/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.8975769]

from george simmon's precalculus book

is this nigger on crack? what the fuck?

[Anonymous No.8975771]

>>8975769
i forgot to mention that he doesn't specify that a is negative or positive

[Anonymous No.8975772]

>>8975769
He's not wrong though

[Anonymous No.8975776]

>pre-calculus

nigger calling the kettle black

[Anonymous No.8975779]

>>8975772
then what about the definition of the radical? his book is confusing as fuck

at one point he did what was in the OP pic and 2 pages later he used the normal definition for the radical function, which is sqrt(x)^2 = |x|

[Anonymous No.8975789]

FUCK YOU SIMMONS YOUR BOOK IS PURE SHIT

YOU'RE A FUCKING FAGGOT YOU'RE GAY YOU TAKE IT IN THE ASS YOU FUCKING GAY FAGGOT YOU GOD DAMNED MONKEY PISS DIRNKING CRETIN

FOR FUCK'S SAKE YOU DUMB MOTHER FUCKER HOW CAN YOU FUCK UP AT TEACHING FUCKING RADICALS YOU FUCKING MORON YOU WASTED MY FUCKING TIME WITH YOUR GAY ASS BOOK I WILL FUCKING SHIT ON YOUR SOUL AND FAMILY

[Anonymous No.8975793]

You are all brainlets

[Anonymous No.8975796]

>>8975769
Have a better book
http://www.stitz-zeager.com/szca07042013.pdf

[Anonymous No.8975797]

>>8975779
that's the normal definition. it's the real root

[Anonymous No.8975801]

>>8975797
then why did he say the BS from OP's pic? it makes no fucking sense, i feel like i'm going insame

[Anonymous No.8975807]

>>8975801

early math and science courses have a bad habit of teaching you wrong information and then later clarifying. maybe he thought this was "easier." i don't know

[Anonymous No.8975811]

>>8975807
thanks senpai i thought i was still having psychosis from the meth I did 2 years ago

[Anonymous No.8975820]

>>8975769
why are you reading that memebook?

you didn't fall for the memelist that gets posted on here did you?

[Anonymous No.8975824]

>>8975769
wait isn't that right?

[Anonymous No.8975826]

>>8975820
I haven't done precalc math in 2 years and I needed a quick refresh, the other book that I wanted to go through was http://www.stitz-zeager.com/szca07042013.pdf but I didn't want to go through so many pages since I don't really need such a thorough refresh. I had a Calc I-II exam in my country where I got 10/10 but that was 2 years ago.

[Anonymous No.8975829]

>>8975824
it only is if a>0 but he doesn't mention this shit anywhere and since it's a math book I was constantly searching for the "a>0" bit and I wasn't finding it and my brain was short-circuiting

[Anonymous No.8975833]

>>8975824
or if n is odd

odd-pussy

[Anonymous No.8975856]

>>8975796
STITZ ZEAGER SHILLS BTFO

[Anonymous No.8975900]

>>8975856
Are they seriously complaining that he explains stuff?

>Evey thing is explained in paragraph form
Babies first math book? Perhaps a coloring book is more appropriate for him.
Also, it hes plenty of graphs to explain it.

>Not explaining how to find horizontal asymptotes
But he does. Try reading the damn thing.


These people are just retarded. if your IQ is to low it wont matter which book you read.

[Anonymous No.8975905]

>>8975769
>I found a mistake

Get used to it. Every STEM book has minor stuff like that in them.

[Anonymous No.8975934]

>>8975796
Okay, for real.

Is this Stitz-Zeager precalc book just another meme, or is it actually good? I was looking at that and Axler, along with the Gelfand books.

[Anonymous No.8975942]

>>8975820
what is the non-meme list, then

[Anonymous No.8975976]

>>8975771

it doesn't matter if a is negative or positive you retarded nigger

if you think that's wrong you don't know anything about how numbers work.

[Anonymous No.8975982]

>>8975976
kill yourself you fucking moron
>n=1, a=-1
>implying sqrt(-1)=-1
hurr durr nothing is wrong with this

[Anonymous No.8975992]

>>8975982

0/10

[Anonymous No.8976000]

The image is saying a^(n/n)=a. Which is true for all numbers

[Anonymous No.8976004]

>>8976000
http://www.planetmath.org/evenevenoddrule

[Anonymous No.8976008]

>>8976000
no, it says the nth root of a^n is a, which isn't true for any negative number

[Anonymous No.8976010]

>>8975982
I don't think you know what the radical sign is
>>8976000
a = -1
n = 2
sqrt((-1)^2) = sqrt(1) = 1=/=-1

[Anonymous No.8976011]

>>8975982
No

[Anonymous No.8976012]

>>8976000
I forgot to mention that a^(n/n) is postive if n is even. Whoops my bad

[Anonymous No.8976016]

>>8975769
forgot the most important rule

[eqn](6)\;\;\;\;\; \sqrt[n]{a^n + b^n} = a + b[/eqn]

[Anonymous No.8976018]

>>8975900
I'm not trying to seem facetious but pic seems pretty easy?

