Quoted By: >>11618377 >>11618631 >>11618743

Quoted By: >>11618172 >>11618177

Simplifying

x + -7 = 19 + x

Reorder the terms:

-7 + x = 19 + x

Add '-1x' to each side of the equation.

-7 + x + -1x = 19 + x + -1x

Combine like terms: x + -1x = 0

-7 + 0 = 19 + x + -1x

-7 = 19 + x + -1x

Combine like terms: x + -1x = 0

-7 = 19 + 0

-7 = 19

Solving

-7 = 19

Couldn't find a variable to solve for.

This equation is invalid, the left and right sides are not equal, therefore there is no solution.

x + -7 = 19 + x

Reorder the terms:

-7 + x = 19 + x

Add '-1x' to each side of the equation.

-7 + x + -1x = 19 + x + -1x

Combine like terms: x + -1x = 0

-7 + 0 = 19 + x + -1x

-7 = 19 + x + -1x

Combine like terms: x + -1x = 0

-7 = 19 + 0

-7 = 19

Solving

-7 = 19

Couldn't find a variable to solve for.

This equation is invalid, the left and right sides are not equal, therefore there is no solution.

Quoted By:

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

>>11618091

Quoted By:

Quoted By: >>11618254

Quoted By: >>11618295

Quoted By: >>11618341 >>11618387

Nobody mentions if we're in R or if we have standard composition laws. If we consider - to be a composition law defined by (a - b) = (a - b)(a + b) and + to be a composition law defined by (a + b) = (a + b)(a + b) we get:

x^2 - 49 = x^2 + 19x + 361

thus

-49 = 19x + 361

19x = 410

x = 21.57

Learn to math, fuckers.

x^2 - 49 = x^2 + 19x + 361

thus

-49 = 19x + 361

19x = 410

x = 21.57

Learn to math, fuckers.

Quoted By:

>>11618292

I can't believe they actually put that rape scene in a mahou shoujo anime. I actually gained respect for them.

I can't believe they actually put that rape scene in a mahou shoujo anime. I actually gained respect for them.

Quoted By:

>>11618302

When not specified otherwise, the default meanings of all operators are assumed. Learn to stop being an asshat.

When not specified otherwise, the default meanings of all operators are assumed. Learn to stop being an asshat.

Quoted By:

>>11618021

this is no equation...it'd work if the x on the right side was negative...

x-7 = 19-x |+x +7

2x = 26 |:2

x = 13

this is no equation...it'd work if the x on the right side was negative...

x-7 = 19-x |+x +7

2x = 26 |:2

x = 13

Quoted By:

>>11618302

You know why no one does that?

Because there's fucking absolutely nothing in the context to suggest that.

Taking an ambiguous statement and extrapolating every little possible detail out of it to make yourself seem more intelligent and knowledgeable about a subject does not make you clever.

You know why no one does that?

Because there's fucking absolutely nothing in the context to suggest that.

Taking an ambiguous statement and extrapolating every little possible detail out of it to make yourself seem more intelligent and knowledgeable about a subject does not make you clever.

Quoted By: >>11618478 >>11618551

Pretty Cure is one of those shows that I've never seen but fap to frequently. Actually, that's pretty much all anime for me...

Quoted By:

Quoted By: >>11618558 >>11618567 >>11618589

I can never remember this artists name, even though I really should.

Quoted By: >>11618860

>>11618439

90% of all people that have saved Precure images only saved them for fapping, not because they actually watch or like the shows.

90% of all people that have saved Precure images only saved them for fapping, not because they actually watch or like the shows.

Quoted By: >>11618619 >>11618629

Quoted By: >>11618619

Quoted By:

Quoted By: >>11618784 >>11618823 >>11619231

Quoted By: >>11618732

Quoted By:

>>11618629

Honoka, don't eat her! How the hell are you going to fight the forces of evil if you've eaten your partner?

Honoka, don't eat her! How the hell are you going to fight the forces of evil if you've eaten your partner?

