One more from a newbie!

You can always use the quadratic formula. Your solution will be a pair of conjugate imaginary numbers.
 
Royhaas...

Thank you for your reply. However, don't you need three numbers to use the quadratic equation?
 
Re: Royhaas...

JLorenzo said:
Thank you for your reply. However, don't you need three numbers to use the quadratic equation?

Just treat the "missing" number as a 0.
 
To happy...

Thanks happy. I just don't get that. There isn't any such thing as 0x. Do you know what I mean?
 
There are NO REAL solutions for the equstion: x<SUP>2</SUP>+49=0!
x<SUP>2</SUP>+49=0 is equivalent to x<SUP>2</SUP>=-49.
No real number squared is negative.
There are two complex solutions: 7i & -7i.
 
To pka...

PKA, I see what you mean by that. So then my final answers are:

7i and -7i?

By the way, I like your saying on your signature line.
 
Re: To pka...

JLorenzo said:
PKA, I see what you mean by that. So then my final answers are:

7i and -7i?

By the way, I like your saying on your signature line.

Yes, you did study imaginary numbers, right?
 
To happy...

Yes I did happy. The problem is I decided to take this course online (I have an infant at home and couldn't really get away three days a week). To be honest, the only imaginary number I understand is the one I hope to get in this class, which is a 70%!
 
Re: To happy...

JLorenzo said:
Yes I did happy. The problem is I decided to take this course online (I have an infant at home and couldn't really get away three days a week). To be honest, the only imaginary number I understand is the one I hope to get in this class, which is a 70%!

:lol:
 
Thanks happy...

I really admire people who enjoy and grasp this stuff! I actually feel myself getting stupider. I am actually a writer (my first book is due out 6/12/06). I don't really think logically!
 
There is a growing group of mathematicians who do not like the term “imaginary numbers”. It is an accident history just like the term “random variable” so we may be stuck with it. Many new treatments of complex variable start by stating that i is an artificial (made up) ‘number’ that is added to the real field and is a solution of the equation x<SUP>2</SUP>+1=0.

If it is made-up, ponder why this little gem is true: \(\displaystyle e^{i\pi } + 1 = 0\) where \(\displaystyle \ln (e) = 1\).
 
3*x<sup>2</sup> + 1*x + 2 = 3*x<sup>2</sup> + x + 2

It's just a convention. Don't let it trouble you. One normally would not write a coefficient of 1.

3*x<sup>2</sup> + 0*x + 2 = 3*x<sup>2</sup> + 0 + 2 = 3*x<sup>2</sup> + 2

It's just a convention. Don't let it trouble you. One normally would not write the whole term if the coefficient is 0.

3*x<sup>1</sup> = 3*x

It's just a convention. Don't let it trouble you. One normally would not write an exponent of 1.

There are many conventions. Just learn to recognize them and use them.
Think of them as "it goes without saying". It really does!
 
Re: Thanks happy...

JLorenzo said:
I really admire people who enjoy and grasp this stuff! I actually feel myself getting stupider. I am actually a writer (my first book is due out 6/12/06). I don't really think logically!

ISBN 3-567-3456i-5 "Fun with Imaginary Numbers" by Jock Lorenzo, Esq.

Is that the book?
 
To Denis...

Now that would be funny!!! Actually it about as completely opposite from math as you can get. It is poetry.
 
YA :!: :?:
I'm a poet too:

There once was a pretty young lass
Standing in water up to her ankles
This poem does not rhyme yet...
Just wait till the tide comes in !
 
Denis said:
YA :!: :?:
I'm a poet too:

There once was a pretty young lass
Standing in water up to her ankles
This poem does not rhyme yet...
Just wait till the tide comes in !


:lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Top