from george simmon's precalculus book is this nigger on

>>8975769
i forgot to mention that he doesn't specify that a is negative or positive

>>8975769
He's not wrong though

>pre-calculus

nigger calling the kettle black

>>8975772
then what about the definition of the radical? his book is confusing as fuck

at one point he did what was in the OP pic and 2 pages later he used the normal definition for the radical function, which is sqrt(x)^2 = |x|

FUCK YOU SIMMONS YOUR BOOK IS PURE SHIT

YOU'RE A FUCKING FAGGOT YOU'RE GAY YOU TAKE IT IN THE ASS YOU FUCKING GAY FAGGOT YOU GOD DAMNED MONKEY PISS DIRNKING CRETIN

FOR FUCK'S SAKE YOU DUMB MOTHER FUCKER HOW CAN YOU FUCK UP AT TEACHING FUCKING RADICALS YOU FUCKING MORON YOU WASTED MY FUCKING TIME WITH YOUR GAY ASS BOOK I WILL FUCKING SHIT ON YOUR SOUL AND FAMILY

You are all brainlets

>>8975769
Have a better book
http://www.stitz-zeager.com/szca07042013.pdf

>>8975779
that's the normal definition. it's the real root

>>8975797
then why did he say the BS from OP's pic? it makes no fucking sense, i feel like i'm going insame

>>8975801

early math and science courses have a bad habit of teaching you wrong information and then later clarifying. maybe he thought this was "easier." i don't know

>>8975807
thanks senpai i thought i was still having psychosis from the meth I did 2 years ago

>>8975769
why are you reading that memebook?

you didn't fall for the memelist that gets posted on here did you?

>>8975769
wait isn't that right?

>>8975820
I haven't done precalc math in 2 years and I needed a quick refresh, the other book that I wanted to go through was http://www.stitz-zeager.com/szca07042013.pdf but I didn't want to go through so many pages since I don't really need such a thorough refresh. I had a Calc I-II exam in my country where I got 10/10 but that was 2 years ago.

>>8975824
it only is if a>0 but he doesn't mention this shit anywhere and since it's a math book I was constantly searching for the "a>0" bit and I wasn't finding it and my brain was short-circuiting

>>8975824
or if n is odd

odd-pussy

File: sz btfo.png (104KB, 976x768px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 976x768px

>>8975796
STITZ ZEAGER SHILLS BTFO

File: Screenshot from 2017-06-15 00-53-47.png (91KB, 1054x390px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1054x390px

>>8975856
Are they seriously complaining that he explains stuff?

>Evey thing is explained in paragraph form
Babies first math book? Perhaps a coloring book is more appropriate for him.
Also, it hes plenty of graphs to explain it.

>Not explaining how to find horizontal asymptotes
But he does. Try reading the damn thing.


These people are just retarded. if your IQ is to low it wont matter which book you read.

>>8975769
>I found a mistake

Get used to it. Every STEM book has minor stuff like that in them.

>>8975796
Okay, for real.

Is this Stitz-Zeager precalc book just another meme, or is it actually good? I was looking at that and Axler, along with the Gelfand books.

>>8975820
what is the non-meme list, then

>>8975771

it doesn't matter if a is negative or positive you retarded nigger

if you think that's wrong you don't know anything about how numbers work.

>>8975976
kill yourself you fucking moron
>n=1, a=-1
>implying sqrt(-1)=-1
hurr durr nothing is wrong with this

>>8975982

0/10

The image is saying a^(n/n)=a. Which is true for all numbers

>>8976000
http://www.planetmath.org/evenevenoddrule

>>8976000
no, it says the nth root of a^n is a, which isn't true for any negative number

>>8975982
I don't think you know what the radical sign is
>>8976000
a = -1
n = 2
sqrt((-1)^2) = sqrt(1) = 1=/=-1

File: 1497485997971-1663374327.jpg (972KB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

972KB, 2560x1920px

>>8975982
No

>>8976000
I forgot to mention that a^(n/n) is postive if n is even. Whoops my bad

>>8975769
forgot the most important rule

[eqn](6)\;\;\;\;\; \sqrt[n]{a^n + b^n} = a + b[/eqn]

>>8975900
I'm not trying to seem facetious but pic seems pretty easy?

