Snake eats four golf balls
1 Attachment(s)
http://www.smh.com.au/news/unusualt...949879965.html
Quote:


My condolences to Joe and his fam. I hope he fully recovers.

Quote:

Quote:
This equation was not properly calculated. In step 3, the author chose to shift the numbers around and factor them by reversing the distributive property. Combining like terms would've been the proper means of solving the equation. If he had properly combined like terms, he would've ended up right back at "a+b=c". Therefore, step 3 was pretty much pulled out of nowhere, invalidating the rest of the equation. BUT, let's say he didn't screw up in step 3. Given the answer that the author received, the answer to this equation would be expressed as "4≠3," making the statement true and the equation solved. I hate college algebra, but I've seen quite a bit of it this past year. 
Why didn't they let the grotesque creature and his poor eating habits die??:confused:I hate all snakes especially really large ones!:p

Actually, step 3 is fine, the distributive property was used correctly.
The problem is that between 3 and 4 you divide both sides by (a + b  c) which, according to the initial equation, is 0. You can't divide by 0. 
Quote:
Go to http://www.algebrahelp.com/calculators/equation/ and run the equation from step 2 and you'll see what I mean. Improper calculation = invalid outcome! 
yeah, I like this one though. As JP says...
if a+b=c then (a+bc) = 0 So in the last step you are actually saying x divided by zero equals y divided by zero: 3/(a+bc)=4/(a+bc) or 3/0=4/0 heh, tricky 
Quote:
(a+bc) would equal zero. That, I can agree with, but if you are to add a 3 to one side of the equation, you must add a 3 to the other in order to keep the equation balanced, getting (3/0=3/0). This, in fact, would be a mathematical impossibility because, as Joe said, you can't divide by zero. However, discussing division is a side issue anyway, because no division took place in this equation nor should it have. So let's see where the author started. He started with this, (a+b=c), which equals zero when you rearrange it as (a+bc=0). Now, if you wanted to distribute 3 and 4 across (a+bc), you can NOT put 3 on one side and 4 on the other as the author did. This imbalances the equation so no wonder he got such an impossible outcome. When you add an element to an equation, you have to add equally to BOTH sides of the equation in order to keep it balanced, getting this (3*4(a+bc)=3*4(0)). If (a+bc) equals zero, then while following proper order of operations, this would work down to (0=0), a perfectly acceptable outcome. 
All times are GMT 5. The time now is 04:54 PM. 
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000  2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
2008 Shreveport.com