What you have posted for the first equation differs (significantly) from your picture!I was asked to find the sums and products of the these as quadratic equations?1. 32x−32x=0 2. 6x2−1=0But I am not seeing this as quadratic equations because I know that quadratic equations are of the formax2+bx+c=0 and what are presented are not of that form.View attachment 35279View attachment 35280
What do you have to say?
The 6 is not included be in the question. It is just a serial number for the question. So the actual thing still remains 32x2−32x=0 If you notice carefully, you will observe that I used red ink to cover some areas. Those areas contains questions which are not important to our discussion.What you have posted for the first equation differs (significantly) from your picture!
While you posted:- . 32x−32x=0Your picture shows:- 6 32x2−32x=0
But:- 32x2−32x=0 ⇒ 32x2−32x+0=0and
6x2−1=0 ⇒ 6x2+0x−1=0
Does that resolve your "difficulty"?
See also @blamocur's comment(s) above. (Posted while I was 'composing' this response. ?)
Hi chijioke. I would reword that statement because Quadratic Equations may appear in other forms:quadratic equations are of the form ax2+bx+c=0
Does that mean that b can be = 06x2−1=0 ⇒ 6x2+0x−1=0
Yes. Blamocur has already answered that question. Please see post#2. ?Does that mean that b can be = 0
Oh dear!The 6 is not included be in the question. It is just a serial number for the question. So the actual thing still remains 32x2−32x=0 If you notice carefully, you will observe that I used red ink to cover some areas. Those areas contains questions which are not important to our discussion.
I think some of those comments are too harsh.… the equation given can be restated in the form: ax2+bx+c=0 (that you failed to recognize for yourself!).
I see that others are now offering further 'assistance' which is their privilege should they choose to do so, of course, but I don't see why anyone should spend their time doing so when you are so clearly refusing to accept the advice already provided!
There are none so blind as those who will not see!
Maybe, if I was dealing with a primary school pupil but @chijioke has already demonstrated some more advanced capability than that yet chose to criticize my inclusion of the question number that was clearly displayed in their picture as If I didn't know what it was and suggested I wasn't reading their post as "carefully" as I might!I think some of those comments are too harsh.
Yes! Never be afraid to 0 to any expression as it will not change anything!6x2−1=0 ⇒ 6x2+0x−1=0Does that mean that b can be = 0
I have no problem solving it. I am only thinking that 32x2−32x=0 is not a quadratic equation. That is the only argument I have.(2/3)x^2 - (2/3)x=0. I would divide by 2/3 getting x^2 - x =0 or x^2 = x.
Then I would ask myself which number or numbers, if any, when I square them gives me back the same number. This should be easy to think through.
In other words zero can also be regarded as constant.Note that in ax2+bx+c=0 only a=0, while b, or c or both can be zeros.
Of course it is and, as has already been demonstrated (& explained), can easily be rewritten in the Standard Form of a quadratic (ax2+bx+c=0) that you appear to (mistakenly) believe is what defines(?) a quadratic equation! It also produces a 'nice' parabola (as I trust you would expect from a quadratic equation) whose roots can clearly be seen to lie at 0 & 1 (as @Steven G hinted at earlier):-I have no problem solving it. I am only thinking that 32x2−32x=0 is not a quadratic equation. That is the only argument I have.
Zero is "constant" isn't it? Or is a constant or, perhaps more appropriately in this case, is a perfectly acceptable value for the coefficient of the x0 term of a second-order polynomial to take! Such equations being more commonly known as "quadratic" because they contain a 'squared' term (and no higher degree terms or higher degree terms whose coefficients are all zero) and thus must have at least one solution (real or complex); in this case having two (both real) as illustrated above.In other words zero can also be regarded as constant.
In standard form 32x2−32x=0 would be written as 2x2−2x−0=0. Right? If this is correct, then I must confess that I am seeing this kind of quadratic equation for the first time.Of course it is and, as has already been demonstrated (& explained), can easily be rewritten in the Standard Form of a quadratic (ax2+bx+c=0) that you appear to (mistakenly) believe is what defines(?) a quadratic equation! It also produces a 'nice' parabola (as I trust you would expect from a quadratic equation) whose roots can clearly be seen to lie at 0 & 1 (as @Steven G hinted at earlier):-
No!In standard form 32x2−32x=0 would be written as 2x2−2x−0=0. Right? If this is correct, then I must confess that I am seeing this kind of quadratic equation for the first time.
You seem to be suffering from perhaps several misapprehensions.In standard form 32x2−32x=0 would be written as 2x2−2x−0=0. Right? If this is correct, then I must confess that I am seeing this kind of quadratic equation for the first time.