#help-0
1 messages · Page 257 of 1
That’ll just let you make polynomials that are irreducible
But that’s only for Z
And ℚ as well I think
yeah by gauss's lemma
Honestly I can’t remember much from the class
Ok are there any other algebraically closed fields other than ℂ and the field of all algebraic numbers
It sounds like the field of all algebraic numbers is the smallest algebraically closed field to me
there are no algebraically closed fields with a lower cardinality than the field of rational algebraic numbers
@median oar Has your question been resolved?
well you can extend it finitely, but it loses algebraic closure
is this a countable field
yes
nice, that's kind of surprising
so the closure is like much much much smaller than C
about as much smaller as you can get yes
at first? until you remember how polynomials work
well it's like countably many finite extensions
but it's still surprising given how many irrationals you can actually include
(which is countably many lol)
the fact that the set of computable numbers is countable breaks me every so often
@median oar Has your question been resolved?
Could you give it closure after extending it first?
i take back what i said
i don't think you can even extend it finitely
since a finite extension is algebraic
its an interesting question though, let me think about it for a minute
im trying to think of what A(pi) looks like, where A is the algebraic numbers
we don't know if $e \in A[\pi]$ I think
Hayley
field extensions are closed under multiplication and addition
but not algebraically
(necessarily)
A being the algebraic closure of Q?
yes
and A[pi] being a field extension of A?
so you could do things like $x^2 - \pi x + 1 = 0$
Hayley
well im differentiating between A(pi) and A[pi]
oh wait what's A(pi)?
oof i am less sure now that i read a more fleshed out explanation
i know A(pi) should be the smallest field containing A and pi
yeah that's a field extension, generally written A[pi]
well that's only necessarily true when pi is algebraic
or the extending element is algebraic
like A[pi] is the polynomials on pi with coefficients in A
so like... $3\pi^2 + \frac57\pi^7 \in A[\pi]$ you're saying?
Hayley
yes
yeah i mean that's the smallest field (not necessarily algebraically closed!) containing A and pi
i don't think so
at least given what i'm reading
since pi is transcendental it seems that A(pi) would be rational functions of pi
with coeffs in A
yeah it is, and your question is whether that new field is algebraically closed?
well my concern is that this new extension should be algebraic since it is finite
A[pi] is very not finite...
Well A isn’t finite either
okok i retract my concern
and go back to saying that either example of A[pi] or A(pi) should be, as you said, questionable examples of an extension that is not C
i know you mentioned we don't know if e is in A[pi], but im not sure about other transcendetals
Well we don’t need e in A[pi] do we?
perhaps we do
well i mean we'll never be able to hit every real number with any countable number of extenders
ah fair enough yes
it's like asking why Q(sqrt2, sqrt3) should include sqrt6
$\sqrt\pi \not\in A[\pi]$ so... that won't work i think
Hayley
from polynomials of pi
ie A[pi] is not alg closed
Yeah polynomials of pi
well my point was that we shouldn't just say "no"
but we should question it a little
Isn’t x² - pi the polynomial with sqrt pi
yes, but we need to know if sqrt pi is in A[pi]
if it isn't then the field is not alg closed
yeah, and that's not in Q[pi] and I don't think it's in A[pi] but I haven't proven that...
correct
I feel like it should?

Helloooo what’s going on here
im inclined to say this is false
we're playing around with fields
since the extension of adjoining pi is not finite
we can make arbitrarily large polynomials of pi
though i can't seem to make the jump to a taylor series for sqrt(x)
since we don't have any limits
taylor series won't help you because they have to be finite length
we can get arbitrarily close to rootpi
that's no problem
the thing is
this is an infinite dimensional vector space
ok this is maybe a nonasnwer but there are field extensions of A larger than C if you just atke a set of variables that has cardinality larger than the continuum
then you can just take the set of rational functions of those variables with coefficients in A
i am curious to see if we can do something with A[pi] or A(pi) though
actually, what im mostly wondering now is if A[pi] is a field at all
does pi have an inverse in A[pi]?
It should for field extensions
the thing is A[pi] just denotes the polynomials on pi with coefficients in A
so it's a ring surely, but i don't know if it's a field extension
A(pi) is for sure a field extension though
Oh right
this has sparked my interest in algebra again, thank you
Hi how do I factorise 2x + 4
i swore it off after my class on all this but these questions are pretty fun
Wikipedia is truly a black hole
I was trying to read about diagonalisation of matrices and I ended up here
I always loved algebra but it's so hard
oh thaaaat's why you were talking about finite extensions
oh ok
if A[pi] was a field we would get that some polynomial of pi times pi is 1
or that p(pi) * pi - 1 = 0
for some polynomial p with coefficients in A, meaning pi is algebraic
so we want to take a look at rational functions sadly
also this holds for all fields adjoined with a transcendental element
so it would seem F(x) = F[x] iff x is algebraic, and otherwise F[x] is not a field
ooo so i may have a proof that sqrt(pi) is not in A(pi)
if sqrt(pi) was in A(pi), then it must mean we can write sqrt(pi) as a rational function of pi
then we have that we can express pi as sqrt(pi)^2 -> pi is expressible as the product of two rational functions on pi
ooooh
and yesh the product of two rational functions is a rational function
but...