Quoted By: >>11618818

Quoted By:

>>11618698

Yeah but it'll keep them from being raped which is sad, then they can hug each other and cry about how they almost got in a big pinchi and then they can comfort each other by licking and stuff which is more hot

Yeah but it'll keep them from being raped which is sad, then they can hug each other and cry about how they almost got in a big pinchi and then they can comfort each other by licking and stuff which is more hot

Quoted By: >>11618891

>>11618631

Lol

That's equalent to |x-7|=|19+x|, 2x = -12, x = -6.

Learn to count. (x-7)^2 != x^2-14x-49

Lol

That's equalent to |x-7|=|19+x|, 2x = -12, x = -6.

Learn to count. (x-7)^2 != x^2-14x-49

Quoted By: >>11618917

>>11618551

> 90% of all people that have saved images only saved them for fapping, not because they actually watch or like the shows.

fixed

That statement is already a tautology without more qualifiers.

> 90% of all people that have saved images only saved them for fapping, not because they actually watch or like the shows.

fixed

That statement is already a tautology without more qualifiers.

Quoted By: >>11618920

Slopes of x-7 and 19+x are one, which means the 2 lines are parallel. They intersect IFF they are the same line, which they clearly are not, which means x is unsolveable.

Quoted By:

>>11618868

I hate when people use geometric bullshit for this stuff. I don't think it's a good method to explain it.

I hate when people use geometric bullshit for this stuff. I don't think it's a good method to explain it.

Quoted By: >>11619024

x - 7 = 19 + x

1 - 7/x = 19/x + 1

-7/x = 19/x

-x/7 = x/19

x*(1/19 + 1/7) = 0

>x = 0

Heh

1 - 7/x = 19/x + 1

-7/x = 19/x

-x/7 = x/19

x*(1/19 + 1/7) = 0

>x = 0

Heh

Quoted By: >>11619128 >>11619161

Fuck someone needs to finish subbing PreCure 5.

Total mahou shoujo fag and I loved Pretty Cure, but I'm not weeaboo enough to watch the unsubbed PreCure 5.

Total mahou shoujo fag and I loved Pretty Cure, but I'm not weeaboo enough to watch the unsubbed PreCure 5.

Quoted By:

Quoted By: >>11619183

>>11619118

I think Quarkboy is considering dropping it, so hopefully someone will be interested enough to pick it up after that.

I think Quarkboy is considering dropping it, so hopefully someone will be interested enough to pick it up after that.

Quoted By:

Quoted By:

Quoted By: >>11619638

>>11618631

Doing it wrong

In your proof, you assumed that A=B. Following that assumption:

A = B

A*A = B*A

A^2 = B*B

A^2 = B^2

HOWEVER x-7 =/= x+19, therefore A=B cannot be true, therefore A^2 =/= B^2, hence, your proof is shit.

Doing it wrong

In your proof, you assumed that A=B. Following that assumption:

A = B

A*A = B*A

A^2 = B*B

A^2 = B^2

HOWEVER x-7 =/= x+19, therefore A=B cannot be true, therefore A^2 =/= B^2, hence, your proof is shit.

Quoted By:

Quoted By:

Quoted By:

Quoted By: >>11619340 >>11619561 >>11619609 >>11619680

X^n + y^n = z^n, n <-Z, n>2

You should be able to solve this.

You should be able to solve this.

Quoted By:

Quoted By: >>11619705

>>11619315

Let f be an eigenform associated to the congruence subgroup Γ1 (N ) of SL2 (Z) of weight k ≥ 2 and character χ. Thus if Tn is the Hecke operator associated to an integer n there is an algebraic integer c(n, f ) such that T n f = c(n, f )f for each n. We let Kf be the number field generated over Q by the

{c(n, f )} together with the values of χ and let Of be its ring of integers. For any prime λ of Of let Of,λ be the completion of Of at λ. The following theorem is due to Eichler and Shimura (for k = 2) and Deligne (for k > 2).

The analogous result when k = 1 is a celebrated theorem of Serre and Deligne but is more naturally stated in terms of complex representations. The image in that case is finite and a converse is known in many cases.

