← Home ← Back to /g/

Thread 106916465

200 posts 52 images /g/
Anonymous No.106916465 [Report] >>106916499 >>106916640 >>106916644 >>106916652 >>106916659 >>106916684 >>106916716 >>106916721 >>106917049 >>106917170 >>106917229 >>106917394 >>106918292 >>106918312 >>106918335 >>106919778 >>106920987 >>106921143 >>106922421 >>106922759 >>106923480 >>106923511 >>106923597 >>106924350 >>106928382 >>106929954 >>106930105 >>106930661 >>106932330 >>106934167 >>106940329 >>106941285 >>106941360 >>106941465 >>106944571
If you can't solve this, you shouldn't be allowed to work in tech.
Anonymous No.106916487 [Report] >>106917264 >>106917330 >>106918657 >>106918672 >>106922417 >>106930145 >>106937185
Use case?
Anonymous No.106916499 [Report] >>106916632 >>106916648 >>106916862 >>106918251 >>106929807 >>106944378 >>106944391
>>106916465 (OP)
X = 1
Anonymous No.106916632 [Report]
>>106916499
This
Anonymous No.106916640 [Report] >>106916647 >>106916650 >>106930364 >>106930690
>>106916465 (OP)
1 & -1
Can't be fucked thinking about this more than a few seconds
Anonymous No.106916644 [Report]
>>106916465 (OP)
It’s 1 and then some imaginary numbers I saw it on /pol/
Anonymous No.106916647 [Report]
>>106916640
It's x^3 not x^2
Anonymous No.106916648 [Report]
>>106916499
You win
Anonymous No.106916650 [Report] >>106917355
>>106916640
-1 would be -2 youve been banned from tech
Anonymous No.106916652 [Report]
>>106916465 (OP)
>1x1x1=1
1-1=0
0=0
Anonymous No.106916659 [Report] >>106916668 >>106916793 >>106916878 >>106930578 >>106932780
>>106916465 (OP)
here's the correct answer btw, no one got it
Anonymous No.106916668 [Report]
>>106916659
1 or 0 then
Anonymous No.106916684 [Report] >>106934307 >>106945725
>>106916465 (OP)
x = cubicroot(1)
Anonymous No.106916685 [Report]
Depends on the underlying ring. For example, 2 is a solution in Z/(7).
Anonymous No.106916716 [Report] >>106919677
>>106916465 (OP)
>If you can't solve this
>Don't worry, because no one can name a career field outside of Math Teacher that would utilize such algebraic equations for practical purposes
>Extra ketchup please.
Anonymous No.106916721 [Report] >>106916729 >>106916824
>>106916465 (OP)
>roots of unity (cube root to be specific), a genuine question to test one's analytical ability
>/g/ cant solve it
> b-but usecase kek
>1
>x=cubicroot(1)

i am starting to believe entire 4chan is full of posers. /g/ cant into maths and tech, /lit/ cant read, /mu/ /tv/ /a/ are full of shit, rest is ... well porn
Anonymous No.106916729 [Report] >>106916765
>>106916721
Why cant it be 1?
Anonymous No.106916765 [Report] >>106916784 >>106916789 >>106917171
>>106916729
there are 3 solutions tho, 1 omega omega2
1 is incomplete and shows you can either not solve it completely or even worse, are unaware that the other solutions even exist
Anonymous No.106916784 [Report] >>106916920
>>106916765
So it can be 1?
Anonymous No.106916789 [Report] >>106916857 >>106918323
>>106916765
1 is complete in real space
OP never specified the function domain.
Anonymous No.106916793 [Report]
>>106916659
>final solution
kek
Anonymous No.106916824 [Report] >>106916873
>>106916721
Lit can read, ic can draw but g cant code
Anonymous No.106916857 [Report] >>106916883 >>106922442
>>106916789
>1 is complete BUT in real space
>asspulled the OP never mentioned function domain
roots of unity solution is a more complete one in every space firstly and next you are a total NIGGER if you think OP asked this question to test if you could reach 1 as the solution you moron
total subhuman room temperature IQ argument from you right here
do you think the post was meant to check if you knew 1^3 = 1 ?? really ??
absolute state of /g/
i can understand if you dont know the solution, that is totally fine but the stage you are at right now, a sturdy rope is your best shot
Anonymous No.106916862 [Report]
>>106916499
Genius
Anonymous No.106916873 [Report]
>>106916824
interesting
/ic/ can draw, there is no denying that
i am really not sure if /lit/ can read, but i may just give it to them for keeping it mildly relevant and alive but /g/ ? oh my god, total niggers who cant into programming and think picking muh DOOOTFILES from some another niggers repo and "ricing" your "system" is tech
Anonymous No.106916878 [Report] >>106917057 >>106917236 >>106927162
>>106916659
Not really
Unless otherwise stated R is implied
This is a technology board where complex numbers are very rarely used, so R is generally implied
Anonymous No.106916883 [Report] >>106916903
>>106916857
It's not an asspull.
A function definition is incomplete without specifying the domain.
Especially when presented as just a formula without any context.

The real space solution is just as valid is as the complex space solution here.
Anonymous No.106916903 [Report]
>>106916883
holy shit
are you still defending it ??
are you really implying OP asked this to check if you could read 1 as the solution or "infer" that unless stated R is the domain ??
i am done, you win
Anonymous No.106916920 [Report] >>106916934 >>106916973
>>106916784
obviously 1 is one of the solutions but that s not the fucking point of the post
Anonymous No.106916934 [Report] >>106916954
>>106916920
so ur saying that the question "How To Solve?" is adequately answered by "x=1"
Anonymous No.106916954 [Report]
>>106916934
i never said that tho
>how do i do X ??
>here you go, X is done.
>no explanation
are you serious, the question "how to solve" is adequately answered by "providing the entire solution to the question"
Anonymous No.106916973 [Report] >>106917022
>>106916920
The point of the post is to troll people with an ill-stated incomplete problem that does not specify function domains, so people can argue about it.
Both answers are valid, stop being an easily baited baby.
Anonymous No.106917022 [Report]
>>106916973
>easily baited baby
kek, try better next time
>both are valid
no, try telling that to someone around you who actually knows math but i highly doubt you would be exchanging thoughts with someone like that irl else you wouldnt be so stupid
nice talking to you anon
Anonymous No.106917049 [Report]
>>106916465 (OP)
x^3 - 1 = 0
x * x * x - (- 1 + 1) = 0 + 1
x * x * x - 0 = 1
x^3 = 1
x = 1

Took me about 2 seconds mentally.
Anonymous No.106917051 [Report] >>106930578
ez
Anonymous No.106917057 [Report] >>106917065 >>106917146
>>106916878
i use complex numbers all the time, speak for yourself
Anonymous No.106917065 [Report]
>>106917057
based
Anonymous No.106917146 [Report] >>106917162
>>106917057
I do too, but only for rotations, no fucking clue on how to find the complex solutions
Anonymous No.106917162 [Report]
>>106917146
2pi/n in the complex plane
Anonymous No.106917170 [Report]
>>106916465 (OP)
>If you can't solve this, you shouldn't be allowed to work in tech.
Anonymous No.106917171 [Report]
>>106916765
>there are 3 solutions tho, 1 omega omega2
kek what the fuck are you talking about?
>the very first non meme answer is correct
nooo!! you didn't use my imaginary made up mumbo jumbo maths!! i get paid millions in laundered dark money to come up with fairy tale maths you hav to respect me and my multiple mathematics genders!!!
fuck off retard.
the answer is 1
go waste your time on quantum computing or some other made up useless dogshit this board is full of enough garbage as it is.
Anonymous No.106917190 [Report] >>106917197 >>106927162
Imaginary numbers aren't real. They've played you like fools.
Anonymous No.106917197 [Report] >>106917205
>>106917190
imaginary numbers are real, the name just sucks
Anonymous No.106917205 [Report] >>106917211 >>106917216
>>106917197
Give me i apples please.
Anonymous No.106917211 [Report] >>106917265
>>106917205
they're rotations, give me 30º oranges first
Anonymous No.106917216 [Report]
>>106917205
done. you're welcome anon.
Anonymous No.106917229 [Report] >>106917240
>>106916465 (OP)
Anonymous No.106917236 [Report] >>106917261 >>106917262
>>106916878
Not really.
Technology has no way to deal with non-rational numbers. So unless otherwise stated, Q is implied
Anonymous No.106917240 [Report] >>106923427
>>106917229
>square root
you must be a scientist
Anonymous No.106917261 [Report] >>106917484 >>106941568
>>106917236
>Technology has no way to deal with non-rational numbers.

More like non-whole numbers. You can't make 0.6(6) of an chair. Everything has to be emulated.
Anonymous No.106917262 [Report] >>106917484
>>106917236
>gimped number structures can't be accurate therefore computers suck at math
how about you use bigint and complex libraries
Anonymous No.106917264 [Report]
>>106916487
fpbp
Anonymous No.106917265 [Report] >>106917280
>>106917211
rotated along what axis?
Anonymous No.106917280 [Report]
>>106917265
japan, please, or italy
Anonymous No.106917330 [Report]
>>106916487
cubic root of 1 is 1
so x=1
Anonymous No.106917355 [Report]
>>106916650
Fuck you
I never liked tech anyway
Anonymous No.106917394 [Report]
>>106916465 (OP)
The answer is x3-1 because x has no default value
Anonymous No.106917484 [Report]
>>106917261
True, Computers already have trouble with 0.3.

>>106917262
I'm not saying computers suck at maths. Just continuing the argumunt of that other anon how complex numbers usually can't be dealt with natively and as such we shouldn't even think about these concepts if not explicitly stated.
Anonymous No.106918146 [Report] >>106918169 >>106918225 >>106930171
just use long division you dumb jeets
you can obviously see x=1 is one real root, now just reduce it to a quadratic equation by factoring that one real root as (x-1):

(x-1)(x^2+x+1) = 0

Now just solve the quadratic equation for the two remaining roots

x = (-1 ± sqrt(1-4))/2 = (-1 ± sqrt(-3))/2 = -1 ± i*sqrt(3)/2

There you go the two remaining complex roots.
Anonymous No.106918169 [Report] >>106918175
>>106918146
but why would I even try that if x = 1^(1/3) is right there?
Anonymous No.106918175 [Report] >>106918303
>>106918169
Because that is only one of the three roots of x.
Anonymous No.106918206 [Report]
>log_x(1) = 3 (I forgetted how to do the rest)

What do I win?
Anonymous No.106918225 [Report] >>106918240 >>106919845
>>106918146
>long division
nowhere in your post did you use long division, nor is it needed to solve this
Anonymous No.106918240 [Report] >>106920712
>>106918225
long division is used to obtain the second degree polynomial used in the factorization you dumb jeet
and long division is always used to solve simple cubic equations (i.e. when one real root is obvious).
Anonymous No.106918247 [Report]
Oh shit bros I googled it, remember difference of squares? This is just difference of cubes.
Anonymous No.106918251 [Report] >>106918657 >>106920118 >>106923649 >>106929077 >>106930000 >>106930338 >>106932352
>>106916499
you only gave 1/3 of the solutions:
>X = 1
>X = e^(i * 2 * pi/3) (also sometime named j)
>X = e^(i * 4 * pi/3) (sometime named j with a bar on top as it's conj(j))

In fact any non-zero polynomial with real coefficients has exactly N roots, where N is the degree of that polynomial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorem_of_algebra
Anonymous No.106918292 [Report]
>>106916465 (OP)
answer is 0!
Anonymous No.106918303 [Report] >>106918311 >>106918449 >>106918502
>>106918175
and how would I know I haven't found them all?
Anonymous No.106918311 [Report]
>>106918303
because you know there are 3 and youve only pointed out 1.
Anonymous No.106918312 [Report]
>>106916465 (OP)
x=1
Anonymous No.106918323 [Report]
>>106916789
op never specified if X is a p-adic number either.
Anonymous No.106918335 [Report]
>>106916465 (OP)
just do a loop and increment x until it satisfies the equation.
boom done
Anonymous No.106918449 [Report] >>106925872
>>106918303
fundamental theorem or algebra
Anonymous No.106918502 [Report] >>106918527
>>106918303
Because it's a ^3 equation you fucking jeet.
Anonymous No.106918527 [Report] >>106918610 >>106918625
>>106918502
>uh duh, obviously x^8391 = 1 has 8391 solutions
this is your brain on meth
Anonymous No.106918610 [Report]
>>106918527
yes
Anonymous No.106918625 [Report] >>106918710
>>106918527
if you draw a polynomial you will notice that N in x^N will equal the amount of times the polynomial intersects the X-axis i.e. x=0. The roots are these intersection points.
Anonymous No.106918657 [Report]
>>106918251
Great, correct, but the real answer is "not enough details are provided for a solution". We don't know if the complex roots are needed, or just the real ones, or really any constraints that most root-solving problems have.
>>106916487
only right answer
Anonymous No.106918672 [Report]
>>106916487
ebussy won
Anonymous No.106918710 [Report] >>106918782 >>106918803 >>106921250
>>106918625
it still doesn't make sense
how the hell do you look at this and think
"there must be a whole dimension I missed, I can't see the other two points that cross the x axis"
Anonymous No.106918782 [Report]
>>106918710
Because anon said it the way he did i can't be sure that he understands it
Anyways, third order polynomials always have 3 solutions, in this case we can see that it has one real solution, which means there's two complex solutions as well
Anonymous No.106918803 [Report]
>>106918710
they just account for i, the extra dimension's a side effect
Anonymous No.106919677 [Report]
>>106916716
I'm sure there's a use out there. hoping someone can tell me
Anonymous No.106919725 [Report]
Looks like it's solved already to me. It equals zero.
Anonymous No.106919778 [Report] >>106919933
>>106916465 (OP)
I've been thinking about writing a free math textbook for /g/entoomen for a while now. I'm sure that a lot of you fags would benefit from learning more about math, but I'm not sure how many would actually want to do it.
Anonymous No.106919845 [Report] >>106920712
>>106918225
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynomial_long_division
Anonymous No.106919933 [Report] >>106920279
>>106919778
I'd do it anon
I quite liked complex analysis back in uni but sadly never got around to reading serious material on it afterwards
Anonymous No.106920118 [Report] >>106922653
>>106918251
Why not including the Quaternion's plane then ?
Quaternions are more related to /g/ than simple "Complex numbers" :
>Unit vectors in 3D for vidya-gfx
Anonymous No.106920279 [Report]
>>106919933
Hmm, maybe I'll get to work then. I'm quite busy at the moment, but I should have a lot more free time next year. What topics would /g/entoomen like to see covered?
Anonymous No.106920712 [Report]
>>106918240
>>106919845
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_division
Anonymous No.106920987 [Report]
>>106916465 (OP)
x^3, so 3 roots equally spaced along the unit circle with |z|=1
One full rotation is 2pi, so 1/3 rotation is 2pi/3 and 2/3 rotation is 4pi/3
So, the first root is e^(i*0)=1, the second root e^i(2pi/3), the third is e^i(4pi/3)
Anonymous No.106921143 [Report]
>>106916465 (OP)
Fuck writing the whole solution, just think. Which number, when cubed, would become just a plain 1? The simplest answer is 1.
Anonymous No.106921250 [Report]
>>106918710
sqrt(-1) doesn't exist in the real numbers, so of course it isn't go to show up in a graph of the function over the real numbers.
Anonymous No.106922417 [Report]
>>106916487
/thread
Anonymous No.106922421 [Report]
>>106916465 (OP)
Why?
Anonymous No.106922442 [Report]
>>106916857
That fact that you are this butt blasted over complex numbers tells me your the poser lmao
Anonymous No.106922578 [Report]
x = 1 , exp (-i * 2 * PI * 1/3), exp (-i * 4 * PI * 1/3)
Unless you are implementing DFT you don't need to know this lmao. Math as it's taught in highschool and college is largely useless for computing even if you are implementing DFT you are better off (from scratch) just reading an implementation and making your own examples. I think if you've taken a lot of math you are a few steps behind people who start from 0. Cause they weren't taught the wrong way.
Anonymous No.106922653 [Report] >>106922705
>>106920118
Because it would embarrass the mathematicians that waste their time complicating simple ideas. All the complex solutions are saying is that cubing is in some way analogous to 3 120 degree rotations. Once you know that you can just name a function and implement it any way you like. so x^n = 1 is n rotations, but no mathematician would ever tell you that, they just want to "blow your mind" by introducing e^x and saying it magically does blahblahblah.
Anonymous No.106922705 [Report]
>>106922653
>but no mathematician would ever tell you that
Because it's kind of trivial
Anonymous No.106922759 [Report]
>>106916465 (OP)
This is going to be some pajeet-tier bait-and-switch question where '''''''''''''''''answers''''''''''''''''' are almost never 1 or some complex shit.
If you think too quickly, correct or not, they will say you did not think throughout enough, and they will give you some jeet answers.
If you think too slowly, they will say you thought too much, and they will give you 1 (and possibly that one complex and its conjugate) as (an) answer(s).
Anonymous No.106922810 [Report]
for 0 1 2 in i ; cos(2*PI * i / 3.0) + u * sin(2*PI * i / 3.0)
where u is the unit quaternion (0 is the trivial case)
Of course there is no closed form to the solution over quaternions. This exercise is entirely pointless OP is a faggot.
Anonymous No.106922886 [Report] >>106923004 >>106923144
int: x = 1
float, double: x = 1.0
bool: x = 1
char: x = '\001', (undefined)
array of ints: undefined
hashmap : undefined
tree: undefined
complex: look it up
Anonymous No.106923004 [Report]
>>106922886
you can multiply characters in c so it's not undefined
Anonymous No.106923144 [Report] >>106923374
>>106922886
complex.h is a C99 standard
Anonymous No.106923374 [Report] >>106923464
>>106923144
So is not converting floats to doubles and VLAs. Lots of bad ideas in c99.
Anonymous No.106923427 [Report]
>>106917240
Anonymous No.106923464 [Report] >>106923573 >>106923627
>>106923374
I always compile with -Wvla and I've never had issues with floats and doubles, you gotta spend a little more time writing if you want to be understood
Anonymous No.106923480 [Report]
>>106916465 (OP)
1
next thread
Anonymous No.106923511 [Report]
>>106916465 (OP)
Anonymous No.106923539 [Report] >>106923907 >>106927162
the answer is literally just 1. anything else sounds like fake math to me.
Anonymous No.106923573 [Report] >>106923627
>>106923464
Who are you?
(small correction, on the pdp-11 v6 unix the c compiler doesn't support floating point, though the language itself does)
Anonymous No.106923597 [Report]
>>106916465 (OP)
>they don't know about -1/2 +/- sqrt(3)i/2
china won.
Anonymous No.106923627 [Report]
>>106923464
You've never played a videogame with a floating point bug? I call bullshit, minecraft has them for this reason right here >>106923573
Anonymous No.106923649 [Report] >>106923969
>>106918251
>In fact any non-zero polynomial with real coefficients has exactly N roots, where N is the degree of that polynomial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorem_of_algebra:
>every non-zero, single-variable, degree n polynomial with complex coefficients has, counted with multiplicity, exactly n complex roots.
well it doesn't say what you said it said, it said the opposite. x is not complec coefficient. therefore fuck you
Anonymous No.106923907 [Report]
>>106923539
Close, it's imaginary.
Anonymous No.106923969 [Report]
>>106923649
>exactly n complex roots
exactly what I said

x^3-1 is a polynomial with only real coefficients.
so it checks out
also u+0i is a complex value, as well as being a real value
Anonymous No.106924007 [Report] >>106924064
Given that this thread is somehow still alive, here is the full process of solving it you fucking niggers.

x^3-1=0
x^3=0+1
x^3=1
x=cubicroot(1)
x=1

Why? What is a root? You take the number of root, which is 3 in this case and you need to find what 3 numbers multiplied together give 1. How much is 1*1*1? It's 1, therefore x=1.

Mods please close this ridiculous thread.
Anonymous No.106924016 [Report] >>106924397
x^3 crosses the y line only once,
1 is the obvious answer
Anonymous No.106924064 [Report]
>>106924007
Oh right root is opposite of exponent i knew that
Anonymous No.106924350 [Report]
>>106916465 (OP)
(X * X * X) - 1 = 0
(X * X * X) = 1
X^3 = 1
X = 1

1 - 1 = 0
The solution is this.
Anonymous No.106924397 [Report]
>>106924016
lol retard
Anonymous No.106925872 [Report] >>106927162
>>106918449
its not algebra
its calculus
Anonymous No.106927162 [Report]
>>106925872
>>106923539
>>106917190
>>106916878
Anonymous No.106928363 [Report] >>106941087 >>106944361
algebra - muslim useless shit
calculus - glorious white man invention leading us to stars!
Anonymous No.106928382 [Report] >>106928622
>>106916465 (OP)
I can’t think of a single problem in software development that would ever require knowing how to solve this.
Anonymous No.106928622 [Report]
>>106928382
how about equation solving software like wolframalpha?
Anonymous No.106928816 [Report] >>106928827 >>106928924
You NEED to know cube root solutions because it's essential in inverse kinematics functions for animating robots and virtual characters (both of which are technology).
Anonymous No.106928827 [Report]
>>106928816
go on...
algebra is the work of the antichrist No.106928872 [Report]
Just draw a unit circle in the complex plane and select the points at 0, 120 and 240 degrees.
Anonymous No.106928924 [Report]
>>106928816
>animating robots
complex solutions is not important
Anonymous No.106929062 [Report]
difference of cubes:
a^3 -b^3 = (a-b)(a^2 +ab +b^2)
x^3 - 1 = x^3 - 1^3
=> (x - 1)(x^2 +x +1)
root x=1
x_{1,2}= ( -1 \pm sqrt (-1 +4 ) ) / 2
x_{1,2}= ( -1 \pm sqrt -3 ) / 2
x_{1,2} = (-1 \pm i sqrt 3 ) / 2

I have tested IQ of 86 btw
Anonymous No.106929077 [Report] >>106929104
>>106918251
Weigh me i grams ... any number which isn't real and positive is bullshit.
Anonymous No.106929104 [Report]
>>106929077
it's true, they are all scalars in different fields
Anonymous No.106929726 [Report]
algebra - muslim useless shit
calculus - glorious white man invention leading us to stars!
Anonymous No.106929807 [Report] >>106930607 >>106930714
>>106916499
Could also be -i^(2/3)
Anonymous No.106929954 [Report]
>>106916465 (OP)
>If you can't solve this, you shouldn't be allowed to work in tech.
If you can't solve this you're literally retarded. At least post an impossible or ambiguous meme equation next time.
Anonymous No.106930000 [Report] >>106930241 >>106932729
>>106918251
Not a real answer
Anonymous No.106930105 [Report]
>>106916465 (OP)
the solution is 0
it literally said =0 on the question
Anonymous No.106930145 [Report] >>106931267
>>106916487
What's case?
Anonymous No.106930171 [Report]
>>106918146
That's pretty cool. Thanks Anon.
Anonymous No.106930199 [Report] >>106930228 >>106930294 >>106930310
You guys are not serious, right? Right???
Anonymous No.106930228 [Report] >>106930327
>>106930199
Which field, group or ring are we on?
Anonymous No.106930241 [Report]
>>106930000
kek
Anonymous No.106930292 [Report]
its always the jews
Anonymous No.106930294 [Report]
>>106930199
i.... think it's... hmmm... i... don't know
Anonymous No.106930310 [Report]
>>106930199
the only real numbers are finite integers, not including "zero", thus there is no solution. any other answer is bluepilled pseudoscience
Anonymous No.106930327 [Report]
>>106930228
i was obviously thinking of the sweedler hopf algebra, smartass.
Anonymous No.106930338 [Report] >>106935486
>>106918251
Imaginary numbers are /sci/faggotry
This is /g/
The answer is 1
Anonymous No.106930364 [Report]
>>106916640
I've always been deeply confused by things like algebra seminars for adults on company money (Private sector in my country still invests in workers).
Then I see shit like this and it all becomes crystal clear, It is a very sad thing for me but the job world revolves only around social skills.
Anonymous No.106930578 [Report]
>>106916659
(x-1)(x^2+x+1)
x(x^2+x+1)
-1(x^2+x+1)
x^3+x^2+x-x^2-x-1=0
x^3-1=0
>>106917051
x^3-1=0
x^3=1
x=1

Why are anons trying to add complexity, to grade-schooler math? Is it the R/python way or something?
Anonymous No.106930607 [Report] >>106930644
>>106929807
show me i apples
Anonymous No.106930644 [Report] >>106930810
>>106930607
show me 2 identical apples.
Anonymous No.106930661 [Report] >>106930712
>>106916465 (OP)
if you can't solve this i think the term for you is "clinically retarded". being in tech doesn't have shit to do with this.
Anonymous No.106930690 [Report]
>>106916640
That only applies for even numbered roots.
If you have y = x^2, it can take negative and positive number inputs and give out positive number outputs. Its inverse, y = ±sqrt(x), is the opposite, it takes in positive number inputs and gives out negative and positive number outputs. But you have to add that ± symbol because y = sqrt(x) only gives out positive outputs, and this is because of the definition of a function (one input should only have one output).
So, when you have x^2 = 1, and you apply its inverse to both sides: ±sqrt(x^2) = ±sqrt(1) => x = ±sqrt(1) => x = ± 1.
But with odd numbered roots, this doesn't apply.
If you have y = x^3, it can take negative and positive number inputs and give out negative and positive number outputs, so its inverse, y = cbrt(x), can also take in negative and positive inputs and give out negative and positive outputs. This means that there's no need to add a ± symbol.
I over-explained because I'm a retard, and that's how i understand it. In practicality, x^2 - 1 = 0 has two numbers that satisfy the equation: positive and negative 1, and x^3 - 1 = 0 has only one number that satisfies the equation: positive 1.
Anonymous No.106930712 [Report]
>>106930661
i bet you didn't think about imaginary numbers.
Anonymous No.106930714 [Report]
>>106929807
>2 hours later, nobody of the tech geniuses got the joke
Anonymous No.106930810 [Report] >>106930869
>>106930644
Anonymous No.106930869 [Report]
>>106930810
And that kids is why we don't believe in no Axiom of "Choice".
Anonymous No.106931267 [Report]
>>106930145
Serious question. Can't even google this 'cause this word has too many meaning.
Anonymous No.106931584 [Report]
behead anyone overcomplicating their answer
Anonymous No.106932330 [Report] >>106932832
>>106916465 (OP)
1, -1, -i
Anonymous No.106932352 [Report] >>106932725
>>106918251
X = 1 gets you a well paying job as an engineer. All that other stuff gets you into an insecure shit paying part time gig between 3 poor yuro universities and a monthly quota of at least 2 useless math papers in publications nobody reads.
Anonymous No.106932725 [Report]
>>106932352
kek, i didn't major in electronics, but we used imaginary numbers all the time. impedances use complex numbers all the time.
for instance ohm's law for impedance Z is
V = I |Z| e^(i arg(Z)).

even when you use a basic volt meter it solves complex equations internally to display the electrical tension.

even in mechanics complex numbers come up all the time, for damping factors, or solving movement equations. and don't even get me started on signal processing and fourier analysis.
Anonymous No.106932729 [Report]
>>106930000
Holy cinema
Anonymous No.106932780 [Report] >>106932796 >>106932882 >>106932890
>>106916659
I popped open a Ruby interpreter, set up this equation:
x = (1 + Complex(0, Math::sqrt(3))) / 2.0
puts x ** 3
Answer it gives is -0.9999999999999998+1.1102230246251565e-16i

This is an approximation of -1, so x^3 - 1 gives -2, which is an incorrect solution.
Anonymous No.106932796 [Report]
>>106932780
Actually, forgot the minus sign in front of it. That makes it equivalent to just saying 1 in a roundabout way.
Anonymous No.106932832 [Report]
>>106932330
-1 cubed is -1. Subtract 1 get -2. Wrong answer.
-i cubed is i. Subtract 1 get -1+I. Wrong answer.
1 cubed is 1. Subtract 1 get 0. Only correct answer.
Anonymous No.106932882 [Report]
>>106932780
>i don't know what are floating points.

use a cas next time
Anonymous No.106932890 [Report]
>>106932780
x is the root of x^3 = 1 dude its correct
Anonymous No.106932901 [Report]
So many mathlets in one thread.
Anonymous No.106934167 [Report]
>>106916465 (OP)
its not algebra
its calculus
Anonymous No.106934307 [Report]
>>106916684
Agree
Anonymous No.106934854 [Report]
It's not calculus
it's arithmetic
Anonymous No.106935444 [Report]
Niggas cmon this is not even college math.
Anonymous No.106935486 [Report] >>106935902
>>106930338
Electronics and pretty much every technology that deals with physics in any way uses complex numbers all the time. They are really the least unintuitive "weird" math out there.
Anonymous No.106935902 [Report] >>106936275
>>106935486
>Electronics
just 1(one) tricky way to solve perfect sinusoidal electric circuits

overall the only way is calculus
Anonymous No.106936154 [Report]
algebra is a dead end of math
Anonymous No.106936275 [Report] >>106936448 >>106936456
>>106935902
In a linear circuit, if the solution for input I1 is O1, and the solution for input I2 is O2, then the solution for input for I3=I1+I2 is O3=O1+O2. The set of functions which can be expressed as the sum of sinusoids is the set of periodic functions. If we turn the sum into a reimann sum, the set expands considerably. But in general we need the laplace transform.
Anonymous No.106936448 [Report]
>>106936275
>The set of functions which can be expressed as the sum of sinusoids
on in linear environment, with is rare human made case
Anonymous No.106936456 [Report]
>>106936275
>expressed as the sum of sinusoids
also zero calculation advantage over calculus
Anonymous No.106937185 [Report] >>106938005
>>106916487
Anonymous No.106938005 [Report] >>106938127
>>106937185
one liter cubic milk size
Anonymous No.106938127 [Report]
>>106938005
i don't want a large farva, i want a god damn liter of cola
Anonymous No.106939766 [Report]
its not algebra
its calculus
Anonymous No.106940329 [Report]
>>106916465 (OP)
It's just 1. Imaginary numbers are not real so they're not worth talking about.
Anonymous No.106941087 [Report] >>106941112
>>106928363
The algebra you learn in school is 99% made by white men too.
Anonymous No.106941112 [Report]
>>106941087
Where does the Chinese remainder theorem fit in?
Anonymous No.106941285 [Report] >>106941408
>>106916465 (OP)
>1
>exp(-j*2pi/3)
>exp(-j*4pi/3)
Boring. Next.
Anonymous No.106941360 [Report]
>>106916465 (OP)
>if you don't get my useless degree you shouldn't be allowed to work in tech
>gets the useless degree
>"Sorry Maam, you have to have at least 10 years of programming experience"
Anonymous No.106941408 [Report]
>>106941285
Also if you wanna generalize it to any exponent N, you’ll have N roots:
>exp(-j*k*2pi/N) where k is all integers from 0 and N-1 inclusive.
You’re just sampling around the unit circle. This is literally high school shit, if you don’t know this you need to gtfo back to plebbit
Anonymous No.106941465 [Report] >>106941536
>>106916465 (OP)
The question is how to solve? I just ask an AI!
Ez pz, give me a job plzy
Anonymous No.106941536 [Report] >>106942624
>>106941465
thank you for your input ranjeet
Anonymous No.106941568 [Report]
>>106917261
ehm, 0.6(6) = 2/3 is using my ebin rational number type.
Anonymous No.106941645 [Report]
SAAARS
Anonymous No.106942624 [Report]
>>106941536
You are welcome sir. I can help solve other problems too thank you.
Anonymous No.106944361 [Report]
>>106928363
Anonymous No.106944378 [Report]
>>106916499
BRITISHERS SHOCKED
INDIA ROCKS
Anonymous No.106944391 [Report]
>>106916499
The use case is two marks on your pre-algebra test: One for getting the correct answer and one for showing your work.
Anonymous No.106944571 [Report]
>>106916465 (OP)
X = 1.
Not sure what was so hard about that, you only have to know and follow like 3 basic rules.
Anonymous No.106945725 [Report]
>>106916684
aryan answer