Docpepz From Singapore, joined May 2001, 1971 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (12 years 6 months 5 hours ago) and read 2405 times:

777236ER:

No, wait till he gets to 2nd order PARTIAL non homogenoeus differential equations. Takes at least 6 pages to solve after testing the various boundary conditions and using Fourier series. blah.

Turbolet From Cape Verde, joined Nov 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (12 years 6 months 5 hours ago) and read 2392 times:

Let's put it simply, just wait till you go through 'Pure Mathematics: The Core Course for A Level'. Believe me, sometimes I have a very violent desire to tear up the bloody book! Eight months to go and then I can finally do that...
-turbolet

Flight152 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 3428 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (12 years 6 months 5 hours ago) and read 2411 times:

You guys are doing it all wrong.

That formula has a HUGE flaw in it. Cramer's Law doesn't apply because to this the determinates aren't exponential to y-power (or the 45X/5F Power) unless you have the cotangent (1/tangent) sub(5/3x) equaling the curve-root of the 8/3 variable (7x cubed squared). Of course you have to first square the transponent of the acquired absolute sum of both variables, then the base integer's cotangible and triceptive coordinate (in this case 8). Try using Humplestein's Law of Compression instead, DUH! Hope that helps, makes it a bit easier.

707cmf From France, joined Mar 2002, 4885 posts, RR: 28
Reply 8, posted (12 years 6 months 5 hours ago) and read 2387 times:

Fourier series suck monkey ass.

Well, 777, that's just the reason why I am a computer engineer now, and not a Signal processing engineer.
Fourier indeed sucks. How could a French guy be so mean ?

Barcode From Switzerland, joined Dec 2001, 678 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (12 years 6 months 3 hours ago) and read 2364 times:

*joins the anti A Level Maths crowd. I just got back from my three hour evening class and all the equations are a blur .... a perfect cube ... factorising ... laws of indices ... blah ...

Anyway, 14x - 2 = 2x + 22 is straightforward as someone pointed out. Just remember what you do to one side you should also do to the other ....

14x - 2 = 2x +22 - Add the (-2) to 22 so you get 24, and take away the 2x from the 14x to get 12x (try to get the variables on one side and the numbers on the other). So then you're left with 12x = 24, x = 24/12, x = 2.