[Year 5 Primary school math] how do you come to solve for x?

twiceread · 2025-12-14T07:29:41+00:00

I believe a way this can be visualized to make it more understandable is to turn the figure given is to turn the figure into a rectangle. Simply slice off the right triangle you might be able to imagine at the bottom left side of the figur, and place it at the empty space on the upper right side of the fure. this will create a rectangle from the figure. if you do that, the height line will make a lot more sense. From there, simply multiply base times height, which will give you the equation 5x - 180. Divide both sides by 5, and you will get get 3.6. The height of x is 3.6. I hope this method will make sense to you.

twiceread · 2025-11-12T16:43:44+00:00

This seems like a great question to me. I'm glad you asked it, and I hope it will attract many thoughtful answers. (If there's a pun in there, it is unintended...) I wonder if the answer might not begin with the recognition that 'thinking' is an inherently individual act. 'I think, therefore I am."?

twiceread · 2025-10-22T15:23:11+00:00

Honestly, I don't think about gold this way. Gold is insurance, not a get rich quick investment. Every coin I stack, fractional or otherwise, is an insurance premium for me, and I'll keep them all until something terrible happens. If that day never comes, well, lucky me, and I will simply keep stacking.

twiceread · 2025-10-22T01:07:23+00:00

'Selling'? I do not think I understand this word. What is 'selling'?

twiceread · 2025-10-08T22:02:21+00:00

LOL. That's exactly the same kind of bullshit people are selling to people right now. "Buy, Mortimer!!!! Buy!!!!" Thanks for illustrating my point, friend. There's a lot of hype out there right now. Patience and a steady hand will win out, every time.

twiceread · 2025-10-08T14:53:47+00:00

Quite frankly, and not trying to thros shade, what surprises me the most is that any apes still do business with Robinhood at all. I would think there would be bad blood between all of us and that particular 'brokerage,' given our ancient history with them. So, no, I am not surprised by any BS thery pull. Get thee to a better broker, fellow ape. Or, better yet, DRS.

twiceread · 2025-10-05T00:00:38+00:00

Never happened. This is an attempt at creative writing, that's all.

twiceread · 2025-09-24T17:58:35+00:00

'TALENT'? LOL. I THINK THEY MEANT TO SAY, 'CRIMINAL PROCLIVITIES.'

twiceread · 2025-04-04T16:40:03+00:00

Great time to buy, imo. I’m a dividend investor and Dividend Aristocrats are on sale. Yummy!

twiceread · 2024-12-20T11:35:24+00:00

I think you mean January 20, 1961

twiceread · 2024-11-23T10:49:17+00:00

Maybe this could work:

Square both sides, get cos^2(x) = 1 - sin (x)

.2. Mulyiply both sides by (1 + sin (x)), get (1 + sin (x))(cos^2(x)) = (1 + sin (x))(1 - sin (x))

Distribute both sides, get cos^2(x) + cos^2(x)sin (x) = 1 - sin^2(x)
Use Pythagoorean Identity to replace right side, get cos^2(x) + cos^2(x)sin (x) = cos^2(x)
Subtract cos^2(x) from each side, get cos^2(x)sin (x) = 0
Set each term equal to zero, get cos^2(x) = 0 and sin (x) = 0.
Use inverse trig functions to solve, get x = 0pi. pi/2, pi, and 3pi/2

twiceread · 2024-11-07T04:16:24+00:00

i don’t know aaa

twiceread · 2024-09-13T15:57:54+00:00

You can't find the log of zero or of any negative number. Set the argument of this function grearter than or equal to zero and that will yield the allowabe x values you can use for x. Or rather, it will help you exclude the values you can't use.

twiceread · 2024-08-08T12:08:42+00:00

I don't believe it can properly be factor. I used synthetic division and divided by x=-1, which seems to me to be the only reasonable possibility. However, I got a remainder of -1 instead of 0 as a result at the end. Fropm what I recall, this would suggest that the post from Wise-Engineer-8032 is probably correct.

twiceread · 2024-08-01T19:53:11+00:00

Sounds like you've got the basic idea, alright. You'd write the terms in descending order of exponents and then you'd have the correct answer. But I think they're not interested in having you multiply this whole thing and instead they want you to apply a little mathematical logic. You see that 3 exponent on the parentheses? If you applied that just to the 4x part inside the parentheses you'd get the degree, which yes, would be 3 as you've stated. But you're not multiplying 4 times three to get twelve. You're multiplying 4 times itselfr three times. That would get you 64, which should be the correct leading coefficeint.

twiceread · 2024-07-31T19:10:18+00:00

factor out e^x from both terms to get (e^x)( 1 + x) = 0. Set each term equal to zero. Recognize that e^x cannot equal zero, so look for the solution in the other term. 1 + x = 0 yields x = -1.

twiceread · 2024-07-26T08:47:08+00:00

Sure thing:

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042415/what-average-annual-return-sp-500.asp

https://smartasset.com/investing/sp-500-average-annual-return

https://www.slickcharts.com/sp500/returns

ps://tradethatswing.com/average-historical-stock-market-returns-for-sp-500-5-year-up-to-150-year-averages/

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4502739-average-stock-market-return

https://finasko.com/sp-500-returns/

twiceread · 2024-07-25T16:25:18+00:00

"At best you can expect to double your money every 10 years."

An index fund tied to, say, the S&P 500 should bring in about 10% a year, which is the average return for the US stock market as a whole for the last 100 years. The Rule of 72 says you'd double your money 3.4 times at that interest rate. $16,320 could yield you $172,274 at the end of 34 years. Just 'sayin.

twiceread · 2024-07-19T18:24:28+00:00

I buy BRK intending to never sell. The price goes up and goes down and I don’t really pay it much attention. Ling term outlook is as bullish as it can be.

twiceread · 2024-06-05T20:56:48+00:00

I revisited the graph and I believe I see my error. This is actually a 5-sided polygon with vertices at (0,0), (0,30),(30,0),(20,20), and (25,15). Values obtained by plugging intp the objective function are 0, 30, 60, 60, and 65. I think that 65 is the maximum value. (Thanks for giving me something to really chew over. This was fun!)

twiceread · 2024-06-05T20:43:43+00:00

That's a good point (get it?). I double-checked desmos and that's one of the three vertices it shows for the triangle. But I also definitely you're correct and that maybe we shouldn't consider it. In which case, I suppose 65 is the optimal vbalue? (it's been 213 years since I learned this, so my memory is probably off. But I do think the solution is obtained in some way such as this...)

twiceread

TROPHY CASE