Is /sci/ smarter then the average Facebook user

>>7645531
It can't be simplified any further.

9^(8x^2) bruh

9^(8x)^2

>>7645531
It's 9^(8x^2)

lol at Facebook normies who think that just because the sqrt sign is big enough to cover everything, you can somehow distribute it to every symbol inside it

>>7645531
9^(8x^2)

>>7645531
-1/12

>>7645598
This is a meme, right?

explain pls how you got that answer

whats even being square rooted

>>7645603
this is something you should've learned in middle school, underage please leave

>>7645609
ok well i didnt, so why dont you just explain it instead of being a massive faggot

for fucks sake you took the time to type that out, you might as well just fucking explain it

kill urself
dipshit

>>7645613
>just explain it instead of being a massive faggot
>kill urself
>dipshit
So you don't want the explanation?

>>7645619
if youd rather be a douche than be contributive, yes then kill urself

i even said pls in the beginning

>>7645613
use your brain

9 = 9^1
(9^1)^.5 = 9*.5, not 3^.5

>>7645626
thanks bud
wasnt that hard was it

>>7645623
>calls other people names
>expects help and teaching in return

nig detected

squirt is equal to ^.5, so you multiply the 16 by .5, so 9^(8(x^2))

3 4x

[math]\sqrt{9^{16x^2}} = \left( 9^{16x^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} = 9^{\frac{16x^2}{2}} = 9^{8x^2} [\math]

apparently the average facebook user cannot into exponents!

think of it this way:

sqrt(9) = 3

can be re-written as (9)^1/2

sqrt(9^2) = 9

can be re-written as (9)^2/2

sqrt(9^16x^2) = 9^8x^2

>smarter then
well I'm clearly smarter THAN the average /sci/ poster

3^(16x^2)

>>7645603
>whats even being square rooted
Everything under the line
"everything" being a single term

>>7645638
He fucked up, you're thanking the worst 4chan post in the last 24 hours

>>7645531

(9^(16x^2))^0.5 = (9^(2*8x^2))^0.5 = (9^(8x^2+8x^2))^0.5 = (9^(8x^2) * 9^(8x^2))^0.5 = 9^(8x^2)

The square root simply divides the exponent by two.

File: images (6).jpg (20KB, 402x366px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 402x366px

>>7645531

>looked at this problem
>realised it's been 15 years since I did this stuff and haven't used it enough to remember it since.
>downloaded all the grad school maths books instantly

Time to start my mathematical education all over again.

File: facebird.jpg (69KB, 660x520px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 660x520px

>>7648441


>realised it's been 15 years since I did this stuff and haven't used it enough to remember it since

>haven't used it enough to remember it since

>haven't used it enough since to remember it

Fix'd, don't know what happened there, must of touched the screen in the wrong place as I was typing.

>>7645598
excellent meme!

>>7645531
(9^(16*x^2))^0.5=
9^(8x^2)

>>7645613
Lol why are you on /sci/ if you don't even know shit about lol of indices

420

I get the 9^(8) thing but why isn't x^2 covered?

>>7648444
Don't worry about grammar making you look bad

>I couldn't 'remember how to' square root a load of 9s

File: 1400776044208.png (269KB, 298x399px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 298x399px

>>7648465

>I'm so smart but not smart enough to see how people couldn't do the things I can do

And you remember every class you took in high school?

>>7645531
> smarter then the average Facebook user
> then
Smarter than, perhaps, or at least more proficient with the English language.

>>7645531
Then is temporal.
Than is comparative.
Sentences are delimited by punctuation.

>>7645598
>-1/12
that's 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+...

do you know how can I find 1*2*3*4*5*6*7*...?

>>7648462
(1/2)*(16x^2) = (8x^2)

If you're thinking it's supposed to be become x instead of x^2:
x*x != 2x

you're only "halfing" the number of x^2 you have, think of how you have to keep different degrees in a polynomial separate

>>7648562
it's clearly -1/12!

>>7648568
I don't know why mathematicians do this garbage. The sum of all natural numbers, given that there are infinite numbers, would have to be infinity. Now granted it can't be any number. but if you're just trying to find its ultimate summation, there isn't one, it's infinite.

What use lies in this -1/12 bullshit? Where is the utility? What basis are they using to resolve this, and why do they take it seriously?

I want to understand. Because from the outside, it just looks like more of the same stupid hacked together shit I've come to expect from mathematics.

>>7648575
Assuming you really aren't trolling, no mathematician thinks that all numbers sum to -1/12. You're not smarter than all of the world's mathematicians, as much as you may like to think. The problem here is you're trying to judge a field about which you know nothing.

