/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9657662
4

nope

yes, but then it disappears

>>9657662
0.75

>>9657662
It's either 1 or ∞

Undefined

>>9657662
Your comparison evaluates to false.

>>9657662
>x - x = 1

>>9657662
I tried squaring both sides and found that x^2 -2x = 0 but neither 0 nor 2 work when I plug them in.

>>9657674
>>9657680
>>9657686
>>9657694
>>9657724
>>9657775
Wrong

>>9657676
>>9657739
>>9657747
Right

>>9657747
So the moral to the story is that not all algebraic equations are possible?

I edited it. You should be able to easily solve this now. In fact, if you could not solve it you would be retarded.

>>9657807
0

>>9657807
all x except 1

>>9657807
-1

>>9657662
No solution

>>9657807
0

>>9657892
>>9657867
How do you isolate x?

>>9657897
Pull a -1 out of the denominator in the second term on the right side of the equation, giving you -1(1-x). Then multiply both sides by (1-x).

>>9657897
Cross multiply

Multiply everything by (x-1)

X - 1 = (x-1)/(1-x) + 1
X = (x-1)/(1-x)
x - x^(2) = x - 1
x^(2) = 1

How is the answer not +-1????

>>9657662
1 = 2/(x-1)

1/2 = 1/(x-1)

x-1 = 2

x = 3

>>9657922
oh shit, nvm didn't see the x-1 and 1-x

>>9657922
>>9657929
Yeah, answer is here

>>9657913

>>9657662

1 = 1/1-x + 1/x-1

Divide both denominators by both numerators.

You'll get 1 = -x + x

-x + x = 0

1 = 0

Literally cancer

x = 1+8i, 1-8i

>>9657930
Actually this is impossible, there is no number that when substracted from itself with give 1...

1 = 1/(1-x) + 1/-1(1-x)

1 = 1/(1-x) - 1/(1-x)

>>9657930
*Will

>>9657935
Don't divide when you can simply rewrite (1-x) as -1(x-1)

>>9657948
>>9657951
So does the equation need the X's in the denominator??

It simplifies to
x - x^(2) = x - 1

My work is done here.

>>9657868
the fact that you're the only person to say this worries me about this board.

>>9657807
most of these replies confirm loads of retards lurk this board

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(1%2F(x-1)%2B1%2F(1-x))%3D1
>No solutions exist.

>>9657747
>>9657946
right
everyone else in this thread is nigger tier levels of retarded

>>9658067
>using a calculator
>not exposing your brainletsim in an anonymous image board

>>9657897
>he had to isolate x to solve it

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

duh absoludd stade off sci :-DDD

>>9658264
I highly doubt g=8.1m/s^2 at 7 million meters above the surface of the earth, but the answer would be:

d = sqrt[(8.2)(7,000,000)^2 / 6]

>>9657985
>>9657946
>>9657930
>>9657929
>>9657922
>>9657913
>>9657897
Found the engineers.

>>9658286
*center, you absolute autist.

>>9657791
Yes, but you already knew that.
eg, x = x + 1
eg, 2=5

>>9657807
x=1

>>9657662
1=0 ?

>>9657868
Even 1 is right.
(x-1)/(x-1)=1 for each x.
Another way to see this is: taking the lim of x->1, the inf that appears in the numerator has the same "speed" of the one on the denominator, so the ratio is constant (1 in this case).

>>9657662
-1
You brainlets

>>9657662
>>>/x/

>>9657662
>1 = 0

sage

>>9659228
It's a perfectly valid system in which for all x,y holds that x=y.
It's just not very useful

>>9659593
>y
what y

>>9659598
The one quantified with "for all" a few characters to the left

>>9657662
[math]1=\frac{1}{1-x}+\frac{1}{x-1}[/math]
[math]1+\frac{1}{1-x}=\frac{1}{1-x}[/math]
[math](1-x)+1=1[/math]
[math]1=x[/math]

hmmmmmmmm

>>9657807
[math]x=\mathbb{R}^{\infty }[/math]
>>9658264
>after endless abstractions:
[math]8.2\sim^{-2} 7\\
6\sim^{-2} \sqrt{7^{2}\cdot \frac{8.2}{6}}\approx 8.183[/math]

ez pz

>>9657662
>LCD (1-x)(x-1)=x-1-x^2+x=-x^2+2x-1
>-x^2+2x-1=x-1+1-x=0.
>x=+-1
my face when

>>9657662
X=1. But this is assuming 1=0 So fuck you

>>9660282
Again, multiply everything by (x-2)

4 - (8/x) = 2x - 4
8 = 10x
4/5 = x

Done. Next

Again, multiply everything by (x-2)

4 - (8/x) = 2x - 4
8 = 2x + (8/x)
8x = 2x^2 + 8
0 = x^2 - 4x + 4
0 = (x - 2) ^2
0 = x - 2
2 = x

Edit: made a mistake.

There now it's done.

>>9660826
is for
>>9660282

inb4 denom cant equal 0 hurr

>>9657662
x=sin(y), y=0

>>9660735
So its impossible since both results end in dividing by zero

>>9657662
adding the fractions equals zero, zero doesn't equal 1
try this brainlets:
[math]-1 = i \times i = \sqrt{-1}\ \times \sqrt{-1} = \sqrt{-1 \times -1} = \sqrt{1} = 1[/math]
[math]1 = -1???[/math]

>>9657791
What is the cardinality of solvable equations
versus that of unsolvable equations?

>>9660204
>dat second line
wat

>>9657662
1

>>9657662
no solution

also sage

-x^2=1

Not possible

>>9657662
[math] - x^2 + 2x - 1 = 0, x \neq 1 [/math]

>>9658787
Most would still consider it a point discontinuity

>>9658787
1 is not defined, were not looking at limits or continuity here

>>9657662
1 = 1/(1-x) - 1/(1-x) -> 1=0
lmao faggot heres a (You)

>>9657662
Nonsense. No 5 year old is capable of understanding polynomial properties or multi-step rationalizing strategies.

>>9660282
Both answers are extraneous.

>>9660282
no solutions

>>9658264
aprox 8050.25km

>>9657807
(-x^2+2x-1)/(-x^2+2x-1)=1

I’m lazy to do the quadratic formula right now

>>9662890
those things will divide each other and you get 1 = 1

>>9657662
what the fuck is wrong with this board?

1/(1-x) = -1/(x - 1) so the equation is literally

1 = 0

>>9661404
they're both countably infinite. what the actual fuck is wrong with this board

x can only equal 1, but x can't be 1 because you can't divide by zero, so there's no solutions.

>>9657807
hmmmm

>>9663276
>>9663322
That looks like a comfy way to solve these types of problems desu. Never really thought about creating new variables to simplify a problem before.

test
[math]e^{i \pi} + 1 = 0[\math]

>>9663377
>>>9663276
>>>9663322
>That looks like a comfy way to solve these types of problems desu. Never really thought about creating new variables to simplify a problem before.
Don't be retarded. 1/(1-x) = -1/(x-1).

holy shit i can't believe how many fucking retards there are on this post

Is this valid?

1 = 1/(x-1) + 1/(1-x)
1/1 = 1 / (1 / (x - 1) + 1 / (1 - x) )
1 = 1 / (1 / (x - 1)) + 1 / (1 / (1 - x))
1 = x - 1 + 1 - x
1 = 0

I thought /sci/ took calc 1...

>>9664130
my favourite is >>9661407

>>9665006
kek

>>9661320
Brainlet here, I can't find why this is wrong, can someone explain?