Posted by Subhotosh Khan on October 08, 2002 at 09:00:56:
In Reply to: Re: Nope.....YES!! posted by Denis Borris on September 30, 2002 at 23:55:02:
: : : originally:
: : : {1/[s^(-1)]}+{1/[t^(-1)]}/[{s^(-1)}{t^(-1)}]=
: : ... Now in the absence of a parenthesis, the multiplication must done first
: BUT BUT no parenthesis are missing:
: [{s^(-1)}{t^(-1)}] : that's ((s^(-1))*(t^(-1)))
: there's an implied * in between }{
*******************************************
My reply was:
: originally:
: {1/[s^(-1)]}+{1/[t^(-1)]}/[{s^(-1)}{t^(-1)}]=
:
: 1 / s^(-1) + 1 / t^(-1) divided by s^(-1) * t^(-1)
: s + t divided by (1/s)(1/t)
= s + t multiplied by (st)
... Now in the absence of a parenthesis, the multiplication must done first
= s + s*t^2
The missing paranthesis I am talking about around "s + t" [ that is it is NOT (s+t)in the given problem]
IF the problem turned out to be:
(s+t)*(st) ...(I agree that }{ implies multiplication)
then
(s+t)*(st) = s^2 * t + t * s^2
However, the problem WAS:
s + t *(st)
= s + t^2 * s (....Correct answer)