Math Problem

[RoMi]

Due to this forums vast knowledge in everything (so it seems)  I decided to post a nice math problem.  To solve, and I'll post the answer tomorrow.

[ZeroX]

Pfft. I hate algerbra II. I would try but I have no knowledge of this type of equations. We are trying to solve for X right?

[RoMi]

Oh yeah, time to be more specific.  Simplify as far as possible, sorry about that.

[Nate]

(1/x) + 1

Edit: Im stupid.  Its really:
(x^2 -2x)/(x-1)

[Chavo]

actually, until you put an = sign into your formula, its nothing but a statement.  I'm going to assume you meant to put = 0 at the end

[Ergot]

No, he's suppose to simplify.

[d&q]

2x-1/(3x^2)-2x

?

I'll check my answer.

[Sidoh]

actually, until you put an = sign into your formula, its nothing but a statement.  I'm going to assume you meant to put = 0 at the end

I'd much sooner assume it's a function of something with respect to x.  You don't need to have an equation to simplify that.

[Chavo]

actually, until you put an = sign into your formula, its nothing but a statement.  I'm going to assume you meant to put = 0 at the end

I'd much sooner assume it's a function of something with respect to x.  You don't need to have an equation to simplify that.

If it were F(x) = <the statement> then yes you could simplify the function without solving for x.  Solving for xas I suggested would be the other common goal.  I suppose you could expand/reduce the equation to a more readable or more manipulatable form, but thats about all you can do without making it a function or an equation.  My point was that as it stands it is quite ambiguous, no insult intended.

[Sidoh]

If it were F(x) = <the statement> then yes you could simplify the function without solving for x.  Solving for xas I suggested would be the other common goal.  I suppose you could expand/reduce the equation to a more readable or more manipulatable form, but thats about all you can do without making it a function or an equation.  My point was that as it stands it is quite ambiguous, no insult intended.

I think it's pretty safe to assume it's a function.  If it has a variable and it's not equal to anything, it's pretty obvious that it's a function, methinks.

[Chavo]

If it were F(x) = <the statement> then yes you could simplify the function without solving for x.  Solving for xas I suggested would be the other common goal.  I suppose you could expand/reduce the equation to a more readable or more manipulatable form, but thats about all you can do without making it a function or an equation.  My point was that as it stands it is quite ambiguous, no insult intended.

I think it's pretty safe to assume it's a function.  If it has a variable and it's not equal to anything, it's pretty obvious that it's a function, methinks.

I disagree, if its not equal to anything it is only a statement.  If you typed this statement into your calculator, the calculator would reduce it for you, but if you asked it to graph the function, it would not be able to because it is not a function in its present form.  Assuming that it would be a function of x would be a mistake for a computing device because you could very easily be trying to find the function of y instead of x

Obviously we are not reliant on the assumptions that a computing device will make.  But it certainly leaves the box very open.

[Sidoh]

I disagree, if its not equal to anything it is only a statement.  If you typed this statement into your calculator, the calculator would reduce it for you, but if you asked it to graph the function, it would not be able to because it is not a function in its present form.  Assuming that it would be a function of x would be a mistake for a computing device because you could very easily be trying to find the function of y instead of x

Obviously we are not reliant on the assumptions that a computing device will make.  But it certainly leaves the box very open.

Since humans can make assumptions, I choose not to destory possibilities that are formulated from assumptions made by gathering relivant information.

Since it is a statement and it makes little sense to do anything with it in this form, I assume it is intended to be something else.  Since it's obviously not an equation (if it was, it's unlikely that he would have forgotten to set it equal to something), I'll assume that it's a function.

Additionally, if I typed this into my TI-83 as a 'statement,' it would assume it's a function and solve for the generic "F(x)", where x is a defined variable (0 by default, I believe).

[d&q]

Just reiterating what has previously been said.

If its not f(x) = <statement>,  all you have to do is simplify. This equation happens to be a function, (hyperbola I think), so you could also find the zeroes, of which one goes through the origin, and another just mazels a bit to the right.


Off topic: I literally just moved everything in my room three inches to the left.

[Sidoh]

I think this is what Deuce got.  I figured I'd try it:



Deuce: It's a hyperbola (I'm pretty sure, anyway), but it has asymtotes:



Finding zeros generally implies finding where the function crosses 0 on the x axis.  That's a pretty useless thing to do with hyperbolas, since they approach infinity and 0.

[d&q]

Not neccesarily. If you added a -2 to the end equation, it would shift the entire thing down, therefore enabling you to find zeroes, even though you're right, it's pretty pointless, unless you are trying to graph it by hand.