>>8975856
how to find brainlets: look for 1 star reviews of math books

>>8976016
top kek

>>8976016
I dont think that's true

123

>>8976018
yes, that's why people saying that is hard to understand are legitimally retarded

>>8975807
Had a cs textbook that did this, very annoying. It'd give you a long example program which I would spend 30 minutes analyzing, then at the end say jokes on you, the real programs on the next page.

File: 1493155156528.jpg (49KB, 692x969px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 692x969px

>>8975789

>>8975769
Someone please provide a counter example if you disagree with this.

>>8976251
There's already several in the thread if you bothered to read it. In particular, any negative number.

>>8976031
Of course it is. Look:
[eqn]\sqrt{0^2 \,+\, 0^2} \,=\, \sqrt{0 \,+\, 0} \,=\, \sqrt0 \,=\, 0 \,=\, 0 \,+\, 0[/eqn]

>>8975982
n*1/n=1, dipshit

a=2
n=-3
(2^-3)^-1/3
(1/8)^-1/3
2

>>8975769
>be actual mathematics university student
>see a thread for high schoolers
>think back to the good old days. I am interested in seeing how the high schoolers of today handle mathematics
>see this

>>8975772
>>8975776
>>8975789
>>8975824
>>8975833
>>8975982
>>8975992
>>8976016
>>8976262
>>8976251
>>8976263

I think... math is not for you guys. You are still young though so you have time to find another passion. Best wishes.

>>8976252
>Any negative number
>any

Certifiable brainlet.

cubert( (-1)^3 ) = cubert( -1) = -1

>>8976285
>implying I said anything about n
maybe next time, brainlet :)

>>8976278
>t. state school mathematician

Here, brainlets.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/adakzuzqnr

>>8976278
>>be actual mathematics university student
Is that a freshman I see?

Wait until someone's at least paying you to do math before criticizing 'high schoolers' (who are only a year younger than you)

>>8976294
Not a freshman. And that would be 3 years younger.

Now back to... idk... computing derivatives? What do the kids do these days?

>>8976290
Exactly, you were wrong by claiming any negative number without mentioning n at all.

>>8976304
Nope, wrong again, brainlet.

The statement (a^n)^(1/n)=a is false since every negative number is a counterexample to (a^n)^(1/n)=a for some n.

Next?

>>8975769
I mean on where you defined the nth root, that thing is correct. i.e.
1)if a is non-negative (probably rational as well, cause it's precalculus) and n being anything,
2)if a is negative and n being odd.

>>8976305
You're just digging yourself deeper and deeper.

n = 3

n = any odd number

The equation holds for all a, positive and negative

>>8976309
>n = 3
>n = any odd number
>The equation holds for all a, positive and negative
It brings me great joy to see how quickly your coping posts have devolved into meaninglessness, brainlet.

Next?

>>8976311
If you wanted to prove me wrong you could do so very easily.

Go ahead and try to find an "a" and an odd number "n" such that the equation does not hold. You will fail miserably.

>>8976322
see
>>8976293

>>8976322
>If you wanted to prove me wrong you could do so very easily.
I've done so brainlet, see:
>>8976305

>Go ahead and try to find an "a" and an odd number "n" such that the equation does not hold.
Now why would I do that, brainlet?

Next?

>>8976332
>Now why would I do that, brainlet?

That's right, bitch, I knew you couldn't do it.

>>8976335
I'm still waiting on that negative number that satisfies (a^n)^(1/n)=a, brainlet.

Tick, tock.

>>8976341
Oh yay! What a joyous day.

n = 3
a = -1

(-1^3)^(1/3)= -1

This is SO much fun!

>>8976348
>has to add an extra hypothesis
"That's right, bitch, I knew you couldn't do it."
You'll make a great janitor one day.