[Anonymous No.8976021]

>>8975856
how to find brainlets: look for 1 star reviews of math books

[Anonymous No.8976024]

>>8976016
top kek

[Anonymous No.8976031]

>>8976016
I dont think that's true

[Anonymous No.8976033]

123

[Anonymous No.8976081]

>>8976018
yes, that's why people saying that is hard to understand are legitimally retarded

[Anonymous No.8976089]

>>8975807
Had a cs textbook that did this, very annoying. It'd give you a long example program which I would spend 30 minutes analyzing, then at the end say jokes on you, the real programs on the next page.

[Anonymous No.8976092]

>>8975789

[Anonymous No.8976251]

>>8975769
Someone please provide a counter example if you disagree with this.

[Anonymous No.8976252]

>>8976251
There's already several in the thread if you bothered to read it. In particular, any negative number.

[Anonymous No.8976262]

>>8976031
Of course it is. Look:
[eqn]\sqrt{0^2 \,+\, 0^2} \,=\, \sqrt{0 \,+\, 0} \,=\, \sqrt0 \,=\, 0 \,=\, 0 \,+\, 0[/eqn]

[Anonymous No.8976263]

>>8975982
n*1/n=1, dipshit

[Anonymous No.8976270]

a=2
n=-3
(2^-3)^-1/3
(1/8)^-1/3
2

[Anonymous No.8976278]

>>8975769
>be actual mathematics university student
>see a thread for high schoolers
>think back to the good old days. I am interested in seeing how the high schoolers of today handle mathematics
>see this

>>8975772
>>8975776
>>8975789
>>8975824
>>8975833
>>8975982
>>8975992
>>8976016
>>8976262
>>8976251
>>8976263

I think... math is not for you guys. You are still young though so you have time to find another passion. Best wishes.

[Anonymous No.8976285]

>>8976252
>Any negative number
>any

Certifiable brainlet.

cubert( (-1)^3 ) = cubert( -1) = -1

[Anonymous No.8976290]

>>8976285
>implying I said anything about n
maybe next time, brainlet :)

[Anonymous No.8976291]

>>8976278
>t. state school mathematician

[Anonymous No.8976293]

Here, brainlets.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/adakzuzqnr

[Anonymous No.8976294]

>>8976278
>>be actual mathematics university student
Is that a freshman I see?

Wait until someone's at least paying you to do math before criticizing 'high schoolers' (who are only a year younger than you)

[Anonymous No.8976298]

>>8976294
Not a freshman. And that would be 3 years younger.

Now back to... idk... computing derivatives? What do the kids do these days?

[Anonymous No.8976304]

>>8976290
Exactly, you were wrong by claiming any negative number without mentioning n at all.

[Anonymous No.8976305]

>>8976304
Nope, wrong again, brainlet.

The statement (a^n)^(1/n)=a is false since every negative number is a counterexample to (a^n)^(1/n)=a for some n.

Next?

[Anonymous No.8976308]

>>8975769
I mean on where you defined the nth root, that thing is correct. i.e.
1)if a is non-negative (probably rational as well, cause it's precalculus) and n being anything,
2)if a is negative and n being odd.

[Anonymous No.8976309]

>>8976305
You're just digging yourself deeper and deeper.

n = 3

n = any odd number

The equation holds for all a, positive and negative

[Anonymous No.8976311]

>>8976309
>n = 3
>n = any odd number
>The equation holds for all a, positive and negative
It brings me great joy to see how quickly your coping posts have devolved into meaninglessness, brainlet.

Next?

[Anonymous No.8976322]

>>8976311
If you wanted to prove me wrong you could do so very easily.

Go ahead and try to find an "a" and an odd number "n" such that the equation does not hold. You will fail miserably.

[Anonymous No.8976329]

>>8976322
see
>>8976293

[Anonymous No.8976332]

>>8976322
>If you wanted to prove me wrong you could do so very easily.
I've done so brainlet, see:
>>8976305

>Go ahead and try to find an "a" and an odd number "n" such that the equation does not hold.
Now why would I do that, brainlet?

Next?

[Anonymous No.8976335]

>>8976332
>Now why would I do that, brainlet?

That's right, bitch, I knew you couldn't do it.