if sqrt(pi) was in A(pi), then it must mean we can write sqrt(pi) as a rational function of pi
is that true? A(pi) contains all elts that are roots of rational functions as well
eg root2
so 2 thing to note
we are thinking of rational functions with coefficients in A, but always evaluated at pi
so pi itself is a "rational function" here
and so is, say, 1/pi
A(pi), since pi is transcendental, turns into the rational functions with coefficients in A evaluated at pi
or is isomoprhic to it
i was going somewhere with this but i fear it's wrong now
I’m confused now
i was going to say we can think of this product of rational functions, say
p(pi) * q(pi)
as an element of R
I thought A(pi) was the field extension of A with pi
it's the smallest field containing every element of A and pi
And A[pi] are polynomials with coefficients from A of pi
Should this be for A[pi]
no
Hello!
Ok then I don’t understand what is happening
when x is not algebraic over F, F(x) is different from F[x]
and F(x) can be understood to be the rational functions with variable x
Well pi is not algebraic over A right?
I thought field extensions are always fields
they are
F[pi] is not a field extension
the polynomials of pi with coefficients in A is not a field specifically
Fuck
() is field extensions
Ok

Right
Wait this is talking about A[pi] isn’t it?
Coefficient in A evaluated at pi?
so
(\mathbb{A}(\pi) \simeq \left{ \frac{p(\pi)}{q(\pi)}\ \middle\vert\ p(x),q(x) \in A[x], q(x)\ne 0\right})
so the usual rational functions you know
but we restrict the coefficients to just be inthe algebraic numbers
and then we always evaluate at pi
maximofs
ok that's all the editing im doing haha sorry
!help
Please read #❓how-to-get-help
hi please get your own channel we're talking here
!help
Please read #❓how-to-get-help
do you see the big bold letters
hayley shut up
anyway, where i was going with the whole "pi is the product of two rational functions" is moot i think
maybe there is something there but i can't see it right now
we would have p(pi)^2/q(pi)^2 = pi
i've been reading about something called the resultant and it's tough to say but it's a way of combining two polynomials into one that shares the common roots
i'm not saying i've managed to understand the resultant to be clear
let me throw out there
p(pi)^2 - pi * q(pi)^2 = 0
which is a polynomial with coefficients in A[pi] which we may be able to work with
are you suggesting this may help us here
i have no idea what a resultant is
also frosst im sorry im hijacking this channel
Is this how field extensions work in general?
No it’s completely fine I’m attempting to understand what’s happening and that’s completely fine by me
well it turns out to be isomorphic to that, and when you extend by an algebraic element i believe that field i wrote above just turns into the polynomials
you essentially multiply by conjugates
until the denominator goes back to an element in the original field
What do you mean by being algebraic over a field
ah
like
it is the solution to some polynomial with coefficients in that field
like i is algebraic over Q
because it is a solution to x^2 + 1 = 0
Ah
So pi is not algebraic in A
right
"transcendental," if not otherwise specified, usually means "not algebraic over Q"
in general it's just "not algebraic over the field you're working on"
yep
so when you start with q and extend by an algebraic element it's like somewhat interesting
and there's a lot of theory (see: galois) about it
but it gets really tricky when you extend by a transcendental element like we are doing now
right
if not otherwise specified it means over Q
but you'll notice since A is the algebraic closure of Q
But if you’re not algebraic over A then you aren’t over Q either
they kind of mean the same thing
maybe i should take that back
we usually mean over Q, but yeah if you're not algebraic over A then def not algebraic over Q
trying to figure out how to gain any information about p(pi) from p(rootpi) or vice versa
im mainly playing with this right now
no worries frosst
i've read through the whole channel and i'm now kind of lost
what's the question?
So I’m not often on my phone (I shouldn’t be at all hehe)
is sqrt(pi) in A(pi)
where A is the algebraic numbers, and A(pi) is the field extension containing pi
also since this has stretched out pretty far, im thinking of making a very tiny writeup about this if thats ok with everyone involved
yes pls
just for like a blog of mine
suppose it is, then it's p(pi)/q(pi) for some nonzero p,q with coefficients in A, and p(pi)^2/q(pi)^2 - pi = 0, therefore p(pi)^2 - pi*q(pi)^2 = 0, therefore pi is algebraic over A, and i think that's false (although i don't remember the proof)
don't mention the fact that I confused A(pi) and A[pi] for like ten minutes
By what we just discussed pi isn’t algebraic over A
Same
yeah definitely not in A
because like its transcendental haha
so its not in the algebraics lol
That’s wack
ah
therefore p(pi)^2 - piq(pi)^2 = 0, therefore pi is algebraic over A
(my justification for this step is that p(pi)^2 only contains even power of pi and piq(pi)^2 only contains odd powers of pi, and they're both individually not zero)
p(x)^2 - xq(x)^2 = 0
very nice
ok awesome
so we found an extension of A that is not C
very cool
not algebraically closed :(
now we just need to prove the closure of this is C
...oh wait if you just wanted to check that this isn't C then it's way easier than that
A(pi) is countable and C isn't
So the answer is yes
that's too easy
yup
and you can also make it bigger than C itself
which isn't surprising since C also has extensions
wait @median oar i thought you wanted an algebraically closed field that contained A that wasn't C
I did
i thought it was just an extension my bad
oh
hmm
Oh it’s not closed is it
well uh.. this isn't it lol
yeah we did just prove that A(pi) is not algebraically closed
unlucky
if you extend any farther you may need to go to C to be closed
which is like
the original question lol
We just need to stick someone that’s algebraic over A
there isn't anything
Into A()
since A is closed
So then how tf do you get from A to C
not with a finite number of extenders that's for sure
hm so what is the algebraic closure of A(pi)
it looks a lot like Q the more you look at it
A(pi) that is
Well since A looks like Q I’d hope A(pi) does too
it feels like closing A(pi) would be like closing Q in a way
but should be much easier
it's like adding sqrt(2) to Q
hm never mind
i just keep thinking of x^2 - pi = 0 and compare pi to 2
or any prime
i think if you want to describe A(pi) you might first try and describe A itself
Doesn’t it work?
