Nailgun
Cole World
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2014
- Messages
- 2,193
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2016
If you're that bored, go finish my question on the 2U marathon.Was bored
I've tried it so many times lelelIf you're that bored, go finish my question on the 2U marathon.
I did suggest the use of Simpson's Rule. Try that.I've tried it so many times lelel
I always end up with pronumerals in the ratio rather than just 4/3
That's what I was using lelI did suggest the use of Simpson's Rule. Try that.
Pretty sure the area of the triangle has 4, not 8.That's what I was using lel
btw was the triangle area correct?
it almost cancels out perfectly to 4/3 so i think ive made a mistake somewhere
The question is obviously trivial
Obviously I can tell how they got their answer. But would there be any reason as to mine being incorrect here and do I have to give my answer the same way they did?
To add to the discussion:
The question is obviously trivial
Obviously I can tell how they got their answer. But would there be any reason as to mine being incorrect here and do I have to give my answer the same way they did?
Yea problem, we haven't. So I wouldn't have been able to spot that lambda=-2 gives two contradictions just by looking at the matrixWhen lambda=-2, the bottom two rows will give you contradictory expressions for z.
Not sure if you have learned about determinants yet, but they give you a v. quick way of determining when a matrix is invertible (ie when Ax=y has a unique solution). This reduces such problems to checking the isolated values of lambda that make A singular to check whether the resulting systems have no solutions or infinitely many.
Don't need to know about determinants for this. Sub. lambda = -2, then equation 2 (row 2) says that -z = 1, whilst row 3 says that -12z = 3, a contradiction.Yea problem, we haven't. So I wouldn't have been able to spot that lambda=-2 gives two contradictions just by looking at the matrix
Yea but I wouldn't have seen that just by staring at my matrixDon't need to know about determinants for this. Sub. lambda = -2, then equation 2 (row 2) says that -z = 1, whilst row 3 says that -12z = 3, a contradiction.
What do you mean? Plug. in lambda = 2 to the matrix you posted. Then interpret the rows as equations as usual.Yea but I wouldn't have seen that just by staring at my matrix
Because then the denominator of the RHS would be 0, and we can't divide by 0.quick question:
for 1/|x-1| > 1/|x+1|
I got the answer as x>0 and x≠1 or x≠-1
but the answer is just x>0 and x≠1
why can x=-1?