How the third step was possible? Either the book is wrong or

>>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
no

>>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.

>>7788465
>>7788439
>>7788406
is this nigga serious kek

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

File: 0304 - h3nTfec.png (422KB, 665x662px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 665x662px

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.