Has it been proven that y = sqrt(a + b) cannot be solved explicitly

What the fuck are you saying nigger. Your question makes no sense.

>>8799335
Which part didn't you understand, retard?

You're trying to turn that into an explicit solution for y where a and b are not under the same radical.

This is exactly what I said in the OP.

>>8799288
I think he means that sqrt(a) + sqrt(b) can not be explicitly solved, which is silly, because it can.

>>8799337
>explicit solution for y
That equation is already solved for y you mongoloid.

>>8799341
>where a and b do not appear under the same radical

You can't even comprehend one sentence?

Would you fucking clarify this question.

sage

>>8799343
Y is in terms of something you fucking moron. Solving for a variable means isolatibg that variable and putting it in terms of other shit. Your question still makes no sense no matter how you change the right side of the equation. Kys and never do math again.

>>8799348
Use math to transform the equation into an explicit solution for y where a and b are not under the same radical.

I really don't know how I can be more clear.

>>8799350
There are two requirements:

1) Must be an explicit solution for y

2) a and b cannot be under the same radical

Which one of these does your post ignore? There must be a hole in your brain that requirement #2 is slipping through.

>>8799353

The idea is there, certainly, but your English and sentence structure is REALLY CONFUSING and not the best. So get over the fact that you're English is not the strongest and stop bitching. You don't clearly express ideas using it, which is obvious by multiple responses.

So explain to us what you mean instead of acting like a whiny child.

This post did clear it up though, for the record.

>>8799288
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/54582.html

Hope this helps

>>8799353
Why the fuck would you do that if a and b are already real numbers?

The answer is yes. There are infinitely many ways to do so. The binomial theorem has already been suggested.

>>8799397
You can make an infinite series, but that's not an explicit, or at least not an analytical solution. Besides, what's even the point of having a and b in different roots?

>>8799404
An infinite series is an analytic expression. It is not closed form, but that was not requested.

shut up

>>8799288
Yes, simply change sqrt(a+b) to (a+b)^(1/2)
They no longer appear under any radical.

>>8799361
He's asking if you can fucking separate it. Similar to how y=log(ab) can be expressed as y=log(a) + log(b).

>>8799648
I second this solution

File: 2015-04-09-brocolli.png (32KB, 467x513px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 467x513px

>>8799404
>infinite series are not explicit or anayltical

shit nigga what are you doin?

>>8799648

>>8799288
op you are retarded

>>8799420
>>8799819
I wasn't speaking generally. You cannot evaluate an infinite expansion of a fractional exponent analytically.

>>8799288
>88
CHECKED in the name of the cooking waifu of white power.

>>8799933
Then use the word analytic and not the vague term "explicit"

>>8799648
thirded

>>8799288
You're such an idiot and math-illiterate that you can barely ask a question properly. Off yourself, bucko.

>>8799933
>I wasn't speaking generally.
...nor specifically, nor literally,
nor any other comprehensible way.

>>8799933
Yes you can do that as well. The binomial expansion series is an analytic expression period. These is merely terminology so you are factually incorrect.

>>8800091
It's an infinite number of terms
How the fuck is that analytical
Is sum(1/n!) also analytical? Then e is not transcendental

>>8800560
>It's an infinite number of terms
>How the fuck is that analytical
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-form_expression#Analytic_expression

>An analytic expression (or expression in analytic form) is a mathematical expression constructed using well-known operations that lend themselves readily to calculation. Similar to closed-form expressions, the set of well-known functions allowed can vary according to context but always includes the basic arithmetic operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division), exponentiation to a real exponent (which includes extraction of the nth root), logarithms, and trigonometric functions.

You have no Idea what you are talking about, if I were you I would leave this thread feeling very embarrassed.

>Is sum(1/n!) also analytical?
Yes. Because it can be written as e^1.

>Then e is not transcendental
Where does that come from?

>>8800683
actually that diatribe was not necessary infinite series are analytic whether or not they can be expressed in a closed form i.e. finite amount of elementary operations

>>8800560
the original meaning of the word analytic was a property of functions of whether or not they could be expressed as an infinite taylor expansion

>>8800560
>I don't know what analytic means so I'll just scream nonsense at you
kill yourself

>>8799361
>So get over the fact that you're English is not the strongest
heh

>>8799288
What do you mean OP?

Whether you can write [math] y[/math] as [math] y = f(a) + g(b) [/math]?