well it's just rational functions right
yeah that was our idea and we proved it
i just keep thinking of x^2 - pi = 0 cause it makes pi look like a sort of prime
none of x^n - pi = 0 have solutions in our field
yeah it's roots of rational (or, equivalently, integer) functions
i mean specifically that A(pi) is rational functions with coefficients in A, evaluated at pi
i don't know if that's what you meant
and that gives us a general descriptor for an element of A(pi)
now i wonder what a closure would look like. for starters we need all roots of pi, and what else?
well you need roots of every polynomial where the coefficients are elements of A(pi)
and i... think that should be enough...?
...well now that we've written the definition, there are only countably many of those polynomials, so the algebraic closure of A(pi) is countable and therefore not C
don't think you'll be able to, I haven't found a bottom up defn of A even
I looked around and A just seemed weird to describe
my question is if we can write this closure as A(pi)(U pi^(1/n))
hm good point
right but here we take the definition of A for granted
So it’s just A but you stick pi onto every element of A
and pi^2
So now there’s 2 sets of it
and pi^-1
and pi^3
Ok now there’s countably infinite copies of A in A
and 1/(pi+1)
just this lol
i would think there's only one copy of A in A
A(pi) is definitely countably infinite though
There’s countably infinite copies of A in A(pi) but it has a bunch of pi’s stuck onto the copies of A
Very rigourous mathematics coming from me today
like A, pi * A, pi^2 * A, etc.
Yes
then yeah sort of
and then we can also do that in the denom
and we can add them
so it gets big, but still only countably big
yeah it's like the direct sum of |N| copies of A
Isn’t it |Q| (I have no idea what I’m saying)
they are equal haha
my point is that you basically have a vector space with basis
(1, x, x^2, x^3, ...)
which you might recognize
i think this connection is a nice one to make
i have realised again that i don't actually know what question we're trying to answer
Rⁿ
Hey that’s a cool n
R^infinity even
Oh
we are just talking at this point
Not finite
So there’s no algebraically closed field between A and C
any new ones or just sqrtpi
there is
Well e wouldn’t be in it either
sqrt(pi) is algebraic over A(pi)
What
oh
are we sure that's true?
it's a root of the polynomial x^2 - pi = 0 which has coefficients in A(pi)
Well unless you know a way to make e from pi I guess
being in A(pi) and being algebraic over A(pi) are distinct because A(pi) is not algebraically closed
Oh
the closure of A(pi) is surely smaller than C
we're not
it is an open problem whether e+pi is rational or not
yeah that's what we were asking, if we can describe it nicely
well chaitin's constant, or any uncomputable number, is not algebraic over A(pi)
because all numbers in the algebraic closure of A(pi) are computable
(chaitin's constant is the probability that a random turing machine halts)
This is what I got from my friend
summed up the whole convo in 2 texts
That’s the pi thing isn’t it
yeah
yeah
Lol ok
there is an algebraic closure of A(pi) and it's countable and a proper superset of A(pi) and a proper subset of C
(I have no idea how this links to diagonalisation of matrices but oh wel)
Guarantee if you ask this in the right advanced channel someone will answer
Someone might just answer with this though
@median oar Has your question been resolved?
Closed by @median oar
Use .reopen if this was a mistake.
Send your question here to claim the channel.
Remember:
• Ask your math question in a clear, concise manner.
• Show your work, and if possible, explain where you are stuck.
• After 15 minutes, feel free to ping <@&286206848099549185>.
• Type the command .close to free the channel when you're done.
• Be polite and have a nice day!
Read #❓how-to-get-help for further information on how to ask a good question, and about conduct in the question channels.
Find the least residues mod m that are invertable for m=5
is it the solution to congruence x $\equiv$ 1 (mod 5) ?
dotdoc.
i see since gcd of m any of its least residue is 1, then its follows they are invertable mod m
@barren portal Has your question been resolved?
@barren portal Has your question been resolved?
Closed due to timeout
Use .reopen if this was a mistake.
Send your question here to claim the channel.
Remember:
• Ask your math question in a clear, concise manner.
