someone tole me that 2+2 does not always eqaul 4. is there an actual equation to prove this?
104805
2+2=1 (mod 3)\n\nNothing is flawed.\nIn natural numbers we always have 2+2=4.\n\nPS.\nJust as a joke for mathematical analysis students:\n2+2=5 for sufficiently large values of 2
338816
As in many other pseudo-demonstrations of this kind, the error is to divide by zero (2-2) both sides of the identity. You can't do this because the division by zero is an undefined operation.\n\nFrom a well-known logic theorem, starting from a false statement, you can consistently derive any other false statement. This is the common source of many apparent paradoxes.
559152
are u sure its not supposed to be the other way around. Cuz that would make a little more sense.\n\nBut if not, then it would probably be:\n1 + ((4s squared - 11) / (s to the 4 - 3s squared -11))\n1 the quotient. the rest the remainder.
529993
If (1+2+4+8+16+...) is an infinite series you are basically saying that (infinity = 1 + 2*infinity)  which in itself is true because (infinity = infinity + 1) and (infinity = 2 * infinity).  So what you have basically proven is that (S = infinity = infinity) You can't subtract infinity from itself and obtain 1.  You get 0 which means both sides of the equation are equal.\n\nIf you make the series finite, then you can see how the logic doesn't hold to determine that S=-1.\nS = 1+2+4+8+16+32\nS = 1+2(1+2+4+8+16)\nS = 1+2(S-32)\nS = 1+2S-64\n-S = -63\nS = 63
131443
4! + 4! + 4! + 4! + 4
14785
It's eight. How I figured that out is I did 4x2, which is the same as 4+4 because there are two 4s being added in the equation. But since your mind is obviously far too inferior to even begin to comprehend such a subject, why don't I take your hand and walk you through it (not literally!!!), hm? First, we count to four. 1, 2, 3, 4. Then, we count four numbers starting at 5, because 4+1=5. So, 5, 6, 7, 8. 4x1+4x1 is another way to put it, but like I said, your mind is far too inferior to understand.
853846
Do not write x = 0 because think about it\n\nif x = 0, then that would mean that |0+4| + 4 = 0\n\nthat means 8 = 0... is that true? NO!\n\nSince it is imposible for |x - 4| to equal -4 (since absolute value is ALWAYS possitive or 0) there is no solution =)
752254
Well, let's check if y=4.\nJust replace y with 4\n4(4) + 2(4) = 24\n16 + 8 = 24\n24 = 24 \nThis is equation is true, so you are correct.
264056
k=12, assuming you meant 4(k+2) - 2(k-1) = 30, otherwise it won't work out.
1123152
let 1st no. be x\n......2nd.....be x+2 <--becuz its even no.\n......3rd......be x+4 <-- same reason\n\n2((x+2)+(x+4)) = 3x + 34\n2(2x + 6) = 3x + 34\n4x + 12 = 3x + 34\nx = 34 - 12\ntherefore, \nx = 22\n\nso 1st number is 22,\n2nd is 22 + 2 = 24\n3rd is 22 + 4 = 26\n\n=)
650616
These three sequntal clock wise numbers \n2+3+4 --> 9+4 --> 1 (adding the last no.(4)\nBut not works for all
738509
Well, the idea of the answer being a product of numbers when multiplied does suffice. In advance math, the process is far more complicated. But the prinicple is the same. Example:\n2x(-2) = a -4x\nWhere 2x(2x) =4x squared. \nOr 2x(2) = 4x.\nOnce these little ideas are mastered, the rest begins to fall together. \nThe main thing for me is to have fun with maths, and not think the learning a chore!
1013726
There is no real value for x that satisfies that equation.  It simplifies to (x-3) = (x+1).  In other words, (4(x-3))/4 does not = x+1.
55179
hold on let me look at that for a minute....(dya hate math like this as much as i do?)\n\n(1,4) is one for sure\nyea thats' the only one!!!
933945
No, it is 0.\n\n4*-2^2 is 16\n8*-2 is -16\n3*-2 is -6 \n6 is 6\n\n16+(-16)+(-6)+6 = 0
294522
COS_STUDYGROUP is COMPLETELY WRONG.  (2-7x)^2 == 4+49x^2, please don't get confused about that!\n\nWhile the first user above me is completely correct. I'd like to go a step further and explain how he arrived at that solution.  See that number in front of the x squared?  It should look familiar, if you take the square root of it you get an even 7.  That is how he got to 2 7x's.  The 4 when square rooted becomes a 2.  So now we have a 2 and a 7x in each set of parentheses.  Since the x squared is negative that means that the signs must mismatch so one + and one -.\n\nSo we arrive at the equation (-7x + 2)(7x + 2) or (2 - 7x)(2 + 7x) .... I was always taught the number with the x goes first.
163896
yes the previous equation mentioned would "prove" it, but the problem occurs as you're dividing by zero.  you can also make 1=2, with a similar process, involving the division of zero.  if you don't get what i mean, the previous explanation has this:\n\n(x-y)(x+y)=y(x-y)\nx+y=y\n\nwhat happens at this step?  you are dividing by (x-y).  since x=y is given, then (x-y)=0, thus you are dividing by 0, which is impossible in math.