37 word essay due in 3 weeks /b/
how fucked am i?
you think you have it rough, I have this fuckin math problem to solve
Once upon a time there was a black man.
He loved puddin so much. On day he was so horny he would fuck anything. He stumbled upon a sleeping maiden. He grabbed a cup of puddin and lubbed his penis. He then said get ready for the puddin
Here you go
3700 in 3 weeks? What do you want, a fucking decade? That's more than enough time, and if you know that the hell you're talking about, you should be able to bang out over 2000 with ease
>>682711744 Yes, exactly.
also @ OP if it's 3700 just write like 500 a day. 500 words is like an hour (if you're slow typing like me) a day and you would have tons of time to spare. Of course procrastination makes that impossible.
>>682712782 I'm not really sure how to do that. Good thing I am not being tested on it I'm just being asked by someone on 4chan. My best guess is there's some trick that you use to solve it, that you'd be taught in a class and that trick I've forgotten or never learned. There's other possibilities.
>my best guess is that if you went to a math class and were taught math, you could solve this
>>682713758 Oh yeah that sure was unintelligent because it's not like so often in math classes they hand you a formula to work off of, maybe they make you do the proof once and you forget after. Then once you're done with the class you forget the formula altogether.
Though I have to say it does amuse me a bit that it seems you think any of this has any relevance to > 99% of the populations on humans on earth or that you think I don't have other abilities which would show forms of intelligence I posses outside of that specific type of math problem.
The anon you are responding to isn't me (the one that posted the nested radical). And I don't think he was saying you were unintelligent because you couldn't do the problem, what he paraphrased (and how he interpreted what you said) reads like "If I was really good at singing I could sing.", I think that is more of what he is getting at; just that it is a self evident statement, and although tautological, it is useless.
If you are interested in the method of solution, I can show you.
> look at me everyone I'm trolling the trolls
The explanation is very short and only requires use of the quadratic formula and the concept of monotonicity.
Here is the general method so you guys can do it. It's actually pretty cool.
Let a, b, c be positive constants and let all roots be on the principal branch (take the positive value).
Inspection shows v must satisfy v=√(a+bv).
Square both sides of v=√(a+bv):
Apply the quadratic formula to the above equation:
Since the sequence of finitely nested radicals that converge to v is monotonic increasing and the roots are principal i.e. √(a+b)>0, we can throw away the - solution given by ±. So we have:
Then consider cv=c√(a+b√(a+b√(a+b...)))
We can push c through the radicals to yield:
In the image we had a=63/4, b=9, c=2. Therefore the nested radical simplifies as v=21.
No, thanks, I think I (kind of) understand it. The kind of being why I wouldn't take a math class drunk.