Dr.Peterson
Elite Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2017
- Messages
- 16,749
What they say on that site is, "This starts to get messy in a hurry. But you can simplify it by noticing that you can keep pulling out factors of (1 + r) from each line. If you do that, the balances collapse to a simple pattern: ..."
That is, even though it's valid, it's a waste of time to pursue that direction; what we've been telling you is the way to go.
If you did continue (and I think someone did so on some thread recently), it would look like this:
and so on. Do you see how each line is (___) + r(___), where the blank is filled by the line before?
If you were to try to use this for anything, you would want to simplify it -- so why not simplify as you go, which is exactly what we recommend?
That is, even though it's valid, it's a waste of time to pursue that direction; what we've been telling you is the way to go.
If you did continue (and I think someone did so on some thread recently), it would look like this:
P
P + rP
(P + rP) + r(P + rP)
[(P + rP) + r(P + rP)] + r[(P + rP) + r(P + rP)]
([(P + rP) + r(P + rP)] + r[(P + rP) + r(P + rP)]) + r([(P + rP) + r(P + rP)] + r[(P + rP) + r(P + rP)])
and so on. Do you see how each line is (___) + r(___), where the blank is filled by the line before?
If you were to try to use this for anything, you would want to simplify it -- so why not simplify as you go, which is exactly what we recommend?