = 81(1/7)

3(-6x-7) = 3(4/7)

-6x-7 = 4/7

-42x-49 = 4

-42x = 53

 x = -53/42
StuRat (talk) 04:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I guess I wasn't thinking that if 3^(-6x-7) = 3^(4/7) I could just forget about the 3 altogether and just set the exponents equal to each other. I have a few other problems in this format, so I will use this technique. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.18.97 (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. StuRat (talk) 06:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:ResolvedStuRat (talk) 06:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Tensors

A few questions which any pointers on would be very helpful.

1) Under what conditions can a rank-3 tensor Tijk be decomposed into three matrices such that Tijk=∑nAinBjnCkn? Is there any other way of viewing this property?

2) The identity is preserved under pre and post multiplying by a matrix X and its inverse, i.e. XIX−1=I or in index notation ∑nmXinδnm(X−1)mj=δij. What is the relationship between three matrices X,Y,Z such that they preserve a δijk (which is 1 for i=j=k and 0 otherwise)? In other words what is the relationship between three matrices such that δijk=∑nmlXinYjmZklδnml? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.61.82 (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

math notation help

Sorry, I have another question regarding my homework. This one is simply about math notation. I am given a polynomial function for f(x) and a rational function for g(x). I am then asked to calculate "f∘g(0)=". What does that mean? I understand that I take zero and take "g of zero" for the rational function. But then what do I do with that result. Do I MULTIPLY that result by f(x) or do I plug that result into function f(x)? In other words does "f∘g(0)" mean f(x) TIMES g of zero or does it mean f OF g OF zero? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.18.97 (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

f∘g(0) means calculate g(0) and then calculate f of that number, or alternatively f∘g(0) = f(g(0)). See Function composition. Hut 8.5 14:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! I was familiar with the notation "f(g(0))" but I had never seen it written the other way.--2001:1948:212:8810:CD6C:DF2A:3FC9:8808 (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC) (At a different computer now)
I read it as "f of g(0)". Dbfirs 07:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

That proof "negative time negative equal positive" is wrong | What would happen if proved wrong proof ?

That proof "negative times negative equal positive" is wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.238.41.181 (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Such a proof would be highly dependent on what you mean by "negative" and "positive". A "trivial" counter example is -i * -i = -1. "Negative i" times "negative i" is equal to negative one, not positive one. Most people would regard this as cheating, though, as the statement "a negative times a negative is a positive" is typically implicitly restricted to the domain of real numbers, and excludes imaginary numbers. Furthermore, a fair number of people would quibble that "negative i" doesn't really count as a "negative number" anyway, as -i is equally distant from -1 and 1, that distance being the same as +i is from both -1 and 1. - Though you say "that proof" as if you have a specific one in mind. If so, any further details you could provide on it would be helpful. -- 205.175.124.72 (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I have a proof on this but I know proof "negative times negative equal positive"

this is

according to proof wrong

-(-a)=a

-(-a)+0

-a+a=0

-(-a)+(-a+a)

-(-a)+(-a)+(+a)

-(-a)+(-a)=0

0+(+a)

=a or +(+a)

this is wrongObaidNgers (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

1] -(-a)=a ((This is the equality you believe to be false. ))
2] -(-a)+0 (( An expression, left side of [1] with zero added. I believe you plan to do operations to this to come up with the reslt of the right side of [1] ))
3] -a+a=0 ((A different equality - I presume you accept this equation as true. ))
4] -(-a)+(-a+a) ((Substituting [3] into 0 of expression [2] ))
5] -(-a)+(-a)+(+a) (( rearranging parentheses in [4] ))
6] -(-a)+(-a)=0 ((A different equality - I presume you accept this equation as true. ))
7] 0+(+a) (( Substituting [6] into [5] }}
8] =a or +(+a)

So you have shown (non-rigorously) that -(-a)=a. Which is fine and isn't wrong. Please explain you problem more clearly. -- 82.26.184.89 (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.beta.math.wmflabs.org/w/index.php?title=Testwiki:Reference_desk/Archives/Mathematics/2013_September_16&oldid=38325"