irritating math problems

[helping]

If anyone can point out if I'm overlooking something obvious

 

what type of sorcery is being used here to reduce K' so far that you get

 

 

when I can only reproduce

[terrytek]

Is this more calculus? Oh god, maybe I shouldn't take it.

[Snickerzz]

the fuck... i see all these topics about math that looks like it was designed for a rocket scientist while im here going over slope/intercept in junior year ._.

[Jaybird]

If anyone can point out if I'm overlooking something obvious

 

what type of sorcery is being used here to reduce K' so far that you get

 

 

when I can only reproduce

the only thing i remember my prof saying is, "its intuitive." if its so intuitive why the heck am I taking this class!

[helping]

the only thing i remember my prof saying is, "its intuitive." if its so intuitive why the heck am I taking this class!

it might be, but doing it online is the antithesis of intuitive since it's pickier than a pregnant woman about what answers you give

[terrytek]

the fuck... i see all these topics about math that looks like it was designed for a rocket scientist while im here going over slope/intercept in junior year ._.

Slope intercept? That's more algebra/geometry stuff. Aren't you in precalc or statistics? (IDK how math works.)

[helping]

Is this more calculus? Oh god, maybe I shouldn't take it.

what's going on here you learn in first year, it's just I'm missing something in the formatting/simpllification and it's bugging the hell out of me and hoping someone can spot what goes where to make this that.

[Snickerzz]

Slope intercept? That's more algebra/geometry stuff. Aren't you in precalc or statistics? (IDK how math works.)

no lol

9th i took algebra 1

10th geometry

11th algebra 2

 

 

 

no, i did it to

[terrytek]

 

no lol

9th i took algebra 1

10th geometry

11th algebra 2

 

 

no, i did it to

 

Are you like behind or something? I'm taking geometry 9th grade.

[Snickerzz]

Are you like behind or something? I'm taking geometry 9th grade.

nope, its pretty normal

[PC-NOOB]

nope, its pretty normal

 

Wait wtf where Im from its normal to take precalc in 9th

[MegaDave91]

Math truly makes me feel unintelligent (of what intelligence I posses). I hate math with an utmost passion.

[Snickerzz]

Wait wtf where Im from its normal to take precalc in 9th

your in cali, theres three types of people there

The rich

The beautiful

The smart

if you arent in one of the categories your a dead hobo

[terrytek]

nope, its pretty normal

Over here in California. you take Algebra 1 in 8th grade, then geometry in 9th, followed by algebra 2 your sophomore year.

 

Wait wtf where Im from its normal to take precalc in 9th

woah, what? no way that's possible. either that, or the concentration of smart asians are very high in the bay.

[Tea1337]

 

no lol

9th i took algebra 1

10th geometry

11th algebra 2

 

 

 

 

I had the same, but I was placed in College level algebra, it's some rocket-slope-speed-intercept things going on up in here.

[Sonefiler]

 I'm still at Algebra 2/ Trig.

Can't help you here.\

 

EDIT: Since its a discussion here my classes are: Algebra at 7th grade, geometry at 8th grade, Algebra 2 and Trigonomentry at grade 9

 

But I'm skipping a class for I'm at Algebra 2 and Trigonometry

[PC-NOOB]

idk Im too lazy to do this on paper so just use quotient rule

bottom d/dx top - top d/dx bottom / bottom ^2

then just expand and simplify

d/dx e^x = e^x so should be that bad right?

 

Over here in California. you take Algebra 1 in 8th grade, then geometry in 9th, followed by algebra 2 your sophomore year.

 

woah, what? no way that's possible. either that, or the concentration of smart asians are very high in the bay.

 

my school is 60% asian, 30 % Indian (#browntownmasterrace ma fellow brownies), 10 % other (black, hispanic, white)

[EpicGeekonFire]

I've decided to not take calculus. Thanks for helping @helping.

[Enderman]

Did you ask google?

[helping]

I've decided to not take calculus. Thanks for helping @helping.

most people only need 1 and 2, you generally won't see anything like this until beyond that.

 

idk Im too lazy to do this on paper so just use quotient rule

bottom d/dx top - top d/dx bottom / bottom ^2

then just expand and simplify

d/dx e^x = e^x so should be that bad right?

that's exactly what I did, but I still couldn't simplify it to get a similar answer.

and no, you'll learn fast that e^u is a pain to work with in longer equations because they make chaining and simplifying a fucking chore.

[W-L]

If anyone can point out if I'm overlooking something obvious

 

what type of sorcery is being used here to reduce K' so far that you get

 

 

when I can only reproduce

 

 

I'm not sure what your prof/teacher has been teaching you but this is even beyond my university calculus I'm taking. It needs to be broken down in many many smaller steps to be able to solve but it get very confusing very fast due to all the details. Try wolframalpha it works wonders but you'll need the full version if you want the step by step process. 

 

Here's a little hand with this insane problem you have, just try to understand and not copy it all:

(New link should be way better to see, the equation is just written in a different format)

http://imgur.com/KNwG40G

Edited September 18, 2014 by W-L

[PC-NOOB]

most people only need 1 and 2, you generally won't see anything like this until beyond that.

 

that's exactly what I did, but I still couldn't simplify it to get a similar answer.

and no, you'll learn fast that e^u is a pain to work with in longer equations because they make chaining and simplifying a fucking chore.

 

I brought out a sheet of paper and am trying it with a combo of product rule and reciprocal rule instead of quotient. seems to be working so far

[Jvagle875]

it might be, but doing it online is the antithesis of intuitive since it's pickier than a pregnant woman about what answers you give

Online math classes/assignments aren't even fair. Once you start throwing logarithms around, I'm lost.

[PC-NOOB]

WAIT @helping YOU GOT IT!
You were almost there so basically in the left fraction inside the parenthesis multiple by (1+169e^x) on the neumerator and demonitor and then distribute in the numerator, combine both fractions, add like terms on numerator, factor out e^x and voila

[helping]

WAIT @helping YOU GOT IT!

You were almost there so basically in the left fraction inside the parenthesis multiple by (1+169e^x) on the neumerator and demonitor and then distribute in the numerator, combine both fractions, add like terms on numerator, factor out e^x and voila

Yeahh, I see where the problem is now.

 

I simplified too early and reduced the left by a power of 2 and that led to some wonky number moving and the more complex answer (which was right, but still obnoxious to look at)