How the third step was possible? Either the...

Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.

You are currently reading a thread in /sci/ - Science & Math

You are currently reading a thread in /sci/ - Science & Math

Thread images: 2

How the third step was possible? Either the book is wrong or I am retarded"?

>>

>>7788406

Haven't they just multiplied by [eqn] \frac { R_E + R_B } {R_E + R_B} [/eqn] ?

>>

From third step, I assume you mean the third equation. All they did was multiply both numerator and denominator by (R_E + R_B).

>>

>>

>>7788428

Rb + Re + Beta(Re)

where did the singular Rb come from then

>>

>>7788439

nvm Im retarded

>>

>>7788428

Yep. Everyone here is terrible at algebra, apparently.

>>

You need to divide both numerator and denominator

>>

>>7788406

Textbook is correct: multiply numerator and denominator by (R_e + R_b). In the denominator, the first term (1) becomes (R_e + R_b), the second term becomes BR_e.

Similar process occurs when deriving logistic equations.

>>

>>7788406

it's all bullshit

>>

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

>>

wtf is this babbys first algebra?

>>

It's badly worded. You don't divide each term, but rather divide both the numerator and the denominator. It's still correct mathematically, though.

>>

>>7789165

Coincidentally, dividing the numerator and the denominator also involves dividing each term, you FAG.

Thread images: 2

Thread DB ID: 433975

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.

This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.

If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's