Відео

Very interesting equation. Hope UA-cam recommends this to more people.

1.825 x 1.825 = 3.330625 square root of 3 is 1.73205080....

To many steps: m^10=m^(2*5)=5^(2*m). Exponents and bases needs to be the same on each side. therfore: m=5.

is 0 another correct answer?

1 091 * 1 5551 * 6

It's always nice to see someone making such videos. Though, some remarks: 1. The way to find the solution is needlessly complicated. x = sqrt(x) + sqrt(x) = 2 sqrt(x) = sqrt(4x) Is equivalent to (note that x must be non negative to restrict ourselves to real solutions anyway) x² = 4x. Now note that 0 may be a solution and proceed for the other case where we then can divide by 0 which instantly results in x = 4. So there is your result, x in {0, 4} solves it. 2. The way to double check makes me, well, furious. It's good practice to do so, don't get me wrong. But everytime I see people replace x on both sides of the equation and put an equals sign between it, and THEN simplify, it makes me sad. Either start with one side and simplify (and potentially complexity again) to end at the other side of the equation. Or for God's sake make clear (and sure) that you are talking about equivalences, by putting <=> between the equations. Starting with something that you want to check, do something to the equation and land at something true (through implications) is neither a proof nor a check of your result (ex falso quod libet). Just had to write this, I feel better now, thanks 😅

Let a=9^x then 3a=999 a=333 so 9^x=333 Use logarithms in base 9 log(9,9^x)=log(9,333) xlog(9,9)=log(9,333) x= log(9,333)

if you are going to write log2 and log3 values directly, why didn't you use a calculator from the beginning? the divisor line should be aligned with the equal and addition signs, not below them. if you are a maths teacher, there should be a lecture in the background, not music. also, increase the tempo, the seasons changed until the video was over. these are the reasons for my downvote.

What is the comma for?

掛け算割り算できるもんは一目瞭然に計算できるからそんなややこしくしないでええよ。

This should be3 minutes! You spent to much time rewriting.

Ainda bem que terminou antes de eu precisar pegar a lupa. Kkkkk

5^x + 5^x = 90 2 · 5^x = 90 5^x = 45 x · lg(5) = lg(45) x = lg(45) / lg(5) x = log₅45 x = log₅(5 · 9) x = log₅5 + log₅9 x = 1 + log₅3² x = 1 + 2 · log₅3

You're taking the long way round.

Эх, жил бы я в Канаде, все олимпиады бы там затащил...

Do you need to go through all those steps at 5^x = 45 just use definition of a logartithm log_5(45)

As,,,saya g ngerti 85 yg bawah dari mana. Ko 85 ada 2

Really stupid

More faster: (9/4)^(9/4) = (9/4)^(2+ 1/4); (9/4)^(2+1/4) = (9/4)^2 * (9/4)^(1/4); (81/16) * ((3/2)^2)^(1/4)=(81/16) * (3/2)^(1/2).

2:27 using (Ln) is way more better

I got m=1+(1/log 8)

It's quite easy. Just take log and then simplify. Math olympiad?

log of 80 base 8=1+1/3log of2 base10=m .ans.

why you so slow bro

(9/4)^9^4 (3^2/2^2)^9/4 [(3/2)^2]^9/4. 2.9/4 = 9/2 (3/2)^9/2 √3^9/√2^9 81√3/16√2 81√3.√2 = 81√6 16√2.√2 = 16.2 = 32 81√6/32

Why not just (8+1)/2 => 4 + 1/2 |=> (9 *9)/(4*4)* sqrt(3/2)?

5 уножим на 5 пишем 25 потом одну двойку добавим 1 будет 3 уножим на двойку будет 6 легче будет

5χ5 =25 , 2χ2=4. + 2 from 25 = 625 in about 3sec. This is not s trick this is nothing 😅

the step where the person rightw Kto the 3 power +k-27-3 == 0 has no logical explanation unless one knows the answer in advance. and the answer to the problem being worked (not the one on the tag line) is clearly 3. total bs

The right-hand side of the original equation was equal to 39

It's easy to solve even just in mind. 3+-√3, 3-+√3. And so it's trivial to verify in mind as well.

the solution is 1... since -7^1 = -7^(2 * 1/2) = (-7 ^ 2) ^ 1/2 = 49 ^ 1/2 = 7

This guy does not understand even basic algebrta or arithmetic..!! If you can replace -1 with e^πi, you should be able to replace the same -1 with i^2 also, or 3-4 also, or 6-7 also, or anything that is equal to -1. And each one will give a different answer, apparently meaning everything = everything else....!!! What a riduculous conclusion!

This checks out, because 2log(i) = i(pi).

Scrap the music --- it's ridiculous that you thought that *any* music at all was appropriate for this video. And explain what you're doing, by *speaking.*

I can tell the guy doesn't understand what he's doing but rather copies the answer from some book.

Is not log(i) = i*pi*(4*k+1)/2 and x = ( log(7) + i*pi*2*n) / ( log(7) + i*pi*(2*k+1) ), where k and n are integers?

how a a power a =b power b? 2² is not 3³?

Use log rules. So log base 8 of 4! Took 20 seconds. But yes second method is nearly as fast.

What a great

Well youre using logs already for log 7 so why not do log7 70

Three digital calculation send video

Too lengthy

Wow ❤❤ very easy explanation😄

Oh, you can calculate 7^2.1834 in mind. That's awesome dude

2/3 ?

Log(7) isn't _exactly_ 0.845, so the solution is only an approximation. The verification only works because you do it backwards with the same degree of precision. That's not saying anything is "wrong", but you should indicate an approximation by these "wavy" type equality signs.

x=2/3. Лёгонький примерчик. Упростить и прологарифмировать по основанию 2.

Second is better

8^х = 4 Х = 2/3