[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 9 KB, 575x372, 1296195757279.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2429594 No.2429594 [Reply] [Original]

/sci/ WTF
explain please.

>> No.2429601

-3, so what?

>> No.2429598

-2

>> No.2429604

>>2429598
idiot,
2x(1-5)+5=?
2x(-4)+5=?
-8+5=?
-4 = ?

QED

>> No.2429607

-5

>> No.2429611

2x(1-5)+5= -6

>> No.2429612

2 times 1 is 2, minus 5 is negative 3, plus 5 is 2. The correct answer is 2.

>> No.2429615

>>2429604
your x just vanished for no particular reason, dummy

>> No.2429616

>-8+5
>-4

>> No.2429621

2x (1-5) + 5 = ?

2x(-4) +5

-8 + 5

-3

>> No.2429625

OP here, so... this is what i think...since we dont know the "?" we can safely say it is yet another variable. truth?

2x(1-5)+5=y
2x-10x+5=y
-8x+5=y

>> No.2429626

2x-10x + 5 = ?

-8x + 5 =?

x = (5 - ?)/8

x is unknown since the equation is incomplete

>> No.2429629

>>Put through wolfram alpha

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2*(1-5)%2B5

-3 bitches.

>> No.2429632

2x(1-5)+5=?
2x(-4)+5=?
-8x+5=?
-8x = -5
x= 5/8

what's the problem?

>> No.2429634

Why did anyone respond to this? For reals.

>> No.2429648

oh, '?' is a variable. Why didn't you say so.

>> No.2429647

OP here yet again...
if you get -3 as your answer, ima assume that you are probly elementary kids cause if you knew algebra you would know that putting a number next to a parenthesis means multiplication... i.e. 2(10)=20

>> No.2429646

>>2429632
Since when did ? - 5 = -5?

>> No.2429654

2x(1-5)+5=?
2x(-4)+5=?
-8+5=?
-3=?

WAT IS 3

>> No.2429655

>>2429647

If you had done high school algebra you would have known that you never use ? as a variable, and you can't solve an equation with two unknown variables without having two equations to solve simultaneously.

>> No.2429663

>>2429655
This is true. You can't solve this equation without a second equation. If we have a second equation we can use either substitution or elimination to solve it.

>> No.2429666

>>2429655
well then, does this mean this problem i has placed, is not worthy of solving then? if this problem is improper, then that would indeed explain to me much.

>> No.2429668

>>2429655
i'm surprised it took that many posts for that to get pointed out.

>> No.2429669

>>2429655
Diophantines?

>> No.2429670

>>2429655
what's wrong with using ? as a variable, nazi?

>> No.2429676

>>2429632

this is true

/thread

>> No.2429677

this is the most god damned pathetic set of posts i have ever seen.

either this is a middle school problem of basic arithmetic or its a high school problem of alegebra. either way it is a perfectly valid problem, one answer is a single digit, the other is a curve(or a line for you fucking idiot-fags out there)

>> No.2429683

>>2429654
op didn't ask for absolute value

>> No.2429695

>>2429594
ANYBODY WHO DID NOT GET -3 IS SURELY TOO YOUNG TO BE AT THE COMPUTER ALONE AND THEIR MUM SHOULD HAVE CORRECTED THEM

SURELY PEOPLE WHO THOUGH X WAS "x" AND NOT "MULTIPLY" ARE TROLLS

FFS

>> No.2429701

>>2429677
the "?" instead of "y" or "f(x)" or any other letter/symbol would suggest its not about a curve (i would have said line but since you are being technically correct)

>> No.2429712

2x(1-5)+5=?
2x(-4)+5=?
-8x+5=?

Thats about as accurate as you can go

>> No.2429714
File: 87 KB, 1241x598, y=-8+5..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2429714

Here is the problem graphed. I like graphs. :)
There you go OP!!!

>> No.2429719

>>2429695

your an idiot

2(1-5) is 2 multiplied by (1-5)

according to you:
2x(1-5) is 2 multiplied multiplied by (1-5)

ergo

the only logical assumption is that the x is an unknown.

>> No.2429720

5 + 5 = 10

2x(1-5) = ((11--55))

((11--55)) + 10 = ((111055))

>> No.2429717
File: 5 KB, 249x300, adolf_kittler.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2429717

>>2429701

yea me too, usually, but have you seen how dumb these people are being? i had to call them idiots in the most dramatic way possibe

>> No.2429727

>>2429719

actually, its more accurate to say that

2(1-5) is (1-5) multiplied by 2

>> No.2429734

>>2429719
>your an idiot

doesn't know if serious

>> No.2429736

OP here. btw, this same type of thread was on /b/ so i just brought it here :)

>> No.2429755

The answer is 40.

