Before watching: This will go most easily if we square away the radicals on the left. Recall that a^(mn) = (a^m)^n. First, square the left and the right, to get 3sqrt(9 sqrt(27)) = 81^(6x) = 3^(24x) (because 3^4=81) Squaring again we get (3^2)(9)sqrt(27) = 81 sqrt(27)= 81^(12x) And with one last squaring... (81^2)(27) = 81^(24x). Since 81 = 3^4, 27 = 3^3, and (a^m)(a^n) = a^(m+n)... (3^4)^2 * 3^3 = (3^4)^(24x) -> 3^11 = 3^(96x). Then 11 = 96x, and finally x = 11/96
@brucedavis919120 күн бұрын
Go away
@sureshkumar-db1jh22 күн бұрын
C
@User19rhx13xr24 күн бұрын
7/16 in mind
@monroeclewis197324 күн бұрын
Rather than squaring expressions I converted them to exponential form right away: On the left 3^1/2 x 9^1/4 x 27^1/8, all powers of 3; on the right 3^12x. Add exponents on the left to get 11/8 with 12x on the right. X = 11/96.
@Ayushmishra70817Ай бұрын
😂😂😂😂
@rajanmaths5Ай бұрын
Nice
@Ayushmishra70817Ай бұрын
@@rajanmaths5 aur kya haal hai bro??
@roger7341Ай бұрын
Substitute a=b+1/2. (b+1/2)^4-(b-1/2)^4=2[4b^3(1/2)+4b(1/8)]=0 b^3+b/4=0. b=0 or b=±i/2. a=1/2 or (1±i)/2
@mariorueda6715Ай бұрын
the right answer is 262143
@phishfearme2Ай бұрын
what a waste of time
@joaocardoso2304Ай бұрын
Mate, you are among the 99% who got it wrong.
@TeenyPortАй бұрын
0:10 111111111111111111 but in base 2
@DonkeyYoteАй бұрын
I don't get it. Why not say 262144 - 1 ? If you are going to take the step that 512 is 2 to the ninth, why not say that 2 to the eighteenth is 262144 ?
@FritzTheCat_1030Ай бұрын
This is super-stupid. If you know that 2^9 is 512, you could just do 512^2 - 1...factoring it into (512+1)(512-1) is the single dumbest way you could go about solving from there. But then you do a whole bunch of other time-wasting after.
@TomasGradinАй бұрын
...and end up with the wrong answer 🤔
@timur5788Ай бұрын
oxymoron
@Time12366Ай бұрын
Just do multiplication by 2 manually lol
@marcelopacheco2479Ай бұрын
2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512,1024,2048,4096,8192,16384,32768,65536,131072,262144 (2^18) So 262143.
@proffessorcluelessАй бұрын
This won't work for anybody that can't multiply by 2.
@marcelopacheco2479Ай бұрын
@@proffessorclueless Just multiply 1024 x 256 -1. Simpler than all rearrangement. I know power of 2 up to 20 by heart (plus 2^24 and 2^32) as a low level computer guy.
@proffessorcluelessАй бұрын
@@marcelopacheco2479 sounds like binary is the way to go here.
@jerrypaquette5470Ай бұрын
It really is not that difficult toto just multiply 511 x 513 which equals 262,143.
@petercooolАй бұрын
Yes😂😂😂😂
@GabrieleTafuroАй бұрын
I am afraid that the final sum is wrong.
@jerrypaquette5470Ай бұрын
Your right it should be 262,143.
@honeybee9455Ай бұрын
X=0
@workemail9020Ай бұрын
ITNA LAMBA Q KIYA? 4^8/8^4 - 8^4/4^8 can also be written as 64*64*16/64*64 - 64*64/64*64*16 sare 64 cut jayenge, simple bachega 16 - 1/16 = (265-1)16 =255/16
@WalkerGR221Ай бұрын
The easiest solution is to put everything in powers of 2. You then have 2^2^8 / 2^3^4 - 2^3^4 / 2^2^8 = 2^16/2^12 - 2^12/2^16 = 2^4 - 1/2^4 = 16 - 1/16 = 255/16.
He wastes time on several steps. 3^x = 45 can immediately be re-written as log_3 (45) = x. We're not required to use log base 10 to eventually get to this step.
@whosit112Ай бұрын
Dividing by 2 at the beginning was unnecessary.
@tommymorrison6478Ай бұрын
If 99% of entrants failed this they never learned arithmetic.
@JohnRandomness105Ай бұрын
2 *sqrt(x) = x. One solution is zero. For the other, divide by sqrt(x) to get 2 = sqrt(x). That means x = 4, the other solution.
Ай бұрын
I don't believe 99% would fail to find the 0 solution. You wouldn't clickbait, would you?
@legendarylegodude11Ай бұрын
I literally just looked at it and knew 3⁴ + 3² = 90. You REALLY overcomplicated it
@sunillohia6003Ай бұрын
Nearby value?
@sunillohia6003Ай бұрын
Can any suggest what is value of x? In rational
@vpsjdonАй бұрын
Didn't watch the video but I got x=3.465
@allinthemind7364Ай бұрын
3²+3⁴=90, but answer is 9×5+9×5=45+45=90 because we have to so how much we can remember and show that why 3×3×3×3+×3×3 is 90 Which we never use in our life. I am not telling that math and science is useless be this this 💀😕 education system crush it and fuck it
@charlesmraderАй бұрын
3^x=45, 3^(x-2)=5, (x-2) log 3 = log 5, x=2+(log 5)/(log 3). If 99% failed this, the population had never learned about logarithms.
@manomaybangaliАй бұрын
easy toh hai😂😂
@chrismcgowan3938Ай бұрын
x=4 and possibly imaginary values
@JohnRandomness105Ай бұрын
No, no imaginary answers. But zero is also a solution.
@chrismcgowan3938Ай бұрын
@@JohnRandomness105 Yes I missed that one.
@MikeRosoftJHАй бұрын
If we divide by √x, we get 2=√x i.e. x=4. But the equation has one more solution (when division is invalid): x=0. (If x is negative, then √x is imaginary. More generally, if x is complex other than a positive real number, then angle of √x in polar coordinates can't be the same as the angle of x.) We can also substitute y=√x; then we get y^2 - 2*y = 0, and that yields y*(y-2)=0, immediately giving the two solutions (a quadratic equation can't have more than two solutions).
@sebastiandomagala9233Ай бұрын
Nice calculating. But how on earth are you writing the letter "x"?
@FinetalPiesАй бұрын
I think they're using n, same concept.
@sebastiandomagala9233Ай бұрын
@@FinetalPies The Thumbnail says "x", and "n" implies a natural number.