This board never fails to amuse me.

>>8976349
We've already been over this.

Find an "a" and an odd number "n" such that the equation does not hold, and I'll EAT ME WORDS. I will admit defeat and dedicate my life to being your brainlet slave.

Well?

a = ?
n = ?

Happy day, happy day!

>>8976354
"Any negative number being a counterexample to (a^n)^(1/n)=a" is not the same statement as "Any negative number being a counterexample to (a^n)^(1/n)=a for some odd n".

I can tell you're not even trained in the most elementary of logical thought processes.

Perhaps come back once you've improved your reading comprehension, brainlet.

If you want a book recommendation, try 'Logic for Dummies'.

>every negative number is a counterexample to (a^n)^(1/n)=a for some n.

There are people alive RIGHT NOW that believe this. Kek.

>>8976341
>>8976348

Everyone with a calculator can feel that burn from here, damn lol.

>>8976357
>every negative number is a counterexample to (a^n)^(1/n)=a for some n.
>take n=2
>get (a^2)^(1/2)=-a !=a which isn't true for any negative number
>There are brainlets alive RIGHT NOW that don't understand elementary school mathematics. Kek.

>>8976360
Why would you EVER ask me this question >>8976341 if you understood elementary math? Because you clearly don't understand negatives.

>I was only PRETENDING to be retarded
You're not pretending, friendo

>>8976365
>Why would you EVER ask me this question >>8976341 if you understood elementary math?
Because I claimed that no negative number satisfied it, and you argued that point.

Tick, tock.

>>8976278
t. sub top-10 undergrad

>65 replies

god dammit /sci/

File: 225px-Cubert_Farnsworth.jpg (8KB, 225x172px)

8KB, 225x172px

>>8976285
>cubert

>>8975796
>version floor(pi)

kek

>(a^n)^(1/n)=a

Let me define א2 as being the answer to (א2 ^n)^(1/n)

>>8975900
That doesn't seem so bad. There's a lot worse, in which everything is in paragraphs and the formatting sucks. I like the visual aid, but I can work with that. My only problem is that i'd rather not struggle with their formatting and focus on math, but it's trivial.

>>8975934
It's pretty good, better than stewards and David Cohen's precalc books imho.
Doesn't just throw proofs at you, actually explains it pretty good. Even for things he doesn't proof (because they require calculus) he tries to make it intuitive.

some people complain about the formatting, but I think it's still superior over the formatting used in other modern textbooks.

>>8976278
>falling this hard for >>8976016 and >>8976262
Yeah, no. Maybe after middle school, you'll be allowed to talk about mathematics.

>>8976393
yeah lol that was hilarious

if the rule doesnt work for negative a and even n, then why the FUCK does it work for positive a and odd n? why is math so inconsistent?

>>8975769
Some people never learn what is not for them. I learned a long time ago that I was garbage at math. It's okay. I've accepted having a learning disability. These other fellas should too.

>>8975856
>pre-calculus
>can only be solved by a rocket scientist

I'd like to see a review from a person not afflicted with ADHD and mental retardation. At the very least, his precalculus PDF is pretty based, which is supposed to contain both college algebra and trigonometry sections with little changes.

>>8975769
[math] (a^n)^(1/n) = a^(n*(1/n)) = a^1 = a[/math]

File: brainy wojak.jpg (10KB, 223x226px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 223x226px

>>8975942
I'm glad you asked!