2 x 5=10
1 - 5=4

2 x (whatever is in this paranthesis) and 5=Y.

Y being 40, because after you add the 2 x 4, you have to multiply them by 5. Which would equal 40.

>> No.2429760
File: 12 KB, 200x194, lf96qu4ah01qgv494o1_250.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2429760

>> No.2429766
File: 38 KB, 470x353, AwesomeJimProfit0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2429766

>>2429755
Forgot my trip and av. I can't do that at /tg/.

>> No.2429767

Lmfao it's X=5/8

I completed this question in my head. Are you all fucking retards?

>> No.2429773

>>2429767 -> >>2429625

>> No.2429779

This is the only true answer: >>2429714

>> No.2429781

>>2429625

It's not another variable. ? = 0. He's just too stupid and ? means he wants to know the answer to the question, aka, the value of X.

If it's -8x+5=y then it creates a linear line.
You'd graph it and find the values, or make Y=0 to find x, and X=0 to find Y.

Really, this is grade 7 math.

>> No.2429783
File: 34 KB, 856x480, AwesomeJimProfit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2429783

>>2429766
>Are you all fucking retards?

Well considering not one person, including yourself has come up with the same conclusion, maybe this says something about abstract math as a whole.

Or more importantly, maybe it's just a troll topic. But obviously you're too narcissistic to notice.

>> No.2429810

I don't see where theres room for error in this problem

>> No.2429818

Is that an <span class="math">x[/spoiler] or a multiplication symbol?

>> No.2429834

>>2429783

Damn son. You're so retarded you can't even link to the proper post.

>> No.2429841

God damn it /sci/; the answer is Clearly fish!
F(x) fish
2fish(1-5)+5=0
2fish-10fish+5=0
-8fish=-5
fish= 5/8

>> No.2429863

2x(1-5)+5
2x(1) - 2x(5) + 5
2x-10x+5
-8x + 5

Alternatively

2x(1-5)+5
2x(-4)
-8x + 5

You can't just set ? to zero because you feel like it.
You can argue that the x is meant to be a multiplication sign, but I usually only do that if it's scientific notation, and it helps to write it differently than you would a normal x, so I'm assuming it's a variable.
If you WERE typing it out and wanted to use x for multiplication, the least you could do would be to put a space between the terms and the operation sign.

>> No.2429882

>>2429594
Short answer:
X is a varibeal because the parentheses already imply multiplication

Long answer:
The unicorns told me so.

Really long answer:
Cocaine is a hell of a drug!

>> No.2429886

2x(1-5)+5=?
Lets assume ? = 0.

2x(1-5)+5=0
Move the +5 to the other side by -5 from both sides.

2x(1-5)=-5
Use the distributive property

2x-10x=-5
Add the x's

-8x=-5
divide by the polynomial

x=(-5)/(-8)
Simplify.

x=5/8

Any questions?

>> No.2429898

>>2429886
If we can assume ? to be zero, why not simply assume a value for x? I could assume x=0. That makes ?=5. Since you can assume any value for either, each could be any number you want then, so I could say the possible values for x, and the possible values for ?, range from negative infinity to infinity. This means that -5/8 is not a complete answer, just a tiny piece of it.

>> No.2429904

>>2429886
wrong! '?' is a variable! the answer is >>2429714

>> No.2429915

>>2429898

Of course, it's a linear graph. It's just a segment of a line that moves off to infinity.

The equation of the line is y=-8x+5 however. The answer x=5/8 is correct for y=0 which gives the zero at x=5/8

There is no other correct answer. To multiply the OP should have signified with a * such as 2*3 and 2^3 for exponential functions.

The X is a variable. The ? is also a variable, and by making it 0 I distinguished the other zero.

Problem, anybody?

>> No.2430385
File: 4 KB, 169x291, 4chan_answer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2430385

>>2429898

If that is the case, then the only way to sold it properly is a number line.

2x(1-5)+5=y
2x-10x+5=y
-8x+5=y

_X_|_Y_
-3 | 29
-2 | 21
-1 | 13
0 | 5
1 | -3
2 | -11
3 | -19

Pic Related.

>> No.2430394

2x (1-5)+5 =
2x (-4) + 5

-8x + 5

-8x = 5

x = 5/8

>> No.2430396

>>2430394
Sorry, -5/8

>> No.2430403

>>2430396
No you were right the first time. You actually made a mistake in a previous step. When you switch the 5 to the other side of the equation you need to negate it. So, the correct answer is positive (+) 5/8.

>> No.2430414

>>2430403
Fucking hell you're right.
Too early for me to be mathin'