There is a function which behaves like summing all of the natural numbers, and using a complex analysis technique we can extend it "nicely" to take the value -1/12 at a certain point.

>>7648568
>clearly -1/12
same answer for sum and for product?
r u sure? how do you prove that?

>>7648575
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_%2B_2_%2B_3_%2B_4_%2B_%E2%8B%AF

>>7645531
3^8x^2

>>7648586
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_%2B_2_%2B_3_%2B_4_%2B_%E2%8B%AF
Anon, it should be obvious I don't have the background to so readily interpret any of that, If it isn't the "stupid hacked together shit" I see it as, it should be doable, if not easy, to deliver the necessary means to interpret how and why I might be incorrect. The logical framework is probably not that complex.

>>7646838
You don't even really have to put that much thought into it. If you know that the square root of x^2 is x, you already know that the base won't change under a square root sign. Then it's just a matter of knowing rules about exponents.

>>7648585
>The problem here is you're trying to judge a field about which you know nothing.
That was pretty well implicit in what I said.

Either way, thank you for the legitimate response.

>>7648575
It would take you literally ten seconds to load up a search engine, type in a query, and save yourself the embarrassment here.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ces%C3%A0ro_summation
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramanujan_summation
> http://math.arizona.edu/~cais/Papers/Expos/div.pdf

>>7648603
I very rarely feel embarrassment.

My knowledge of mathematics is at roughly a sixth grade level. The equation can be parsed properly, but it's not like I can do anything with it.
"Why is this part in brackets?"
"What does this symbol mean in this context?"
"Does the variable used here have predefined meaning, or is it just there?"
Etc.

You need to realize I'd have to start from near the most base level and slowly build and rebuild a whole framework to be able to actually understand anything in those papers to a point where I could use it myself. Mathematicians are prone to forgetting that absolutely none of it is inherently intuitive.

why isn't the 9 sqrt? Only 16.

>>7645539
>>7645540
>>7645544
>>7645546
>>7645626
>>7646807
>>7646838
>>7646846
>>7647042
>>7648456
>>7648462
>>7648566
>>7648591
These guys are not smarter than average facebook users.

>>7646825
This guy is but somehow fucked the closing tag up. It's [/math], not [\math]

3^4x

This says simplify. And you morons are saying its 9^8x^2. No wonder this board is filled with "geniuses". You guys should work at apple.

>>7648624
It's a multiple choice question. You have to pick one of the 4 results presented. Only one of them is actually correct.

File: 1432955054903.jpg (74KB, 600x734px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 600x734px

>>7648620
muh latex

>>7645531
this is literally addition
8+8=16
math illiteracy is real

[math]\sqrt{9^{16x^2}} = \left( 9^{16x^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} = 9^{\frac{16x^2}{2}} = 9^{8x^2} [/math]

>>7648691
Simplify, anon. You get zero points.

File: 1428188226984.jpg (291KB, 800x778px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 800x778px

>>7648699
i just copy-pasted some bloke's equation from the thread

>>7648703
>Plagiarism.
Anon, the dean will like to see after class.

>>7645531
Of course. The same way that the average freshman classroom at a mediocre university is smarter than your average night club. People go to one place for image conscious nonsense and debauchery. And people go to the other for nevermind.

>>7648657
Math tags are a 4chan feature, not part of [math]S^{p}_{\forall}\mathbb{N}\partial^{\exists}\chi[/math].

>>7648727
What went on there? It was happy in the preview.
[math] S^{p}_{\forall}\mathbb{N}\partial^{\exists}\chi [/math]

>>7645613
Go back to school kid

>>7645598
>>7648709
>>7648707
>>7648727
>>7648729
>>7648709
>>7648691
>>7648699
>>7648703
>>7648662
>>7648657
>>7648655
>>7648624
>>7648622
>>7648620
>>7648616
>>7646785
>>7645626

>>7644444
>>7646666
>>7648888
>>765555

You guys seem to miss the very point of this thread. It's not about the question as its soluting only requires simple usage of terms. Even a 4 year old could be thaught this.

Instead it's about the high level of irony the facebook users are applying. With "smartness" OP was reffering to the skill to see through simple irony or the knowledge of humans.
You guys seem to lack it all!

>>7648750
Project harder you arrogant little shit.

>>7645531
What were you doing up at 5:45am?

>>7648884
>threatened.jpg

Oh wow you're better than the shits who kept asking "Where will I ever need this" in maths class. Pat yourself on the back, you bunch of super smart people.

>>7648892
Mastubating vigorously while edging for hours on end.

>>7645531

The answer is 0.

>>7648901
Classic

>>7648750
Was the "then" error also a sophisticated ruse?