Any bored math people on? - DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate

**Cemeuncex** · 04-05-2011, 12:51 PM

I have to reduce this long string of algebra and I want to compare my answer to yours, it is so long and tedious that it is error-prone. But for those of you that enjoy this, be my guest:

$\\Q_1=\frac{a-\frac{\lambda_1}{2}}{3b} \\\\Q_2=\frac{a-2\lambda_1}{3b} \\\\TR_1=aQ_1-bQ_1^2-bQ_1Q_2 \\\\TR_2=aQ_2-bQ_1Q_2-bQ_2^2$

Reduce TR1 and TR2... then, if you are really, really bored, continue:

$\\TC_1=\frac{a\lambda_1-.5\lambda^2_1}{3b} \\\\TC_2=\frac{1.5a\lambda_1-3\lambda^2_1}{3b} \\\\P_1=TR_1-TC_1 \\\\P_2=TR_2-TC_2$

What a pain in the ass! I will post my results once I am done!

**9mm_fan** · 04-05-2011, 01:05 PM

Dude, you are asking on FM where the majority of people couldn't solve 6/2(1+2)?

**AnetTeilor** · 04-05-2011, 02:39 PM

I am so glad I chose a major that didn't require math.
[yes]

**Cemeuncex** · 04-05-2011, 03:00 PM

$\\\pi_1=TR_1-TC_1=\frac{(2a - \lambda_1)^2}{36b}=\frac{(150 - \lambda_1)^2}{72} \\\\\pi_2=TR_2-TC_2=\frac{(a - 2\lambda_1)^2}{9b}=\frac{(75 - 2\lambda_1)^2}{18}$

a=75; b=2

**fotodemujerahldesnugdo** · 04-05-2011, 03:12 PM

Good thing I'm not bored

I've got one for you too:

Consider these numbers:

0 1 2 720!

What's the next one?

(answering this question got me dsl at home back in the days

)

**blohannaserri** · 04-05-2011, 04:25 PM

(24!)!

?

**pfcwlkxav** · 04-05-2011, 04:52 PM

Dude, you are asking on FM where the majority of people couldn't solve 6/2(1+2)?

Why don't you answer the question if you're so clever big man.

**Alina20100** · 04-05-2011, 05:05 PM

Why don't you answer the question if you're so clever big man.

You have to be clever to solve 6/2(1+2)?

**pfcwlkxav** · 04-05-2011, 05:11 PM

You have to be clever to solve 6/2(1+2)?

Not starting that discussion here. EaG is just being an arrogant prick in a thread that is way out of his depth.

**prpaims** · 04-05-2011, 06:52 PM

i sux at math

have u tried asking Wolfram|Alpha?

anyway, don't mind EaG, he's just a 4yr old

sure he'll be 5 this dec but he's still a retarded kid

**Cemeuncex** · 04-05-2011, 07:29 PM

Yes guys, thanks for all of your help.

YCH, it is 42... do you not understand black and white or something?

**engacenus** · 04-05-2011, 07:40 PM

$\\\pi_1=TR_1-TC_1=\frac{(2a - \lambda_1)^2}{36b}=\frac{(150 - \lambda_1)^2}{72} \\\\\pi_2=TR_2-TC_2=\frac{(a - 2\lambda_1)^2}{9b}=\frac{(75 - 2\lambda_1)^2}{18}$

a=75; b=2

That LaTeX site is brilliant! If only that existed when I needed it for short equations.

I agree your answers, didn't at first because when I did Q1.Q2 I put (-)lambda^2 instead of (+)lambda^2.

**engacenus** · 04-05-2011, 07:53 PM

(24!)!

?

You need another factorial. It's n with n factorials.

**9mm_fan** · 04-05-2011, 10:45 PM

Not starting that discussion here. EaG is just being an arrogant prick in a thread that is way out of his depth.

I never claim to know how to solve these problems (though I could if I want to put the effort in to it). My simple claim was that most people on FM lacked basic math skills and Will is asking these people much more complicated questions. I mean we have indistinguishable proof of such being the case, why do you argue against it? Were you one of them who got that simple problem wrong?

**blohannaserri** · 05-05-2011, 03:33 PM

Yes guys, thanks for all of your help.

YCH, it is 42... do you not understand black and white or something?

FULOL

You need another factorial. It's n with n factorials.

Aw, turns out 0! = 1

For some reason I always thought 0! = 0, hence my use of n!!! as the solution. Oh well at least I was basically on the right track.

**fotodemujerahldesnugdo** · 05-05-2011, 10:33 PM

You need another factorial. It's n with n factorials.

