There was no inverse of the function without the specification of the domain
what is the hardest math question you had
Sort:
Jun 13, 2020
0
#303
What I meant that one must specify the domain to be x is less than or equal to 1/2 so as to be invertible.
Jun 13, 2020
0
#304
but the best part of your message was "if i desire".. yeah yeah if you desire 
congratulations.
Jun 13, 2020
0
#305
gdzen wrote:
but the best part of your message was "if i desire".. yeah yeah if you desire congratulations.
Why should you forcibly ask me to try solve though?
Jun 13, 2020
0
#306
gdzen wrote:
but the best part of your message was "if i desire".. yeah yeah if you desire congratulations.
不，不，祝贺你! 
Jun 13, 2020
0
#307
chesster3145 wrote:
JamesAgadir wrote:
chesster3145 a écrit :
Already proven, but it took a professional mathematician seven years, and that’s only the formal proof. The proof itself is far too long and technical to fit into a forum post, so asking about it on here is pretty pointless.
I know that it has been proven but good luck if you get that in a test.
Not going to happen: Elliptic curves and Galois theory are a few years away for me.
It'll be the dawn of the fourth millennium AD when these proof-based problems begin cropping up.
Jun 14, 2020
0
#309
A^2 + 2AB + B^2
B^2 + 2AB + A^2
A^2 + B^2 + 2AB
B^2 + A^2 +2AB
2AB +A^2 + B^2
2AB +B^2 + A^2
Jun 14, 2020
0
#310
Josh is looking for the shadow of Euler's definition for current: I=SFR
Jun 23, 2020
0
#312
position force and resistance, you know, how they tell you not to stand under trees during lightning storms... all bow to lord raiden... except for goro, he invented the interwebs...
haha go away.. one minute ago you were saying there was no inverse of this function.. and one minute later you wrote the answer in a blink.. without steps.. and explanations.. dont fool yourself