[Anonymous No.8976341]

>>8976335
I'm still waiting on that negative number that satisfies (a^n)^(1/n)=a, brainlet.

Tick, tock.

[Anonymous No.8976348]

>>8976341
Oh yay! What a joyous day.

n = 3
a = -1

(-1^3)^(1/3)= -1

This is SO much fun!

[Anonymous No.8976349]

>>8976348
>has to add an extra hypothesis
"That's right, bitch, I knew you couldn't do it."
You'll make a great janitor one day.

This board never fails to amuse me.

[Anonymous No.8976354]

>>8976349
We've already been over this.

Find an "a" and an odd number "n" such that the equation does not hold, and I'll EAT ME WORDS. I will admit defeat and dedicate my life to being your brainlet slave.

Well?

a = ?
n = ?

Happy day, happy day!

[Anonymous No.8976356]

>>8976354
"Any negative number being a counterexample to (a^n)^(1/n)=a" is not the same statement as "Any negative number being a counterexample to (a^n)^(1/n)=a for some odd n".

I can tell you're not even trained in the most elementary of logical thought processes.

Perhaps come back once you've improved your reading comprehension, brainlet.

If you want a book recommendation, try 'Logic for Dummies'.

[Anonymous No.8976357]

>every negative number is a counterexample to (a^n)^(1/n)=a for some n.

There are people alive RIGHT NOW that believe this. Kek.

[Anonymous No.8976359]

>>8976341
>>8976348

Everyone with a calculator can feel that burn from here, damn lol.

[Anonymous No.8976360]

>>8976357
>every negative number is a counterexample to (a^n)^(1/n)=a for some n.
>take n=2
>get (a^2)^(1/2)=-a !=a which isn't true for any negative number
>There are brainlets alive RIGHT NOW that don't understand elementary school mathematics. Kek.

[Anonymous No.8976365]

>>8976360
Why would you EVER ask me this question >>8976341 if you understood elementary math? Because you clearly don't understand negatives.

>I was only PRETENDING to be retarded
You're not pretending, friendo

[Anonymous No.8976366]

>>8976365
>Why would you EVER ask me this question >>8976341 if you understood elementary math?
Because I claimed that no negative number satisfied it, and you argued that point.

Tick, tock.

[Anonymous No.8976373]

>>8976278
t. sub top-10 undergrad

[Anonymous No.8976375]

>65 replies

god dammit /sci/

[Anonymous No.8976386]

>>8976285
>cubert

[Anonymous No.8976393]

>>8975796
>version floor(pi)

kek

[Anonymous No.8976407]

>(a^n)^(1/n)=a

Let me define א2 as being the answer to (א2 ^n)^(1/n)

[Anonymous No.8976416]

>>8975900
That doesn't seem so bad. There's a lot worse, in which everything is in paragraphs and the formatting sucks. I like the visual aid, but I can work with that. My only problem is that i'd rather not struggle with their formatting and focus on math, but it's trivial.

[Anonymous No.8976535]

>>8975934
It's pretty good, better than stewards and David Cohen's precalc books imho.
Doesn't just throw proofs at you, actually explains it pretty good. Even for things he doesn't proof (because they require calculus) he tries to make it intuitive.

some people complain about the formatting, but I think it's still superior over the formatting used in other modern textbooks.

[Anonymous No.8976541]

>>8976278
>falling this hard for >>8976016 and >>8976262
Yeah, no. Maybe after middle school, you'll be allowed to talk about mathematics.

[Anonymous No.8976670]

>>8976393
yeah lol that was hilarious

[Anonymous No.8976701]

if the rule doesnt work for negative a and even n, then why the FUCK does it work for positive a and odd n? why is math so inconsistent?

[Anonymous No.8976715]

>>8975769
Some people never learn what is not for them. I learned a long time ago that I was garbage at math. It's okay. I've accepted having a learning disability. These other fellas should too.

[Anonymous No.8976740]

>>8975856
>pre-calculus
>can only be solved by a rocket scientist

I'd like to see a review from a person not afflicted with ADHD and mental retardation. At the very least, his precalculus PDF is pretty based, which is supposed to contain both college algebra and trigonometry sections with little changes.

[Anonymous No.8976741]

>>8975769
[math] (a^n)^(1/n) = a^(n*(1/n)) = a^1 = a[/math]

[Anonymous No.8976746]

>>8975942
I'm glad you asked!

