Solve for 1:
1 = kn - sin x
How fake do you want it?
Yes
x = arcsin (kn - 1)
I’ve solved it. There you go. I hope you use this solution for something good.
It was already solved. For k.
WTF bro, There is 3 variables.
Wait? NVM Wait?
Today I did Calculus for 6 hour straight. So, don’t mind me I am just tired.
I want to believe this is real, but I’m having trouble deciphering how one would “solve” this equation given no variable is referenced outside of the question and k is already isolated and terms simplified.
i’m guessing they want you to solve for x by rearranging and then taking arcsin
Considering the handwriting, it’s probably all written by the same person. But even if it wasn’t, it is very badly written if you had to solve it by making assumptions, imo.
There’s 3 variables and 1 equation. This is unsolvable.
Since we’re just making shit up anyway
Assume k=0 and n is the last natural number. Solved.
It’s called a literal equation. The problem doesn’t state which variable to solve for, but the assumption here is that it is x. Solving literal equations is a basic part of mathematics courses.
I’m a mathematician and I can’t recall a time I’ve ever heard the term “literal equation.” When I was in grade school the instructions were always “solve for x” if x was the variable being solved for.
I teach secondary and postsecondary math courses. The term “literal equation” was used in Texas where I taught for 17 years. The Algebra 1 state standard A.12E says that students are expected to “solve mathematic and scientific formulas, and other literal equations, for a specified variable.” I also taught college undergrad courses in Texas, including College Algebra, and I don’t recall ever seeing the the term used there, but I used it in class because my students were familiar with it. Now I teach in Oregon, and the term is not a part of this state’s standards from what I can tell.
Maybe it’s not universal but in school literal equation basically meant there were letters instead of numbers.
It’s the term we use for instance when going from the equation of a line like y=3x+2 to lines in general y=ax+b (a and b in ℝ)
And i agree it’s a lot better to specify to solve for x (because you can solve for anything or have multiple variables).
Although x being a variable, and solving for it would be the most logical assumption.
You can reform the term until it reads x =
arcsin(nk-1) ?
x = arcsin(nk-1) + z(2*pi), such that z is any integer.
Looks correct. However it’s only valid for n ≠ 0.
B
if n = 0 then k = ∞ and just about any value of x works in this case. however x = arcsin(nk -1) still doesn’t work since 0 * ∞ is not defined. so i think the B grade is fair.
(this is all assuming we’re working on the riemann sphere)
deleted by creator
Grading your own work is stupid.
I cannot actually believe that back in the day, I understood what these were.
so you don’t understand sin anymore? or division?
I don’t sin anymore.
You should sin more, 'cos you’ll go to hell and there you can get a tan
Would only work if the numerator was 𝑛 + sin 𝑥
That’s for AP. Elementary logic let’s you divide willy nilly
Facebook outrage post
There’s a teacher with no sense of humour
There’s no teacher. Everything on that paper was most likely written by a single person.
How do you know
I don’t, it’s just speculation, hence “most likely”. I see similar handwriting and not a very plausible problem.
All the "s"s do look very similar.
Source: I am the world’s foremost forensic handwriting expert
The ink does have a different color
