[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Home]
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

File: IMG-20160116-WA0000.jpg (167 KB, 1600x1200) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
167 KB, 1600x1200
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
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 (422 KB, 665x662) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
422 KB, 665x662
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.