>>684402718
Well, it is impossible to solve. You can simplify, but not solve it. So yes, us faggots can't solve it.

>>684402815
its not impossible to solve...

>>684402914

uh yes it is because it doesn't equal something..

4x^4 - 3x^2 + 1

>>684402718
I'm still trying to figure out why it's a .gif

>>684402914
Okay, solve it !

>>684403066
it always equals something xddddd

4x^3 - 3x^2 + 1
...
you get some imaginary shit
...
x = (+-)0.5 sqrt( 0.5 ( 3 - i sqrt(7) ) )

>>684403216
SQUIRT

>>684402914
The solution could be something like 4x but not something like 4.5 so you can't solve it but you can simplify it

>>684402718
It will always equal zero....

OP forgot to do his algebra 2 homework again

>>684403298
Square root

>>684402718

Simplified, it's4x^4 - 3x^2

>>684403216
well done nigger, now go back to eat bananas

>>684403337

wtf why would it always equal zero..

it doesnt even have an equals sign

File: 1445992851582.jpg (189 KB, 970x633) Image search: [Google]

189 KB, 970x633

>>684403356
Haha you wish, I fucking excel in my math class

If you dont get this result
4x^4 - 3x^2 + 1
is because you are a nigger

>>684402718
Nigga what do you mean solve it. Its a fraction not an equation. That's like saying "solve x/2"

if you assume the RHS = 0, (4x^4 - 3x^2 + 1)*4x^2 = 0. so the zeros are x=0, x=0, x= -0.5*sqrt(0.5(3-isqrt(7)), x=0.5*sqrt(0.5*(3-i*sqrt(7)), x= -0.5*sqrt(0.5*(0.5(3+i*sqrt(7)))), x=0.5*sqrt(0.5(3+sqrt(7)))

>>684402718
6

>>684402718
On what ring you fucking idiot?

x4 • (4x4 - 3x2 + 1)

>>684403819

i forgot an "i" in the last one i'm drunk--
0.5*sqrt(0.5*(3+i*sqrt(7)))

>>684403599
Underage anon alert.

69

>>684403097
and thats how u fail math

>>684402718
-1/((2)^1/4)
+1/((2)^1/4)

>>684404224
That's the right simplification?

>>684404025
Nope, just never gave a shit about math in HS, did drugs and chased pussy instead like an alpha should, but am doing really well in college. You fucking asshole.

(x^2 + 3/8)^2 - 1/8

>>684402718
4x^3-3x^2+1 simplified

x^2(4x-3)= -1
x=+-i, 1/2 as possible solution sets

>>684402718

= what? u dumb fucking idiot

>>684405251
Dividing by the monomial, you rewrite the expression you stupid fuck.

>>684402718
kek i have a calculator

>>684402718
Only thing u can say is that X cannot be equal 0 , cause this function isn't equal to anything.

Answer is: 2

File: 1421328715014.jpg (30 KB, 1280x720) Image search: [Google]

30 KB, 1280x720

This is some basic shit and I see a lot of you retards over complicating it and pulling shit out of your ass.

As a math major, these threads are highly amusing seeing people who think they know what they're doing, but fucking butcher it.

>>684404224
Must be European you fucks call it maths like its fucking plural. My fourth grade cousin could simplify this.

X= 0.24

>>684406291
>Math major

Are you fucking serious? Where the fuck do expect to go with that degree? Being a teacher? Have fun having most students hate you for your occupation.

Get a real man's trade or kill yourself.

4x^4-3x^2+1
Engineer here.

>>684406677
Father's a math major and makes 350k/year in a job highly related to the major.

Stay mad.

>>684406786
This is correct

>>684406909
No it is not

>>684406786
It's a Polynomial division this is the answer

>>684406948
Elaborate please.

>>684405391
That's not solving. That's simplifying.
Solving would be determining the value of x, which can't be done.

>>684406786
Got the same, this is the answer

>>684406786
a more elaborate answer would be x^2(4x^2-3)=-1
but still, this is the simplified division

>>684402718
>Simplified: 4x^4-3x^2+1
Is not a equation so there is no solutions, only possible to simplify. If you want a solution needs to be equal to something or you should have asked to find the zeros of that equation.

>>684407451
= -1

are you sure about that

you ADDED an equals sing to the expression out of no where

Bet you can't solve x+2...
Whats x???? :^)

>>684407755
>cont...
also the zeros are 2 conjugate complex numbers.
x1= 0.707*exp(-20.70i) x2= 0.707*exp(20.70i)
x3=0.707*exp(159.29i) x4= 0.707exp(-159.29i)

>>684407451
Only if you assume that the original expression is equal to zero.

>>684406826

Lol ok faggot.

File: rQmKrmD.png (14 KB, 786x353) Image search: [Google]

14 KB, 786x353

k

File: 1.jpg (51 KB, 667x720) Image search: [Google]

51 KB, 667x720

>>684404224
It's fucking right you autistic piece of cockroach's shit.

>>684403466
>4x^4 - 3x^2
it's 4x^4 - 3x^2+1 u retarded cunt

File: solution.png (10 KB, 507x92) Image search: [Google]

10 KB, 507x92

>>684402718
I did it OP

When x = 0, 4x^4 - 3x^2 + 1 is 1, but (16x^2 - 12x^4 + 4x^2) / 4x^2 is indeterminate (of form 0/0).

But my maths is too rusty to say whether, and why or why not this is an important distinction to make.

>>684402718
Want a graph?
4x^3 - 3x^2 + 1 = asimptote
extremes: f'(x)*g(x) - f(x) * g'(x)) roots are X coordinates of maximums
f(0) = 0
At most it has 6 real roots... Draw maximums and see how many real roots it has. Use the Newtonian formula to precisely calculate them ( x0 - f(x)/f'(x) )
Vertical asymptote is x=0 and it is even.

>>684402718
someone that's taking calculus do partial fraction decomposition for us. it's been too long for me

>>684405018
how did you get an equality sign?

>>684410899

Are you trolling or actually this retarded

you just sound pretty confident so I could actually see someone thinking this, but holy shit

how could it be zero / zero when x can be anything it's just a variable.... the expression doesnt even simply down to 0/0. Like ya if x = 0, you get 0/0. But x doesnt equal zero, we have no idea what x is, there is no equality sign

>>684412023

You dont need calculus, or fraction decomposition.... you need to have completed grade 7. Maybe grade 8, i don't remember that far back

you take each part of the top

divide by the bottom

poof

>>684412023
>sadly it can't be done, the expression above the division it's a higher degree than the one below

>>684413685
he's asking for a new method, it usefull when you do diferential ecuations, or when you do some integrals.

>>684413935

I know exactly what it's for, and it's not for this. You cant separate into multiple fractions when the denominator IS JUST ONE THING

The point of it is to split up things that have a denominator like x(x+2)

>>684413293
I'm just saying, for anybody who took the problem to mean "simplify the expression: ...", then you would need to say:

(16x^6 - 12x^4 + 4x^2) / 4x^2
= 4x^4 - 3x^2 + 1 [for x not equal to 0]

If you did go on to use this expression in a problem, but you used the simplified version of the expression rather than the full one, and later you found that x actually was zero, you'd have an invalid result.

It's not an equation, so it can't be solved. Unless you mean (16x⁶-12x⁴+4x²)/4x²=0.

>>684409138
It's not defined on the same values

File: IMG_20160515_172507.jpg (3 MB, 3120x4160) Image search: [Google]

3 MB, 3120x4160

This is easy.

>>684413935
And the first part of this decomposition is getting the integer part of the division. There is nothing remaining after that.

>>684414776
The second part is long as fuck. Just write your complex in polar form and you get the square roots for free.