Let f be an eigenform associated to the congruence subgroup Γ1 (N ) of SL2 (Z) of weight k ≥ 2 and character χ. Thus if Tn is the Hecke operator associated to an integer n there is an algebraic integer c(n, f ) such that T n f = c(n, f )f for each n. We let Kf be the number field generated over Q by the

{c(n, f )} together with the values of χ and let Of be its ring of integers. For any prime λ of Of let Of,λ be the completion of Of at λ. The following theorem is due to Eichler and Shimura (for k = 2) and Deligne (for k > 2).

The analogous result when k = 1 is a celebrated theorem of Serre and Deligne but is more naturally stated in terms of complex representations. The image in that case is finite and a converse is known in many cases.

Quoted By:

Quoted By:

>>11619315

Solve what? Do you want us to prove it? In any case you should have stated that x,y,z be integers.

Solve what? Do you want us to prove it? In any case you should have stated that x,y,z be integers.

Quoted By:

Quoted By: >>11619969 >>11620007 >>11620033

If a=b

Then:

a = b | *a

a² = a*b | -b²

a² - b² = a*b - b²

(a + b) * (a - b) = b * (a-b)

a + b = b | a=b

a + a = a

2*a = a | :a

2 = 1

Then:

a = b | *a

a² = a*b | -b²

a² - b² = a*b - b²

(a + b) * (a - b) = b * (a-b)

a + b = b | a=b

a + a = a

2*a = a | :a

2 = 1

Quoted By: >>11620015

x - 7 = 19 + x <=> (x - 7)(x + 7) = (19 + x)(x + 7) <=> x^2 - 49 = 19x + 133 + x^2 + 7x <=> -182 = 26x <=> -7 = x

Quoted By:

>>11619571

I can't help but lol whenever someone asks this, because it's so obvious that it's an edit.

But anyway, it's from an early episode of Yes! Precure 5.

I can't help but lol whenever someone asks this, because it's so obvious that it's an edit.

But anyway, it's from an early episode of Yes! Precure 5.

Quoted By:

Quoted By: >>11620094

>>11619919

If x = -7

Then (x + 7) would equal Zero.

However to get to the original equation from yours, you'd have to devide by (x + 7) wich means you'd divide by Zero. And we all know what happens when you try to devide by zero.

If x = -7

Then (x + 7) would equal Zero.

However to get to the original equation from yours, you'd have to devide by (x + 7) wich means you'd divide by Zero. And we all know what happens when you try to devide by zero.

Quoted By: >>11620258

>>11620094

No, but you multiplied by a variable. We all know: A product will equal zero if one of the factors equals zero. Thus you added the solution x = -7 to the equation by multiplying with (x + 7). As we can see it's the only solution, thus the equation didn't have a solution before.

Also to get back to the original equation, you have to divide by (x + 7) and thus take the solution x = -7 from the equation again. It this remains without a solution.

No, but you multiplied by a variable. We all know: A product will equal zero if one of the factors equals zero. Thus you added the solution x = -7 to the equation by multiplying with (x + 7). As we can see it's the only solution, thus the equation didn't have a solution before.

Also to get back to the original equation, you have to divide by (x + 7) and thus take the solution x = -7 from the equation again. It this remains without a solution.

Quoted By: >>11620355

>>11620161

>you have to divide by (x + 7)

No, I simply used that (x - 7)(x + 7) = x^2 - 49, I don't have to divide.

Of course, the equation doesn't have a solution, but all of what I did was perfectly valid. I didn't divide by zero.

>you have to divide by (x + 7)

No, I simply used that (x - 7)(x + 7) = x^2 - 49, I don't have to divide.

Of course, the equation doesn't have a solution, but all of what I did was perfectly valid. I didn't divide by zero.

Quoted By: >>11620505

Quoted By:

>>11620355

It is not equal but equivalent. I simply multiplied both sides with (x + 7), a completely normal step which preserves the validity on both sides of the equation.

I can only repeat that my attempt is of course no solution, but completely valid.

It is not equal but equivalent. I simply multiplied both sides with (x + 7), a completely normal step which preserves the validity on both sides of the equation.

I can only repeat that my attempt is of course no solution, but completely valid.