• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
noatom

Radical equation

20 posts in this topic

3?x + 8 = 10?x + 9 

 

This is how i solved it:

 

subtract 3?x from both sides,so the result is:

 

8 = 7?x + 9

 

subtract 9 from both sides

 

-1 = 7?x

 

after that,everything gets squared:

 

1 = 49 x 

 

and then,divide everything by 49,so:

 

1/49 = x

 

HOWEVER,there must be something wrong,cause the above equation has no solutions,due to the fact that the response should be negative.

 

But mine,obviously has a solution....What am i doing wrong?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can't be solved. square root x can be replaced by any number, including 1. So, the equation says 3 + 8 = 10 + 9.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't answer my question....what i want to know,is what i did wrong in the solving of the equation.

 

If you get that in a test you can't just start replacing x with random values to prove it works/doesn't...

 

 

Remember that the the solution is: there is no solution because the answer is a negative number.

What i have there is 1/49,which is not negative,so i must've done something wrong.

Edited by noatom
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whenever you square both sides of an equation, you might be introducing false solutions, where the two sides of the equal have opposite signs. That's why at the end of this type of manipulation you need to verify that the values you found are actually solutions.

 

Another way of saying it is that your argument is a bunch of implications: "If this equation is true, then this other equation is true, and then this other equation is true, etc." So you proved that, if there is a solution, it must be x=1/49. However, the implications don't work in reverse (in particular the squaring step can say something like "-2=2 implies 4=4", but the reciprocate is not true). So you have to verify that x=1/49 is indeed a solution, which it isn't. So you proved that there are no solutions.

Edited by Álvaro
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whenever you square both sides of an equation, you might be introducing false solutions, where the two sides of the equal have opposite signs. That's why at the end of this type of manipulation you need to verify that the values you found are actually solutions.

Squaring both sides of an equation is valid; squaring the terms of both sides is not, however.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok,at first i was a little bit confused by cornstalks's affirmation : " squaring a side does not equal squaring  the terms of that side".

But i finally got it,example:

 

(2x-6)^2

 

If i were to square each term,the result would be

 

2*2 = 4, x*x=x^2, -6*-6 = 36

=> 4x^2 + 36

 

But the right way(squaring a side,not terms):

 

(2x-6) * (2x-6)

2x * 2x = 4x, 2x * -6 = -12x, -6*2x = -12x, -6 * -6 = 36

 

=> 4x -12x -12x + 36

4x - 24x + 36

 

So yeah...you have to be really carefull with these things...

 

And a big note,even though Cornstalks already said it: "Doing ANYTHING to a side does not equal doing ANYTHING to the members of that side",where anything can be multiplication,division...you get the ideea..

Edited by noatom
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Whenever you square both sides of an equation, you might be introducing false solutions, where the two sides of the equal have opposite signs. That's why at the end of this type of manipulation you need to verify that the values you found are actually solutions.

Squaring both sides of an equation is valid; squaring the terms of both sides is not, however.

 

 

But that's not what he did... He correctly deduced `1 = 49 * x' from `-1 = 7 * sqrt(x)'.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

em...is it true that you cannot simplify this?

 

sqrt(25 + 25x + 25)

Edited by noatom
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on what you mean by "simplify":

 

sqrt(25 + 25x + 25) = 5 * sqrt(2 + x)

 

I think that's simpler, but you might disagree.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Whenever you square both sides of an equation, you might be introducing false solutions, where the two sides of the equal have opposite signs. That's why at the end of this type of manipulation you need to verify that the values you found are actually solutions.

Squaring both sides of an equation is valid; squaring the terms of both sides is not, however.

But that's not what he did... He correctly deduced `1 = 49 * x' from `-1 = 7 * sqrt(x)'.

No, that's not a correct deduction. That's squaring each term, not the squaring entire side. When you square each term like that, you are assuming that ?(zw) = ?z?w, which is not generally true.

 

He said he squared each side, but then squared each term, not each side. That's the issue he had.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sqrt(zw) does equal sqrt(z)*sqrt(w) as long as both z and w are positive or zero. Negative numbers => complex numbers mess things up.

 

(a+b)2 != a2 + b2 though (binomial theorem says otherwise. Pascal's triangle and such), unless in very special circumstances which don't occur in gamedev much or at all ("idiot binomial theorem" something to do with number theory and modulo arithmetic, google fu is failing only links I could find are in massive pdfs about Galois theory which is abstract algebra and gets the Paradigm Shifter seal of approval for hardcore math(s)).

Edited by Paradigm Shifter
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that's not a correct deduction. That's squaring each term, not the squaring entire side.


You keep saying that, and yet, the square of -1 is 1 and the square of 7*sqrt(x) is 49*x. I don't want to appeal to authority, but I am a professional mathematician, and I am having a very hard time understanding what's wrong with that deduction.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the confusion arrives from a2 = b2 does not mean a = b


I think I explained that quite clearly, which is why you have to check the solutions you find at the end of a sequence of deductions like the one we are dealing with. But a = b does imply a2 = b2, which is what Cornstalks seems to be denying. His insistence on the distinction between squaring the sides of the equation or squaring terms makes no sense in the particular case, because there is only one term on each side of the equal sign.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But a = b does imply a2 = b2, which is what Cornstalks seems to be denying. His insistence on the distinction between squaring the sides of the equation or squaring terms makes no sense in the particular case, because there is only one term on each side of the equal sign.

I'm saying what you're really doing when you square both sides is multiply both sides by themselves. So when you have the equation:

 

-7 = ?x

 

You can't just square the terms and come up with

 

49 = x

 

You have to square both sides, which is effectively multiplying each side by itself:

 

(-7)2 = (?x)2

 

Or, another way of writing this is:

 

49 = ?x?x

 

If you don't square the sides you skip a step and assume that ?x?x = ?(xx) = x, which isn't generally true.

 

That's what I'm arguing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sqrt(x)^2 = x is true in general, even in the case of negative or imaginary numbers. What is the difference between squaring the "side" sqrt(x) and squaring the "term" sqrt(x)?

 

I'm a graduate student in math and this thread has been more convoluted than most of my textbooks - why is everyone making such a simple thing so difficult? Alvaro has the right of it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0