>Chapter 1: Introduction to Entry-Level Mathematics, P. I
Pre-Calculus - Carl Stitz & Jeff Zeager
Calculus: A Modern Approach - Jeff Knisley & Kevin Shirley
The Art and Craft of Problem Solving - Paul Zeitz

>Chapter 2: Introduction to Entry-Level Mathematics, P. II
Linear Algebra and Its Applications - David C. Lay
Calculus of Several Variables - Serge Lang
Applied Differential Equations by Vladimir A. Dobrushkin

>Chapter 3: Introduction to Proofs and Survey of Higher-Level Mathematics
How to Think Like a Mathematician - Kevin Houston
How to Prove It - D. J. Velleman
Mathematics: Its Content, Methods and Meaning - A.D. Aleksandrov, A.N. Kolmogorov, & M.A. Lavrent'ev

>Chapter 4: Bringing It All Together: The First Test of Mathematical Maturity
Calculus Vol. I & II - T. M. Apostol
Analysis I & II - Terrance Tao

>>8975779
>radical
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

You gave me a nice giggle. Yessuh

File: 1496954077179.png (3KB, 312x312px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 312x312px

>>8976746
wow

File: 17807659_1510588215627168_2629259782421969254_o.jpg (65KB, 1024x919px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 1024x919px

>>8976356
why that's very nice of you

>>8976746
i love you anon

>>8976746
...so are you going to post the non-meme list?

>>8977461
I just did. Do you know how to read?

>>8976746
>Stitz
>Calculus: A Modern Approach
>How to Prove It
stop seriously

you're going to cause some impressionable high-schooler to waste his time

>>8977970
Then what do you recommend?

>>8977970
There's nothing wrong with any of those books, except maybe Dobrushkin due to its relative inaccessibility being the only book you'd likely be forced to buy (and even then you could just do Tenenbaum or something).

The first two books, Stitz and Knisley, are totally free, and most of the rest you can easily find online in pdf form. If you don't like Stitz then Axler is just as good. If you don't like Knisley then kill yourself—it's the best easily accessible calculus book that doesn't go straight into babby's first analysis, and if you need more problems you can always download an old version of Stewart. Dobrushkin covers everything you need in intro DifEQ with heavy applied focus (as it should until you do pure difEQ after real analysis), and everything else including How to Prove It is a time tested masterpiece for mathematical education.

If an impressionable high schooler leaves with an understanding of the difference between functions and curves, a solid intuition of calculus, good quantitative problem-solving skills, the ability to write coherent proofs, a formal understanding of calculus and analysis, and the know-how to tackle advanced pure and applied mathematics, then I'm satisfied.

Seriously, calling Velleman a danger to impressionable high schoolers? It's like you trolls want a world full of brainlets. Unless you're saying that it's too much of an initial difficulty—in that case start with Khan Academy and Gelfand's Algebra (first one in series IMO) to develop ability.

>>8976016
This is correct when you study Field theory and abstract algebra though.
>>8976031
You are wrong. In abstract algebra it becomes correct.
>>8976541
You're the idiot.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freshman%27s_dream

File: 1493937279729.png (197KB, 2500x1645px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 2500x1645px

>>8976278

>>8975856
>Don't by this book
>By

Also
>Math majors have trouble with this book

File: image.jpg (230KB, 1439x1374px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1439x1374px

>>8978012
>only rocket scientists can solve these problems

>>8975856
i think these reviews actually convinced me to start Stitz precalc
thanks

>>8976278
Simmons pls go

>>8976298
>And that would be 3 years younger
>3
kys

File: image.jpg (53KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 500x375px

>>8978079

>precalc
U A B
N G &
D E
E
R

Standard notation implies principal root.

>>8981404
>tfw 20 and just starting Calc
Feels awful senpai

>>8981440
That's a bad hit, why not khan academy?

>>8981587
I got tired of Khan desu. Currently learning from Simmons and doing just fine.

>>8975769
Well, technically he is correct.

>>8975769
>"radicals"

top wew

>>8975982

-1^(1/1) = -1

>>8975769
He only defined roots for positive real numbers.

File: marteau.jpg (64KB, 772x501px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 772x501px

>>8977992
>trying this hard to be a pseudointellectual after taking babby's first algebra class

>This is correct when you study Field theory and abstract algebra though.
>You are wrong. In abstract algebra it becomes correct.
no it's not, it would be if n was a prime, and if you specified which root you're taking

>>8975769
You might as well complain about rules 3 and 4 too, assuming the book only uses reals.