>Chapter 1: Introduction to Entry-Level Mathematics, P. I
Pre-Calculus - Carl Stitz & Jeff Zeager
Calculus: A Modern Approach - Jeff Knisley & Kevin Shirley
The Art and Craft of Problem Solving - Paul Zeitz

>Chapter 2: Introduction to Entry-Level Mathematics, P. II
Linear Algebra and Its Applications - David C. Lay
Calculus of Several Variables - Serge Lang
Applied Differential Equations by Vladimir A. Dobrushkin

>Chapter 3: Introduction to Proofs and Survey of Higher-Level Mathematics
How to Think Like a Mathematician - Kevin Houston
How to Prove It - D. J. Velleman
Mathematics: Its Content, Methods and Meaning - A.D. Aleksandrov, A.N. Kolmogorov, & M.A. Lavrent'ev

>Chapter 4: Bringing It All Together: The First Test of Mathematical Maturity
Calculus Vol. I & II - T. M. Apostol
Analysis I & II - Terrance Tao

[Anonymous No.8976762]

>>8975779
>radical
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.8976935]

You gave me a nice giggle. Yessuh

[Anonymous No.8976971]

>>8976746
wow

[Anonymous No.8977368]

>>8976356
why that's very nice of you

[Anonymous No.8977371]

>>8976746
i love you anon

[Anonymous No.8977461]

>>8976746
...so are you going to post the non-meme list?

[Anonymous No.8977518]

>>8977461
I just did. Do you know how to read?

[Anonymous No.8977970]

>>8976746
>Stitz
>Calculus: A Modern Approach
>How to Prove It
stop seriously

you're going to cause some impressionable high-schooler to waste his time

[Anonymous No.8977982]

>>8977970
Then what do you recommend?

[Anonymous No.8977989]

>>8977970
There's nothing wrong with any of those books, except maybe Dobrushkin due to its relative inaccessibility being the only book you'd likely be forced to buy (and even then you could just do Tenenbaum or something).

The first two books, Stitz and Knisley, are totally free, and most of the rest you can easily find online in pdf form. If you don't like Stitz then Axler is just as good. If you don't like Knisley then kill yourself—it's the best easily accessible calculus book that doesn't go straight into babby's first analysis, and if you need more problems you can always download an old version of Stewart. Dobrushkin covers everything you need in intro DifEQ with heavy applied focus (as it should until you do pure difEQ after real analysis), and everything else including How to Prove It is a time tested masterpiece for mathematical education.

If an impressionable high schooler leaves with an understanding of the difference between functions and curves, a solid intuition of calculus, good quantitative problem-solving skills, the ability to write coherent proofs, a formal understanding of calculus and analysis, and the know-how to tackle advanced pure and applied mathematics, then I'm satisfied.

Seriously, calling Velleman a danger to impressionable high schoolers? It's like you trolls want a world full of brainlets. Unless you're saying that it's too much of an initial difficulty—in that case start with Khan Academy and Gelfand's Algebra (first one in series IMO) to develop ability.

[Anonymous No.8977992]

>>8976016
This is correct when you study Field theory and abstract algebra though.
>>8976031
You are wrong. In abstract algebra it becomes correct.
>>8976541
You're the idiot.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freshman%27s_dream

[Anonymous No.8977998]

>>8976278

[Anonymous No.8978012]

>>8975856
>Don't by this book
>By

Also
>Math majors have trouble with this book

[Anonymous No.8978079]

>>8978012
>only rocket scientists can solve these problems

[Anonymous No.8978114]

>>8975856
i think these reviews actually convinced me to start Stitz precalc
thanks

[Anonymous No.8978214]

>>8976278
Simmons pls go

[Anonymous No.8978361]

>>8976298
>And that would be 3 years younger
>3
kys

[Anonymous No.8980291]

>>8978079

[Anonymous No.8981404]

>precalc
U A B
N G &
D E
E
R

[Anonymous No.8981438]

Standard notation implies principal root.

[Anonymous No.8981440]

>>8981404
>tfw 20 and just starting Calc
Feels awful senpai

[Anonymous No.8981587]

>>8981440
That's a bad hit, why not khan academy?

[Anonymous No.8981619]

>>8981587
I got tired of Khan desu. Currently learning from Simmons and doing just fine.

[Anonymous No.8981623]

>>8975769
Well, technically he is correct.

[Anonymous No.8981734]

>>8975769
>"radicals"

top wew

[Anonymous No.8981837]

>>8975982

-1^(1/1) = -1

[Anonymous No.8981856]

>>8975769
He only defined roots for positive real numbers.

[Anonymous No.8982062]

>>8977992
>trying this hard to be a pseudointellectual after taking babby's first algebra class

>This is correct when you study Field theory and abstract algebra though.
>You are wrong. In abstract algebra it becomes correct.
no it's not, it would be if n was a prime, and if you specified which root you're taking

[Anonymous No.8982651]

>>8975769
You might as well complain about rules 3 and 4 too, assuming the book only uses reals.