• Show your work, and if possible, explain where you are stuck.
• After 15 minutes, feel free to ping <@&286206848099549185>.
• Type the command .close to free the channel when you're done.
• Be polite and have a nice day!
Read #❓how-to-get-help for further information on how to ask a good question, and about conduct in the question channels.
I got a graph here that asks me to find "g(2)" This graph has two lines graphed on it. However, on x=2, the first line ends at y=-1 and the second line begins at y=1. the y=-1 is an "open circle". The circle is not bolded in on the graph. Would this be answered with y=1 or y=-1? Or is this undefined?
show graph
how come? Is it because its positive?
it's because the circle is filled in
I see, so we dont need to worry about the ones not filled in on this kind of question where it just wants to know what y is... got it, thanks!
the open circle means that curve is valid up to but not including that point, while the filled circle means it's valid including that point
so, yes that's right
not including? I see. I was still pondering what it meant haha, thanks for pointing that out
.close
Closed by @cedar dove
Use .reopen if this was a mistake.
Send your question here to claim the channel.
Remember:
• Ask your math question in a clear, concise manner.
• Show your work, and if possible, explain where you are stuck.
• After 15 minutes, feel free to ping <@&286206848099549185>.
• Type the command .close to free the channel when you're done.
• Be polite and have a nice day!
Read #❓how-to-get-help for further information on how to ask a good question, and about conduct in the question channels.
for this question, a person helpfully explained that the (–log_z(y))^2 becomes (–log_z(y))^2 due to x^2 = (-x)^2
would I have to then do anything to the numerator to compensate? I'd imagine not based off of the explanation, but just covering my bases here
nope, $(-\log_z(y))^2 = (\log_z(y))^2$ all on its own, whether it's in a fraction or not
Hayley
indeed, this is really true for any number, $(-A)^2 = (A)^2$ no matter what $A$ is or where it's located in an expression
Hayley
as long as it has that exact form
Closed by @rancid plover
Use .reopen if this was a mistake.
Send your question here to claim the channel.
Remember:
• Ask your math question in a clear, concise manner.
• Show your work, and if possible, explain where you are stuck.
• After 15 minutes, feel free to ping <@&286206848099549185>.
• Type the command .close to free the channel when you're done.
• Be polite and have a nice day!
Read #❓how-to-get-help for further information on how to ask a good question, and about conduct in the question channels.
How do I show $a^{\phi(b)} + b^{\phi(a)} \equiv 1 \pmod{ab}$
\pmod{ab} for (mod ab) btw
dotdoc.
are a and b coprime here ? @barren portal
yes
chinese remainder theorem seems like a good idea here then
dotdoc.
These two beings the equations for the system, according to CRT , it has a solution mod ab, when (a,b)=1 right?
alright
what can you say about a^phi(b) + b^phi(a) then
(looking mod a and mod b ofc)
oh it satifies both
since , mod a, other one will b term vanish
and for mod b, a will vanish ?
yeah so it's 1 mod a, 1 mod b
@vale crag
uh yeah ?
im sorry i didnt get the answer
crt says there is a solution in ab right?
but i dont see any x's in here as in congruence equation
i see this satifies both mod and mod b
but how this helps to write congruent to 1 mod ab?
well do the usual thing
(which is pretty much going back in the proof of CRT)
a and b are coprime so there are bezout coefficients s and t such that as+bt = 1
$x \equiv a^{\phi(b)} + b^{\phi(a)} \pmod{ab}$
dotdoc.
i don't see where you're going here
tbh this is where i am, i saw it as two equations
not sure where to lead
we have a number $x$, which satisfies $$\begin{cases}x\equiv 1\pmod{a} \ x\equiv 1\pmod{b} \end{cases}$$
_aplatypus
okkie
(and this x is in fact a^phi(b) + b^phi(a) but we don't really care tbh)
alright
so here we have the perfect setup for CRT right
sure, do you remember how to compute that solution though ?
like say a=2, b=3, are you able to do it ?
let M=6, M1= 3, M2=2
then I'll solve inverses to multiply
so that taking modulo only those are left and other vanish
where ai are the solutions of each, yi, inverses, Mi, M/mi , where M is the product of modulii
yeah that's the idea
I just think it's a bit of pain to use the full computational formula here
that's why I was talking about the bézout coefficients earlier
it's pretty much the same thing (you're computing the modular inverses yada yada)
sure
works much better in this context though
sure
as+bt = 1, so as=0 mod a & as = 1 mod b
bt=1 mod a & bt = 0 mod b
as and bt you have to see those as your M_iy_i from your pic
can you construct a number which is 1 mod a and 1 mod b from as and bt then ?
as+bt=1, if (a,b)=1
yup as+bt is 1 mod a, 1 mod b here
bezouts identity
turns out as+bt is straight up 1 from bézout's identity tho
yes
therefore 1 is your unique solution (mod ab)
yes
I see
so you constructed the x using CRT, and verified that whenever (a,b)=1, there exist bezouts co-efficient such that as+bt=1
and clearly this satisfies both equations
which means the system must have 1 as it’s solution
well you know from CRT there's a unique solution mod ab, and you find it using that bézout stuff (which is almost the same thing as the computational formula you have, it's just easier to work directly with bezout here)
@barren portal Has your question been resolved?
