Розмір відео: 1280 X 720853 X 480640 X 360
Показувати елементи керування програвачем
Автоматичне відтворення
Автоповтор
I multiplied by (sqrt8) - sqrt(5) - sqrt(3). Worked out nicely because because 8 - 5 - 3 = 0. Lastly I multiplied by -sqrt(15).
Thanks for sharing your solution! 💯💕😎👏That's an excellent approach! I'm glad you found an efficient way to solve the problem. 🙏💕🥰✅💪
Fascinating to watch Man ! ………..thanks for sharing !
Glad you enjoyed it. Thanks for watching 🔥🥰✅💕
How is that 'simplified?Before there were 4 numbers and 4 operations, now it is 6 numbers and 5 operations.
It's simplified version because the denominator is rational 😎🙏👌💡
The steps can be reduced if you take the conjugate as root8 _ (rt5+rt3)
you can make racine5 + racine 3 -racine 8 as conjuge ils better
4.4...
Respected Sir, Good evening.... Really, An innovative way of applying cognitive efficiency ❤... Really You're an invincible analyzer....
Thanks a ton.All the best 😎💕💯
4:30'' 5-3 bạn vứt đi đâu rồi
More easier way than this
So you end up with an expression which has to be evaluated using a calculator. Why not simply do that with the original expression? This is manipulation for the sake of manipulation. A pure waste of time.
Ther is a better way.😂
Show it here then 😛😉
I multiplied by (sqrt8) - sqrt(5) - sqrt(3). Worked out nicely because because 8 - 5 - 3 = 0. Lastly I multiplied by -sqrt(15).
Thanks for sharing your solution! 💯💕😎👏That's an excellent approach! I'm glad you found an efficient way to solve the problem. 🙏💕🥰✅💪
Fascinating to watch Man ! ………..thanks for sharing !
Glad you enjoyed it. Thanks for watching 🔥🥰✅💕
How is that 'simplified?
Before there were 4 numbers and 4 operations, now it is 6 numbers and 5 operations.
It's simplified version because the denominator is rational 😎🙏👌💡
The steps can be reduced if you take the conjugate as root8 _ (rt5+rt3)
you can make racine5 + racine 3 -racine 8 as conjuge ils better
4.4...
Respected Sir, Good evening.... Really, An innovative way of applying cognitive efficiency ❤... Really You're an invincible analyzer....
Thanks a ton.All the best 😎💕💯
4:30'' 5-3 bạn vứt đi đâu rồi
More easier way than this
So you end up with an expression which has to be evaluated using a calculator. Why not simply do that with the original expression? This is manipulation for the sake of manipulation. A pure waste of time.
Ther is a better way.😂
Show it here then 😛😉