/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11736204
>-7 = 19
But that's wrong.

>>11736204
No solution.

>>11736204
Been a long time since I last seen one of these, but... if you put the 7 over, that's x=26+x, right? and then x can't be x, right? Because nothing is equal to itself plus a number?

>>11736298
No I think you have to find out what the letters are, so youcan't just take them out of the quasion because then there's no point to solving it. Gee this is embarrassing, I'm flying blind here.

[math]x=\sin(\frac{y}{26})[/math] where [math]y \in \mathbb{R}[/math]

>>11736762
you made it look like the 2000s blog of a 15yo hello kitty fan.

>>11736298
Except for in the ring of integers modulo 26.

>>11736856
any divisor of 26 is fine too

>>11736762
>yer
kek

>>11736204
while I can't disprove there is a solution I can tell you it's outside of any range conceivable by a smart person!

>>11736762
Proof

>>11736762
proofs?

>>11736762
>>11739763
It's actually wrong. It needs to be a cosine not sine, as cosine is even. With sine it's wrong if you use negative values of y.

>>11736762
>>11739903
No this is fucking retarded. 26 + sin or cos is not repeatable.

This would work tho, x=y-26
;)

>>11736856
>modulo
No such thing.

>>11736762
based

>>11736204

26 = 0

I'm based I know

>>11736204
teacher's obviously trolling

>>11736204
Impossible because x will always cancel out.

easy
x - 7 = 19 - x
(x - 7) / (19 - x) = 1
(((x - 7) / (19 - x)) * ((19 - x) / (19 - x))) = 1
19x - 133 - x^2 + 7x = 1
-x^2 - 26x - 134 = 0
calculate roots

>>11741226
where does the 1 come from

>>11740832
26 = 0.000...

>>11741369
I fucked up. It 19 + x, not 19 - x
but the logic is correct.
I got the 1 by dividing both sides with 19 - x

>>11741369
Anything divided by itself is one, and he divided both sides by 19 - x.

Syntax ERROR

>>11741415
>>11741420
Uhm, ok... Move along.

>>11740551
Take your meds.

>>11741226
Did you just FOIL the numerators and throw away the denominator in step 3 without changing the right hand side of the equation? That's pretty bad my dude

>>11742524
How is it valid when @ x=19 you are saying 26=0?

>>11742524
Are you trolling or just retard?

x -7= 19+ x
x=19+7+x
x=26+x
x-x= 26
0=26
0= my knowledge of math
26= my dick in inches

>>11741415
No it would be 0 my friend.

>>11736204
Those are alephs. Obviously ℵ minus any element of ℕ is equal to ℵ plus any element of ℕ

>>11736204
did anyone here actually graduate college? I thought you fags were supposed to be smart

>>11742524
You can't just decide to divide numbers. This is what you're trying to do.

>>11736204
false

>>11736204
[math]x=\infty[/math]

>>11743260
Next step would be...
1-1=0
So the answer to the equation is 0, it didn't tell you to solve for x.
I never learned about >>11743224 but I'm going to assume he's right.

>>11742524
>x = 19
>therefore 12 = 38
>durr hurr

>>11743321
look at the fucking OP pic you idiots. does that look like an x to you?

>>11743594
it looks like your face

>>11736204
In the ring of integers, there is no solution. However every element for is a solution when we consider this equation over [math] \mathbb{Z}_{26} [/math].

>>11736204
solve for x

(x-7-19)= -x
x-16= -x
x = 16-x

X=(1/0) or infinity.

>>11743699
>asinine

>>11743790
huh? Seems decent to me

>>11743794
>Seems decent
Why are you in a math thread when you don't understand 3rd grade math? Where did the -7 come from? Why are there people like this on /sci/?

>>11743805
Sorry that was supposed to be "how did you get 16 from -7 -19"

>>11743805
>3rd grade math
niqqa please, i am an math/ engineering double major student at a prestigious university in North Carolina

>16, my bad it should be 26 and it should be x=x-16

>>11736899
>26 = 52

>>11743825
Can't be that prestigious if they aren't teaching math I learned in elementary school. You still aren't doing it right in your correction, thank you for again showing how retarded you are so I don't have to go through the trouble. Jesus Christ you are sad.

>>11743594
>look at the fucking OP pic you idiots. does that look like an x to you?
No, it looks like an [math] x [/math]

>>11743151
Well this just proves any number is equivalent to any other number with some simple algebraic manipulation.
>>11743260
Not what I did. In every step a applied my steps to both sides.

>>11741226
>divides by x

>>11744865
No you just decided to divide one side by the other, you made up your own rules.

>>11736204
If we transfer -7 to the other side we get x = x + 26 which is retarded

>>11741226
>>11741415
Hey retard if it was 19 - x the answer would be 13

>>11743594
Still wouldnt be able to answer it, retard

>>11736204
[math]x - 7 = 19 + x[/math]
[math]x = x + 26[/math]

it means the solution is periodic of period [math]T = 26[/math]

>>11736856
Congruence is the same thing as equality. Yes, I see...

>>11744865
>Well this just proves any number is equivalent to any other number with some simple algebraic manipulation.
Except you didn't do algebraic manipulation. You aren't algebraically manipulating an equation when you fail to follow the rules of algebraic manipulation.

>>11736204
x = sön

>>11736204

>>11747986
It's a fucking aleph, retard.
The equation on the blackboard solves as "true."

>>11747647
Unless modulo 26

x-7=x+19 ==> x-7/x+19=1
x(1-7/x) / x(1+19/x) = 1
y = 1/x
==> 1-7y / 1+19y = 1
==> 1-7y=1+19y
==> 26y=0
==> 26 / x = 0
==> x = 26

>>11736204
True for all numbers x mod 2,13,26

>>11736204
X-7=19+X [+7]
X=26+X
Therefore
(26+X)-7=19+(26+X)
SIMPLIFIED
X+19=45+X
Answer is not equal.

>>11736298
based retard

Eh, the modulus answers work and all, but I find them uninspired. And technically, they are depending on an assumption that -7 and 19 are not really what they appear to be (elements of integers, reals, etc) but instead the representative sets that make up the modulus groups. I don't believe it's valid to make this assumption.
I'm not familiar with alephs, so I won't comment too much, but again, an extra assumption that would apply to any such expression renders the specific problem meaningless, and in my opinion, takes the fun out of it.
Of course, it's always a possibility, nay a probability, that OP is a fag. Let us give him the benefit of doubt. One important point that all have failed to mention is that in all of these above algebraic manipulations, commutativity has been assumed. Indeed, given x-7 = x+19, I would say that OP is most assuredly a fag, as we have left associativity in all groups, but we cannot ever assume commutativity.
My proposal is to find a group over some set or subset of integers/reals/etc that legitimately contain the numbers 7 and 19, and a group operation which we will denote with + that satisfies the given equation, ideally such that it doesn't satisfy all equations (like using alephs, or something like mod 1)

>>11736899
It makes even less sense to write "19" as an element of the integers modulo 13 or of the integers modulo 2 than writing "-7" as an element of such a ring.

>>11736762
something something american math students only plug in numbers at random something