Closed by @barren portal
Use .reopen if this was a mistake.
Send your question here to claim the channel.
Remember:
• Ask your math question in a clear, concise manner.
• Show your work, and if possible, explain where you are stuck.
• After 15 minutes, feel free to ping <@&286206848099549185>.
• Type the command .close to free the channel when you're done.
• Be polite and have a nice day!
Read #❓how-to-get-help for further information on how to ask a good question, and about conduct in the question channels.
I need help with some homework about factorising quadratic equations, this is where im at currently but I cant find anything that would go into the second bracket that matches the first bracket
H) 15a^2 - 14a - 8
15 x 8 = 120
1 120
2 60
3 40
4 30
5 24
6 20
8 15
10 12
6 - 20 = -14
15a^2 - 20a + 6a - 8
3a(5a - 5) + ()
you didn't factorise the first two terms properly
oh really
3a(5a - 5) is 15a^2 - 15a
not 15a^2 - 20a
I dont understand, isnt it 5^2 - 5 which would be 20? or have I got it all wrong
no clue lol
the goal is to factorise / manipulate to get something equivalent
15a^2 - 20a
can you identify the factor common in both
15a^2
and 20a
5?
would it be 3 times?
try and show me what you get
3 isn't a factor of 20
right
5 is a common factor,
OH
5 * what? = 15a^2
I think I get it
45?
no
3
no
damn
none of those have any a in it
no
ok
stop guessing
can you tell me the answer to this, I might understand it more then
if you want to factor 5 out of $15a^2 - 20a$ consider:
$$15a^2 - 20a = 5 \cdot \br{\red{\frac{15a^2 - 20a}{5}}}$$
and then simplify the part in red
ℝamonov
Man I never had to do any of this for my other questions and now im all confused lol, if its ok can you tell me if this is right?
10x^2 + 19x + 7
10 * 7 = 70
1 70
2 35
5 14
10x^2 + 5x + 14x + 7
5x(2x + 1) + 7(2x + 1)
(5x + 7)(2x + 1)
yes
ok good
i attempted to heavily break down the steps as you were making mistakes before
whether it be from mistakes in calculation or misunderstanding of factorisation itself
Closed by @shy sluice
Use .reopen if this was a mistake.
thank you!
Send your question here to claim the channel.
Remember:
• Ask your math question in a clear, concise manner.
• Show your work, and if possible, explain where you are stuck.
• After 15 minutes, feel free to ping <@&286206848099549185>.
• Type the command .close to free the channel when you're done.
• Be polite and have a nice day!
Read #❓how-to-get-help for further information on how to ask a good question, and about conduct in the question channels.
what value can $ab$ /times $cd$ get
if a,b,c and d are different from each other and ≠ 0
209
299
306
326
360
ajax4074
are a,b,c,d supposed to be digits?
and ab, cd are the numbers formed by writing them next to each other?
that's the only thing that makes sense to me
yeah same. still have to ask
yes
i'll write it wait a second
it says this basically
i think it should be simple but i cant write it like how we can when subtracting and adding
wair can i still say that
i'll show
like here
ah yes yes ofc i forgot to mention that my bad
I would probably just try to play around a bit with the values
can a be 1? what would c have to be for ab*cd to be somewhere around 200-300
what if a=2
and so on
wouldn't that be a little long of an approach to this when we have options?
but okay
ah wait you said 300 bc of the options
the options will guide your choices
you could also do it from the other direction and factor all of the choices and try to play around with the factors you get
either way, it will involve playing around a bit
yeah i tried 360
but i didnt factorize it directly
since 60*60=360
i tried changing them and opening those 60's up
but i got overwhelmed with the amount of options we can rewrite it
as
60*60=3600
oh shit
yeah 360 has a lot of factors so for that its not as nice
hm yes i see
well i tried going on with 20 for ab and 21 again for (ab)
but i think i'm missing something
or do i really need to go on with 22 23 and so on
oh wait not 22
but you see what i mean i guess
this is what im trying right now
what i mean is that i've now eliminated 306 and 326 since i cant get them with 21 but i dont think thats right?
ah am i not supposed to eliminate in the first place maybe...?
but to just find one of values given
i would look at the last digit first
as in last of ab (b) ?
as in last of the product
or the options' last?
the options' last digits ye
there are some useful properties that will let you eliminate a lot of choices for a b c d
oh no 9*1 as well
more than that
are you saying that for 9??
yes
no it couldn't be 0
oh shit what am i saying
yeah yeah ofc
ooohhhh now i see
it could also be _9
i think there's only one more possibility
now what times what gives _9...
oh but that possibility is excluded by another constraint
you should still find it though
different from what i am saying right now?
there's only one pair of one digit numbers that multiplies to _9
how is it 1 pair
go through the options for what _9 could be. 9, 19, 29, ...
or just multiply all single digit numbers
okay... when i said _9 i meant non 0 in front
oooohh
there is no 19 29
butt
but ahah
39 can be= 13*3
hm it has the same digits tho
has two same digits*
keep going
not 49
why not
i tried factorizing it
am i not supposed to
factoring*
wait let me see
well its not in _3*3 form
so
_9*1
you are supposed to factorize
hm but i get a prime- ooohhh
no not ooh i dont see actually
i dont see what im missing
7*7
...
god damn it
7 is prime as well
i was trying 3
okay
but umm what are we doign rn?
bc we need 2 digits right?
