Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 32 KB, 740x308, 1309962234610.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
3364061 No.3364061 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Math related question: 6^x=24x^2

I know the answer(s) from Wolfram, just not the actual steps for getting there, I've checked the sticky and I can't fucking find an exact video on the subject

Thanks /sci/

>> No.3364077

bump

>> No.3364080

Cant solve with algebra. You can express the solutions as a function of the Lambert W function or have a computer do it

>> No.3364082

/sci/ can't do Algebra anymore?

iamdissapoint.jpg

>> No.3364085

>>3364077

You can solve with algebra, but there's a stupid little trick you have to do to simplify it first.

>> No.3364096

>>3364061
ln(6)/24

lol n00b

>> No.3364097

>>3364085
What is it?

And this was in my fucking Algebra practice for sparknotes

>> No.3364102

>image
>implying there are female chemists or mathematicians

>> No.3364108

just like solving any other quadratic bro.

get it in the form something = 0.

factorise the something.

>> No.3364113

Google logarithms.

>> No.3364117

>>3364102
See: vihart

>> No.3364125

>>3364102

half of the smartest mathematicians in my undergrad course are female. my director of studies is female. cambridge uni.

>> No.3364128

>>3364097
If you don't know it, then you are supposed to solve it iteratively with Newton's method or bisection or whatever you like best.

>> No.3364130

>>3364113

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=go+fuck+yourself

>> No.3364135

>>3364125
what's affirmative action?

>> No.3364136

>>3364125
>/sci/
> cambridge

>> No.3364142

>>3364135
you're a sexist nonce. cambridge does not take affirmative action, there are 4 girls out of 20 in my year in my college doing maths. i'd say 2 or 3 of them are top tier.

>> No.3364152

>>3364142
>exceptions are the rule

why're you studying science, again?

>> No.3364160

>>3364152
You: No good mathematicians are female
Anon: I know good mathematicians that are female
You: Your point is invalid

At which step did you make a mistake?

>> No.3364173

>>3364152

there only needs to be a single female mathematician in existence to disprove your inane statements via contradiction.

if you weren't a dumbass you might've known that.

enjoy dying alone.

>> No.3364186

>>3364160
>>3364173
>feminists detected

go eat more ice cream

>> No.3364188

>>3364173
Woman status: buttdevastated.

>> No.3364192

>>3364188

i'm a guy.

it's just that i've socialised with women before, you see.

>> No.3364195

>>3364186
Sure, I believe in equal rights (if that's what you mean), but that has nothing to do with what I said. You made a blanket statement and anon disproved it; in other words, you were incorrect. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that?

>> No.3364197

>>3364192
You might be a guy, but you are certainly not a man.

>> No.3364205

6^x=24x^2
0=24x^2-6x
0=6x(4x-1)
x = 0, 1/4

>> No.3364211

>>3364205
>dividing by zero

>> No.3364216

>>3364197
of course, real men only fuck other real men, i forgot.

you're boring me now bro, cya.

inb4 attempted butt devastating retort.

>> No.3364227

>>3364192
>it's just that i've socialised with women before, you see.

in other words "i'm a beta emotional tampon for a gaggle of screaming bitches"

enjoy that, kiddo.

>>3364195
obviously i meant "there are significantly less female mathematicians/chemists than there are males".

but you've got to use exaggerated language at times to illustrate a point. you feminists should know this well, what with all men being rapists.

>> No.3364232

>>3364216
>I'm too analincinerated to answer

Fixed.

>> No.3364234

>>3364205
nope.jpg

>> No.3364238

>>3364227
>obviously i meant "there are significantly less female mathematicians/chemists than there are males".
In which way is it obvious? Why didn't you just state "there are significantly fewer..."?

>but you've got to use exaggerated language at times to illustrate a point.
Why is that? Your exaggerated language only resulted in a lack of clarity and, subsequently, misunderstanding. That's not effective in getting your point across.
>you feminists should know this well, what with all men being rapists.
Not all men are rapists.

>> No.3364257

>>3364238
okay then, i'm sorry for upsetting you.

are you female by any chance?
here's my e-mail account. we should totally chat.

>> No.3364267

>>3364257
I'm not upset, and I'm not female

>> No.3364274

>>3364267
that's a shame. i'm not gay.

i'm glad you're not upset, though, and i hope you can forgive me.

>> No.3364285

>>3364205

read question wrong sorry

can't solve it T_T

x ln 6 = ln 24 + 2lnx => stuck

>> No.3364300

>>3364285
Shouldn't it be <span class="math">xln6=2ln24x[/spoiler]?
I'm stuck as well.

>> No.3364363

multiply by a negative exponent?

>> No.3364365

>>3364300

check it on wolfram, you gotta use some magical function to get it to work. I don't know anything about it though.

>> No.3364398

you end up with
<div class="math">x^2 = \frac{1}{4}e^x</div>

>> No.3364431

>>3364398
then square root both sides?

>> No.3364441

OP here, this was a goddamned algebra question, and the answer is 3, among other solutions, but you can only get there with the lambert w formula which is most definitely not algebra

>> No.3364470 [DELETED] 
File: 38 KB, 313x311, dumbbitch.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
3364470

>>3364441
mfw if this was on a test I would have just plugged in the answers.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action