We have a winner

Nice try though YCH

04-05-2011, 12:51 PM	#1
Cemeuncex Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 407 Senior Member	Any bored math people on? I have to reduce this long string of algebra and I want to compare my answer to yours, it is so long and tedious that it is error-prone. But for those of you that enjoy this, be my guest: $\\Q_1=\frac{a-\frac{\lambda_1}{2}}{3b} \\\\Q_2=\frac{a-2\lambda_1}{3b} \\\\TR_1=aQ_1-bQ_1^2-bQ_1Q_2 \\\\TR_2=aQ_2-bQ_1Q_2-bQ_2^2$ Reduce TR1 and TR2... then, if you are really, really bored, continue: $\\TC_1=\frac{a\lambda_1-.5\lambda^2_1}{3b} \\\\TC_2=\frac{1.5a\lambda_1-3\lambda^2_1}{3b} \\\\P_1=TR_1-TC_1 \\\\P_2=TR_2-TC_2$ What a pain in the ass! I will post my results once I am done! Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

04-05-2011, 01:05 PM	#2
9mm_fan Join Date May 2007 Age 54 Posts 5,191 Senior Member	Dude, you are asking on FM where the majority of people couldn't solve 6/2(1+2)? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

04-05-2011, 02:39 PM	#3
AnetTeilor Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 518 Senior Member	I am so glad I chose a major that didn't require math. [yes] Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

04-05-2011, 03:00 PM	#4
Cemeuncex Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 407 Senior Member	$\\\pi_1=TR_1-TC_1=\frac{(2a - \lambda_1)^2}{36b}=\frac{(150 - \lambda_1)^2}{72} \\\\\pi_2=TR_2-TC_2=\frac{(a - 2\lambda_1)^2}{9b}=\frac{(75 - 2\lambda_1)^2}{18}$ a=75; b=2 Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

04-05-2011, 03:12 PM	#5
fotodemujerahldesnugdo Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 462 Senior Member	Good thing I'm not bored I've got one for you too: Consider these numbers: 0 1 2 720! What's the next one? (answering this question got me dsl at home back in the days ) Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

04-05-2011, 04:25 PM	#6
blohannaserri Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 386 Senior Member	(24!)! ? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

04-05-2011, 04:52 PM	#7
pfcwlkxav Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 463 Senior Member	Dude, you are asking on FM where the majority of people couldn't solve 6/2(1+2)? Why don't you answer the question if you're so clever big man. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

04-05-2011, 05:05 PM	#8
Alina20100 Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 568 Senior Member	Why don't you answer the question if you're so clever big man. You have to be clever to solve 6/2(1+2)? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

04-05-2011, 05:11 PM	#9
pfcwlkxav Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 463 Senior Member	You have to be clever to solve 6/2(1+2)? Not starting that discussion here. EaG is just being an arrogant prick in a thread that is way out of his depth. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

04-05-2011, 06:52 PM	#10
prpaims Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 520 Senior Member	i sux at math have u tried asking Wolfram\|Alpha? anyway, don't mind EaG, he's just a 4yr old sure he'll be 5 this dec but he's still a retarded kid Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

04-05-2011, 07:29 PM	#11
Cemeuncex Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 407 Senior Member	Yes guys, thanks for all of your help. YCH, it is 42... do you not understand black and white or something? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

04-05-2011, 07:40 PM	#12
engacenus Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 494 Senior Member	$\\\pi_1=TR_1-TC_1=\frac{(2a - \lambda_1)^2}{36b}=\frac{(150 - \lambda_1)^2}{72} \\\\\pi_2=TR_2-TC_2=\frac{(a - 2\lambda_1)^2}{9b}=\frac{(75 - 2\lambda_1)^2}{18}$ a=75; b=2 That LaTeX site is brilliant! If only that existed when I needed it for short equations. I agree your answers, didn't at first because when I did Q1.Q2 I put (-)lambda^2 instead of (+)lambda^2. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

04-05-2011, 07:53 PM	#13
engacenus Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 494 Senior Member	(24!)! ? You need another factorial. It's n with n factorials. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

04-05-2011, 10:45 PM	#14
9mm_fan Join Date May 2007 Age 54 Posts 5,191 Senior Member	Not starting that discussion here. EaG is just being an arrogant prick in a thread that is way out of his depth. I never claim to know how to solve these problems (though I could if I want to put the effort in to it). My simple claim was that most people on FM lacked basic math skills and Will is asking these people much more complicated questions. I mean we have indistinguishable proof of such being the case, why do you argue against it? Were you one of them who got that simple problem wrong? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

05-05-2011, 03:33 PM	#15
blohannaserri Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 386 Senior Member	Yes guys, thanks for all of your help. YCH, it is 42... do you not understand black and white or something? FULOL You need another factorial. It's n with n factorials. Aw, turns out 0! = 1 For some reason I always thought 0! = 0, hence my use of n!!! as the solution. Oh well at least I was basically on the right track. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

05-05-2011, 10:33 PM	#16
fotodemujerahldesnugdo Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 462 Senior Member	You need another factorial. It's n with n factorials. We have a winner Nice try though YCH Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote