Some guidance on this question

• Jan 30th 2013, 02:04 PM
uperkurk
Some guidance on this question
I have this question in the form

\$\displaystyle 3y^2+[6y^2+(3y-4)]\$

It just tells me to write this in its simplest form. So I have done

\$\displaystyle 3y^2+[-6y^2-(-3y-4)]\$

\$\displaystyle 3y^2-6y^2+3y-4\$

\$\displaystyle -3y^2+3y-4\$

Is this in its simplest form? I think I have turned it into a quadratic now right? So should I try to solve it using the quadratic formula?
• Jan 30th 2013, 02:14 PM
HallsofIvy
Re: Some guidance on this question
What is \$\displaystyle 3y^2- 6y^2\$?

You cannot "solve" it because there is no equation to solve.
• Jan 30th 2013, 02:29 PM
uperkurk
Re: Some guidance on this question
I didn't say solve. The question told me to put it in its simplest form. I'm asking if the form I have it in, is that the simplest it can be?
• Jan 30th 2013, 02:48 PM
Plato
Re: Some guidance on this question
Quote:

Originally Posted by uperkurk
I didn't say solve. The question told me to put it in its simplest form. I'm asking if the form I have it in, is that the simplest it can be?

Are you now claiming that you did not post?
Quote:

Originally Posted by uperkurk
I have this question in the form
\$\displaystyle 3y^2+[6y^2+(3y-4)]\$
So should I try to solve it using the quadratic formula?

• Jan 30th 2013, 02:57 PM
Prove It
Re: Some guidance on this question
Quote:

Originally Posted by uperkurk
I have this question in the form

\$\displaystyle 3y^2+[6y^2+(3y-4)]\$

It just tells me to write this in its simplest form. So I have done

\$\displaystyle 3y^2+[-6y^2-(-3y-4)]\$

\$\displaystyle 3y^2-6y^2+3y-4\$

\$\displaystyle -3y^2+3y-4\$

Is this in its simplest form? I think I have turned it into a quadratic now right? So should I try to solve it using the quadratic formula?

Is there a typo in your first line of mathematics? In each successive line your 6y^2 is negated, but in the first line it is not...
• Jan 30th 2013, 03:20 PM
uperkurk
Re: Some guidance on this question
Oh so I did, I meant to type simplify and it's ok I figured it out now, I used wolfram and it was in simplest form according to wolfram