Does your generation have truble understanding  "X=X+1"?
596254
To me it means an unfixed variable can be a wide range of numbers, and to solve for it, you are looking for the most optimal value.\n\nX=X+1, to me means, the value of X will be changed each cycle by adding 1 to it.  That will change the solution to the equation to which X is a part.\n\nYour math teacher uncle probably doesn't have experience with cycles, and saw X=X+1 as an illogical equation.
58144
no...it doesn't leave you with -x\n\n2x=x+12\nx=12 (you get this by subtracting the x from the right side of the equation)\n\ntaking 1x from 2x wouldn't leave you with 1:\n1x+1x=2x\n2x/x=2
329632
{x: x inequal to 2}\nor\n{x: x=/= 2}
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.
955603
x+0=x is always true. This is the definition of the identity property of addition.
1153023
It is really surprising that there are still people who think they have a PROOF for statements like 1=2, 1=0, etc.\nFirst they should UNDERSTAND what is a PROOF.\n\nPROOF is a sequence of logically correct steps. If ONE of your step is wrong then it is NOT called a proof.\n\nI think these people should go back to Primary schools and LEARN the fundamentals.
379145
Look up Gauss. Story is he added up 1..100 in grade school and invented the n*(N+1)/2.
771335
Is it twice the "same number + 3"\nor\ntwice the "same number", + 3?\n\nCase 1:\n5(x - 1) = 2(x + 3)\n5x - 5 = 2x + 6\n3x = 11\nx = 11/3\n\nCase 2:\n5(x - 1)  = 2x + 3\n5x - 5 = 2x + 3\n3x = 8\nx = 8/3\n\nThe phrasing can be interpreted either way, so the problem is ambiguous, but I would go with number 2, that seems more intuitive to me.
599364
x^2 + x = x(x+1)\n\nIt can be simplified to x(x+1).
304206
the clue would be to simplify the equation  to \nlim {x +[-(x+1)+1]}/(x+1)\n x-->0 \nlim [x + 1 -x]/(x+1)\nx-->\nlim (1/(x+1)) =1\nx-->0
363348
Are we solving for x?
404608
that is incomplete because you are missing one parenthesis. But x=0 is a correct answer.
365867
2x - (7 + x) <= x\n2x - 7 - x <= x\nx - 7 <= x\n-7 <= 0\n\nSince we're left with a statement with no variables, and the statement is true, x = all real numbers.
814311
The issue lies in the fact that the original equation is 0=0.\n\nThen, if you put in any value for x, you are dividing by 0 which as we all know, is a "no no."
732725
the denominator should not be zero\nso 3(x+1) should not be zero\nx+1 should not be zero\nx should not be -1
497029
No, because the limit as x->2- is undefined.  The limit exists for x->2+.
312174
It seems undefined since for x <= 0 and x != odd number, x^x doesn't work out so well.  If it's x->0+, then it's just 1.