Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
For example, taking the statement x + 1 = 0, if x is substituted with 1, this implies 1 + 1 = 2 = 0, which is false, which implies that if x + 1 = 0 then x cannot be 1. If x and y are integers, rationals, or real numbers, then xy = 0 implies x = 0 or y = 0. Consider abc = 0. Then, substituting a for x and bc for y, we learn a = 0 or bc = 0 ...
The reciprocal function: y = 1/x.For every x except 0, y represents its multiplicative inverse. The graph forms a rectangular hyperbola.. In mathematics, a multiplicative inverse or reciprocal for a number x, denoted by 1/x or x −1, is a number which when multiplied by x yields the multiplicative identity, 1.
Since taking the square root is the same as raising to the power 1 / 2 , the following is also an algebraic expression: 1 − x 2 1 + x 2 {\displaystyle {\sqrt {\frac {1-x^{2}}{1+x^{2}}}}} An algebraic equation is an equation involving polynomials , for which algebraic expressions may be solutions .
Area of a cloth 4.5m × 2.5m = 11.25m 2; 4 1 / 2 × 2 1 / 2 = 11 1 / 4 Multiplication (often denoted by the cross symbol × , by the mid-line dot operator ⋅ , by juxtaposition, or, on computers, by an asterisk * ) is one of the four elementary mathematical operations of arithmetic, with the other ones being addition ...
[2] [3] Thus, in the expression 1 + 2 × 3, the multiplication is performed before addition, and the expression has the value 1 + (2 × 3) = 7, and not (1 + 2) × 3 = 9. When exponents were introduced in the 16th and 17th centuries, they were given precedence over both addition and multiplication and placed as a superscript to the right of ...
The rule of three [1] was a historical shorthand version for a particular form of cross-multiplication that could be taught to students by rote. It was considered the height of Colonial maths education [2] and still figures in the French national curriculum for secondary education, [3] and in the primary education curriculum of Spain. [4]
The problem is that multiplication by zero is not invertible: if we multiply by any nonzero value, we can reverse the step by dividing by the same value, but division by zero is not defined, so multiplication by zero cannot be reversed. More subtly, suppose we take the same equation and multiply both sides by . We get
The unique pair of values a, b satisfying the first two equations is (a, b) = (1, 1); since these values also satisfy the third equation, there do in fact exist a, b such that a times the original first equation plus b times the original second equation equals the original third equation; we conclude that the third equation is linearly ...