Quadratics

[JemJar]

Wait, wait, wait. I just read your post again. You want to know how to prove that h[sup]2[/sup]+7h-72=0, equals zero? It says so right there in the equation, that bit with the equals sign.

That ain't a proof if they ask it. It means he needs to show it...without just highlighting the equals sign

It kind of is a proof. If it says that it equals zero, then it can't not equal zero. I don't see how saying that it equals zero is not proof that it equals zero.

Not if they're asking you to show it. I could right 1=2 and you could call that a proof, but it isn't you need something to back it up...which is what they're asking (although to be honest what you show them isn't a proof either...it just proves it could work)

No, RedingGold is right, there's something missing from the way the question has been written.

Either:
1) Show that h[sup]2[/sup] + 7h - 72 = 0 for h = 14.858 (and / or h = -21.858).

OR:
2) State all values of h for which h² + 7h - 72 = 0. Show your working.

You can't prove one arbitrary equation on its own. Without a logical context (from which you can make other assumptions) or equally arbitrary constraints there is no way of showing anything.

Otherwise you might as well be asking "How tall is Imhotep?"

 

[Xyliss]

Wait, wait, wait. I just read your post again. You want to know how to prove that h[sup]2[/sup]+7h-72=0, equals zero? It says so right there in the equation, that bit with the equals sign.

That ain't a proof if they ask it. It means he needs to show it...without just highlighting the equals sign

It kind of is a proof. If it says that it equals zero, then it can't not equal zero. I don't see how saying that it equals zero is not proof that it equals zero.

Not if they're asking you to show it. I could right 1=2 and you could call that a proof, but it isn't you need something to back it up...which is what they're asking (although to be honest what you show them isn't a proof either...it just proves it could work)

No, RedingGold is right, there's something missing from the way the question has been written.

Either:
1) Show that h[sup]2[/sup] + 7h - 72 = 0 for h = 14.858 (and / or h = -21.858).

OR:
2) State all values of h for which h² + 7h - 72 = 0. Show your working.

You can't prove one arbitrary equation on its own. Without a logical context (from which you can make other assumptions) or equally arbitrary constraints there is no way of showing anything.

Otherwise you might as well be asking "How tall is Imhotep?"

I know, thats what im saying. The equation itself isn't a proof without first giving values for h (or asking you for the values when it works). We can make assumptions about it but it is not a proof.

 

[Redingold]

Wait, wait, wait. I just read your post again. You want to know how to prove that h[sup]2[/sup]+7h-72=0, equals zero? It says so right there in the equation, that bit with the equals sign.

That ain't a proof if they ask it. It means he needs to show it...without just highlighting the equals sign

It kind of is a proof. If it says that it equals zero, then it can't not equal zero. I don't see how saying that it equals zero is not proof that it equals zero.

Not if they're asking you to show it. I could right 1=2 and you could call that a proof, but it isn't you need something to back it up...which is what they're asking (although to be honest what you show them isn't a proof either...it just proves it could work)

No, RedingGold is right, there's something missing from the way the question has been written.

Either:
1) Show that h[sup]2[/sup] + 7h - 72 = 0 for h = 14.858 (and / or h = -21.858).

OR:
2) State all values of h for which h² + 7h - 72 = 0. Show your working.

You can't prove one arbitrary equation on its own. Without a logical context (from which you can make other assumptions) or equally arbitrary constraints there is no way of showing anything.

Otherwise you might as well be asking "How tall is Imhotep?"

Imhotep is invisible.