# Re: Nope.....YES!!

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Main Message Board ] [ FAQ ]

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 }{
*******************************************
: 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)

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: