How the third step was possible? Either the book is wrong or I am retarded"?
>>7788406
Haven't they just multiplied by [eqn] \frac { R_E + R_B } {R_E + R_B} [/eqn] ?
From third step, I assume you mean the third equation. All they did was multiply both numerator and denominator by (R_E + R_B).
>>7788428
Rb + Re + Beta(Re)
where did the singular Rb come from then
>>7788439
nvm Im retarded
>>7788428
Yep. Everyone here is terrible at algebra, apparently.
You need to divide both numerator and denominator
>>7788406
Textbook is correct: multiply numerator and denominator by (R_e + R_b). In the denominator, the first term (1) becomes (R_e + R_b), the second term becomes BR_e.
Similar process occurs when deriving logistic equations.
>>7788406
it's all bullshit
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
wtf is this babbys first algebra?
It's badly worded. You don't divide each term, but rather divide both the numerator and the denominator. It's still correct mathematically, though.
>>7789165
Coincidentally, dividing the numerator and the denominator also involves dividing each term, you FAG.
