wouldn't it be cool if openstudy was easy to access on iphone?
Cool indeed; also a lot of work. It's in the plan, though! For now, it should be reasonably easy to use, if a bit small. Remember that to scroll the left pane or chat, you can use two fingers (instead of the usual one-finger scroll). Other than that, everything else should work normally, albeit probably a little slowly.
openstudy can be access on iphone but from my experience it is hard to type whenever you start typing you have to type blind because it makes that part of the page go up i have answered some questions iphone but only some because it gets annoying lol but thats cool it is in the works also shadow i know this isn't the math section, but I can show you a proof by uploading it here if you like the proof is on proving the quadratic formula and also you can use the process to factor quadratics
Yeah, the issue with the moving of the page *should* actually be fixed as of the deploy half an hour ago. I haven't double-checked yet, though.
k
Yeah, it's still a bit slow, but it doesn't jump you around anymore.
Hm. Seems odd. The definitions of b and ac in particular seem to come out of nowhere?
oh wait what
Which part? Haha.
out of nowhere?
Well, the definition of b obviously makes sense. But the leap to define ac as \((\frac{b}{2} + z)(\frac{b}{2} - z)\) is unclear to me.
ok the thing is we want to find two factors of a*c that have product a*c and add up to be b
i'm sorry this page did not explain all of that
i seen a pattern based on the pattern i seen i said well we always want b to be in the form b=(b/2+z)+(b/2-z) and we want a*c to be in the form a*c=(b/2+z)(b/2-z) but here we can find what z by solving this equation
but we don't do anything with the a*c after point it is only to determine z
so we replace bx with (b/2+z)x+(b/2-z)x and then factor by grouping
would you like me to show you an example?
if you like you can choose any quadratic you like and i will factor it using this way
i can factor over the complex numbers too so any quadratic you dream about
here is an example i did earlier
The one thing I'm worried about is whether you're already working backwards from the quadratic formula (in which case it's inevitable that you'll end up at the quadratic formula).
Or do you have a formal proof for why b and ac must both be related by z that *doesn't* involve the quadratic formula?
shadow are you still unclear about the a*c part have you ever seen this before 3x^2+5x-2 a=3 b=5 c=2 a*c=3(-2)=-6 we want to find two factors of a*c that add up to be b a*c=-6=6(-1) b=6+(-1) so 3x^2+6x-1x-2 now factor by grouping 3x(x+2)-(x+2) (x+2)(3x-1) so we can also it my way a=3 b=5 c=-2 ---- b=(5/2-z)+(5/2+z) a*c=-6=(5/2-z)(5/2+z)=25/4-z^2 so z^2=25/4+6 so z=sqrt{25/4+6}=sqrt{49}{4}=7/2 so we have b=(5/2-7/2)+(5/2+7/2)=-1+6 so its the same just weirder this trick is only cool because it allowed me to find away to factor over complex numbers
Ah yes, so this is starting off of the concept of completing the square.
Got it. Either way, it's super-cool :)
Some awesome work for sure.
yeah i use that part when i was looking at the pattern i still don't know how it jumped at me to see that
but i remember the addends had to be the same as the factors
it was getting on my nerves that teachers were asking is it possible to factor all quadratics
without using the quadratic formula*
i wonder is this sill called using the quadratic formula since this is own the way to proving the quadratic formula i think it is not i'm sleepy lol
let me know if you have anymore questions don't be shy lol
i wouldnt know; i aint got an iphone .... i got a toyota celica circe 1980 tho
yes
that would be totaly awsome
Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!