2 2 digits in fact
this type of question rewards quick mental math and being familiar with small multiplications. you should work on that if you are gonna run into questions like this
we were checking what options we had for b and d
could someone help me with this equation.I always found it hard to get my head around
so now you know that one of b and d is 9 and the other is 1
read #❓how-to-get-help
is it 6?
sorry i got distracted
yep
dont encourage someone intruding your channel
yes (b,d)=(9,1) or (1,9)
i2ll try replacing
so either ab=21 or ab=29. it should be easy to list the multiples of that
see if any of them are one of the options
hmm yeah seems logical
why is everyone here ..
read #❓how-to-get-help dont write here i own this channel rn
i eliminated 209 so far
and i got 399 by 21*19
which isnt one of the options but now i see the max limit i guess
also it cant end with 6 if i'm not miscalculating anything
well no it can
but only 336
which is not one of the options
Because they think the picture in #❓how-to-get-help is literally telling them.to go to help-0 
it cant end with 0 either.
well we started with assuming that the product will end in 9
oh yeahh
for ending in 6 or 0 you would have other options for b, d
299 then
oh
so i need to see if i can really write 21*_9= 199
which i cant ?
this is the kind of things you can think about
a cant be = 3 but the answers can though now that i've tried
29*11=349 for example
i think from what you've shown
i need to try the same for the ones ending with 6
right?
as x6*y1 = _ 6
and
x3*y2
yes just continue like this
well for 6 and 0 there will be more options for b and d
and the other way around does that count?
but you will get faster along the way
actually it will be nicer to factor these other numbers
just checked
maybe you can try that afterwards
oh okay okay
try both approaches
they both have upsides and downsides
anyway, gtg
good luck
thanks
i think i can get it so im closing it here
thank you for your time and effort
.close
Closed by @south crystal
Use .reopen if this was a mistake.
Send your question here to claim the channel.
Remember:
• Ask your math question in a clear, concise manner.
• Show your work, and if possible, explain where you are stuck.
• After 15 minutes, feel free to ping <@&286206848099549185>.
• Type the command .close to free the channel when you're done.
• Be polite and have a nice day!
Read #❓how-to-get-help for further information on how to ask a good question, and about conduct in the question channels.
um i need algebra help
rlly bad

ok so
im doing this aops shit online shit
and im on unit 5 of 13
and i need it done by tmr
show t he specific question
what that even mean
im done w this bru if somebody can finish all of these units today ill pay them 20 bucks
swear
u gonna get banned before that tho
We're not here to do your work
damn
wait huh
anyways can yall help me w the question
please
ofc
thanks bro
!status
What step are you on?
1. I don't know where to begin
2. I have begun but got stuck midway
3. I got an answer but I'm told it's wrong
4. I got an answer and would like my work checked
5. I have a question about someone else's worked solution
6. None of the above
3
Show your work, and if possible, explain where you are stuck.
well showing ur work would help
we could tell u wehre u went wrong if u alreadygot the concept down
see i dont tho
thats the problem lol
im jus tryna speed past this class so i can take the geometry course which starts tmr and then the algebra 2 course that starts september
how'd you get an answer without the work
he dont got the concept down ig
show your work
its in latex is that fine
as long as we can read it
bet
First, let's rewrite the system of equations:
$\frac{3xy}{x + y} = 5$
$\frac{2xz}{x + z} = 3$
$\frac{yz}{y + z} = 4$
To eliminate the fractions, we can cross-multiply each equation.
$3xy = 5(x + y)$
$2xz = 3(x + z)$
$yz = 4(y + z)$
Now, let's solve the system by manipulating these equations.
From equation 1, we have:
$3xy = 5x + 5y$
Rearranging terms, we get:
$3xy - 5x - 5y = 0$
Factoring out common terms, we have:
$x(3y - 5) - 5y = 0$
Simplifying, we get:
$x(3y - 5) = 5y$
From equation 2, we have:
$2xz = 3x + 3z$
Rearranging terms, we get:
$2xz - 3x - 3z = 0$
Factoring out common terms, we have:
$x(2z - 3) - 3z = 0$
Simplifying, we get:
$x(2z - 3) = 3z$
From equation 3, we have:
$yz = 4y + 4z$
Rearranging terms, we get:
$yz - 4y - 4z = 0$
Factoring out common terms, we have:
$y(z - 4) - 4z = 0$
Simplifying, we get:
$y(z - 4) = 4z$
Now, let's eliminate the variable $x$ from equations 1 and 2.
We can do this by multiplying equation 1 by $(2z - 3)$ and multiplying equation 2 by $(3y - 5)$:
$(2z - 3)(3xy - 5x - 5y) = (2z - 3)(0)$
$(3y - 5)(2xz - 3x - 3z) = (3y - 5)(0)$
Expanding the products, we get:
$6xyz - 10xz - 10yz + 15x + 15y = 0$
$6xyz - 9xy - 9xz - 15yz + 10x + 10z = 0$
Now, let's combine like terms:
$6xyz - 10xz - 10yz + 15x + 15y = 6xyz - 9xy - 9xz - 15yz + 10x + 10z$
Subtracting the right side from the left side, we get:
$15x + 15y - 6xyz + 9xy + 9xz + 15yz - 10x - 10z = 0$
Combining like terms, we have:
$5x + 5y - 6xyz + 9xy + 9xz + 15yz - 10z = 0$
Rearranging terms, we get:
$5x + 5y + 9xy + 9xz + 15yz - 6xyz - 10z = 0$
Now, let's isolate $z$ in this equation:
$-6xyz + 9xz + 15yz - 10z = -5x - 5y - 9xy$
Factoring out $z$ on the left side, we have:
$z(-6xy + 9x + 15y - 10) = -5x - 5y - 9xy$
Now, we can divide both sides by $-6xy + 9x + 15y - 10$ to solve for $z$:
$z = \frac{-5x - 5y - 9xy}{-6xy + 9x + 15y - 10}$
Therefore, the value of $z$ in the ordered triple solution $(x, y, z)$ is $\frac{-5x - 5y - 9xy}{-6xy + 9x + 15y - 10}$.
gnawszn
That is a chatgpt answer, isn't it?
fax
You know chatgpt is wrong a lot, right?
yea
you also know gpt generated answers not allowed in this server, right? (especially unmarked)
Then you should have read #❓how-to-get-help and #rules properly
then the rules should be fresh on your mind, seeing as you read them when you joined...
and don't attempt to pass other entities' solutions as your own
You can be helped, if you properly follow the rules
alr cuddis ill come back when i got sumn legit
could've saved some time if you just said the solution you obtained was from gpt at which point we would've said DON'T use chatgpt for math
do you have an attempt you made youreself?
help is a two way street
requires some genuine effort on your part
Closed by @tepid radish
Use .reopen if this was a mistake.
Send your question here to claim the channel.
Remember:
• Ask your math question in a clear, concise manner.
• Show your work, and if possible, explain where you are stuck.
• After 15 minutes, feel free to ping <@&286206848099549185>.
• Type the command .close to free the channel when you're done.
• Be polite and have a nice day!
Read #❓how-to-get-help for further information on how to ask a good question, and about conduct in the question channels.
How to change the green and orange formulas, so the blue marked intersection point (b) is at 0 on the y axis? 
and that'll give you an indication of what to do
I looked it up, but i have no idea how to do that with my formula, they give way simpler examples. 
Am i entering it wrong? (Symbolab)
may have misunderstood what you wanted
do you want your region to go from
0 to 2
or 0 to 4
What does that mean? 😅
Yes! :D
so yeh,
what were you looking at when i told you to look up graph transformations
A youtube video.
So the green graph i think is: 1-(b*x^d)/c^d
How to shift that? 🥹
@gray isle I dont really get the picture. :/
well you're tryng to move your curves to the right?
that would be under horizontal translation right c units
how many units do you want to shift your curve to the right?
the c in that table is not the same as the c you already had defined
that would be under
horizontal translation right cunits
how many units do you want to shift your curve to the right?
Really? What else is it, as it somehow works. :o
concidence
So it it right or wrong?
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/dimhl1n1cz?lang=de
the amount you wanted to translate just happened to be the same as the value of c you already had
wherever that came from
🥳 🎉 🍾 Thank you!
How do do the rep points thingy? Is it the medal or something else?
no rep system here
.close
Closed by @smoky arch
Use .reopen if this was a mistake.
Send your question here to claim the channel.
Remember:
• Ask your math question in a clear, concise manner.
• Show your work, and if possible, explain where you are stuck.
• After 15 minutes, feel free to ping <@&286206848099549185>.
• Type the command .close to free the channel when you're done.
• Be polite and have a nice day!
Read #❓how-to-get-help for further information on how to ask a good question, and about conduct in the question channels.
Suppose a lottery exists in which your luck increases as you play. The probability of winning a prize starts at 1%. After every unsuccessful attempt, the probability of winning increases by 1% from your previous odds (so 1% becomes 2%). When a prize is won, the chance of winning is reset to 1%. What is the expected value of the number of prizes that you will receive after 100 uses?
We have tried recurrence formulas but failed to get a closed form answer.
Via python scripts we know that the answer is 1.9095 ± 0.00015
but not exactly sure what this resembles
Hi guys
Show your work, and if possible, explain where you are stuck.
.?
incorrect sorry
8.1918
Hopefully some @ Helpers can help?
@mossy field Has your question been resolved?
this bots needs to be better seriously
i tried computing it by brute force (using a computer) and got an answer of exactly 786080126403229668198182908097394362384354574898764667238115242755521947164335122692038436352382356040222738777625219891364911130702970910977870565447613758476042568092806020045109899810694869084004791/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
(that's about 7.86)
i have no idea how to derive a nice recurrence for this
@mossy field Has your question been resolved?
Hi, I have an exercise problem, that I would like someone to verify. This is about conditional expectations.
This is my work.
uh ok
.close
Closed by @mossy field
Use .reopen if this was a mistake.
✅
@mossy field have u seen what Erric and I wrote earlier, we were kinda onto something but not sure
what was said though
given that the answer is exactly 7.86080126403229668198182908097394362384354574898764667238115242755521947164335122692038436352382356040222738777625219891364911130702970910977870565447613758476042568092806020045109899810694869084004791 I'll say the question is solved. 🙂 this is likely not something specific.
This was our chat:
Firstly I tried the expectation formula but it gave me a completely unrealistic answer, but after some time I chose to approach the problem in a more simple way, without complicated formulas. So to calculate the chances of winning, I adopted a fractional perspective instead of considering percentages alone. By viewing 1% as 1/100, I added up the fractions: 1/100 + 2/100 + 3/100... + 14/100, which yielded a sum of 105/100. Based on this calculation, my probability of winning appears to exceed 100%. To determine the number of times this outcome would occur within 100 attempts, I divided 100 by 14. This calculation assumes that winning is expected in every 100% and that the percentages reset to 1% after each victory. It should in theory not be possible for the chance to exceed 100% but you get the gist of it. Im not sure if this makes sense, but my answer somehow ended up being pretty close to Hayley’s program
no this does make sense
since we are dealing with expectation
the only problem is, 14 is too high using the formula for the sum of the first n numbers you get 13.65
but we dont need a sum of 105/100
Ik, but u also cant get 7.8 wins thats where the problem lies
Either u win or u dont, cant be somewhere in between
On average it can be 7.8 but not if you only spin 100 times once
its expectation though
expectation definition is a weighted average
here's my code ```py
from fractions import Fraction as F
probs = {}
def raw_prob(winnings, luck, n):
if n == 0:
return F(winnings == 0 and luck == 1)
if luck == 1:
if winnings == 0:
return F(0)
return sum(prob(winnings-1, i, n-1)*F(i, 100) for i in range(1, 101))
return prob(winnings, luck-1, n-1) * (1-F(luck-1, 100))
def prob(winnings, luck, n):
if (winnings, luck, n) in probs:
return probs[winnings, luck, n]
probs[winnings, luck, n] = raw_prob(winnings, luck, n)
return probs[winnings, luck, n]
print(sum(n*sum(prob(n, i, 100) for i in range(101)) for n in range(101)))```
I'm gonna assume 7 is roughly correct and not 70
I definitely also think the answer is somewhere in the vicinity of 7 or 8
time for bug shooting
i got this:
8.272762261358117021221262743023522568438947036096886968992420305991112859521374678798456200358718664479445474886907388314467437407815104544672135616700214435254905728799469000716373294105484261117746
def cache(function):
cache = {}
def f(*args):
if args in cache: return cache[args]
result = function(*args)
cache[args] = result
return result
return f
@cache
def wins_average(turns_completed=0, probability=1):
if turns_completed == 100: return 0
return probability * (1 + wins_average(turns_completed+1)) + \
(100-probability) * wins_average(turns_completed+1, probability+1)
print(wins_average())
@lament forge
Im posting the problem on math.stackexchange
link
Closed by @mossy field
Use .reopen if this was a mistake.
.reopen
✅
wins_average(98) gives 200 when the correct answer is 299 (1% chance you get it on the first try, 2% chance you get it on the second try, is roughly a total of 3%)
the issue is that your 1 + counts more if it's further on because it will get multiplied by more copies of 100, which isn't correct
i'd suggest using fractions instead of trying to write it directly in integer arithmetic
(fractions is rationals implemented using integers so they are exact)
(i'm going to go now but i'll hopefully be back in somewhere between 10 and 20 minutes)
After fixing I also get 7.86080126403229668198182908097394362384354574898764667238115242755521947164335122692038436352382356040222738777625219891364911130702970910977870565447613758476042568092806020045109899810694869084004791
def cache(function):
cache = {}
def f(*args):
if args in cache: return cache[args]
result = function(*args)
cache[args] = result
return result
return f
@cache
def wins_average(turns_completed=0, probability=1):
if turns_completed == 100: return 0
return probability * (100**(100-turns_completed) + \
wins_average(turns_completed+1)) + \
(100-probability) * wins_average(turns_completed+1, probability+1)
print(wins_average())
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4733301/fair-lottery-suppose-a-lottery-exists-in-which-your-luck-increases-as-you-pla let me know if you have any suggestions, i rarely use stackexchange
Ill gladly edit it
ok sure
Edit out "fair", there's nothing fair about it lol
also i would suggest not writing 8.1918 ± 0.00015, maybe my script has a problem
instead give the current exact estimate we have @craggy cradle
Lottery in which your luck increases per turn but resets once you win
ok sure
i don't think they are
i tried the computation they came up with and it gives an answer of 1058791184067875423835403125849552452564239501953125000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000/129277986730885202106151856642773382549665465071825090615034369359178917814747670780594211447306244001059786961886915926297133393516168977984471526892507817 which is around 8.19 and not the same as the two scripts



