₦airaland Forum

otino:
see Schrödinger wey bin dey suffer me wit him equation see Schrödinger wey bin dey suffer me wit him equation

Hahaha, u sef remember those schrodinger equations. 1 line of question = 2 pages

nnamdi1998:
I've been waiting sir

Okay bro. Not forgotten. Today hopefully. How do you do?

Since the polynomial was hitherto divided with (x+5) to get a remainder of 1605, this means that -5 cannot be a zero of the polynomial.

Alternatively, to test maybe or not x=-5 is a zero of the polynomial, all you need do is to substitute x= -5 into the equation. If you get 0, it is a zero of the polynomial. If you do not get 0, it is not a zero of the polynomial.

DrinkWater10:
please can you try this
divide the polynomial f(x)=3x^4+2x^3+4x by (x+5) and state if x=-5 is a zero of this polynomial

The polynomial leaves a remainder of 1605 when divided. See the solution.

DrinkWater10:
please can you try this
divide the polynomial f(x)=3x^4+2x^3+4x by (x+5) and state if x=-5 is a zero of this polynomial

sure.

Feraz:
Nice points up there.

Angela Merkel once complained about something like this where she talked about Google and other search engines, asking them to divulge their algorithm so that people's perception won't be distorted. I can't remember where I read someone's comment but the person mentioned if using a search engine, make sure you search towards the subsequent pages to get a near accurate information as the first three pages may be filled with links to people's opinions of which we know their bias is contained there in.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/4885820_46534359kjpegd2ea285a44370bbeb61d265f939b44f71_jpeg260bd396ae44b2fe1fe786e89f627cdc

Thanks for helping me with pic. Naija bloggers and copy copy are 5 and 6

MathsChic:
Good analysis, naturalwaves. You on point with this. I couldn't help laughing at that "Lola Ademola's blog" sha.
Nice one.

Thanks. Honestly, those blogs are just so annoying coupled with those names derived from copying Linda Ikeji's format. Naija bloggers and copy copy....................help me with that Zuma's pic

Mathschic, this is a very nice article. The main problem with most people is that they do not understand the algorithm of a search engine like " google". Many people are always so fast to utter the word " ask google" , "let us confirm from google" etc without knowing that all what google does is basically to take the user to any link or wherever such queries or anything similar to it appears online. Google and other search engines have been seen as a demi god that have answers to all questions whereas, this is not the case. Aside the surface scratching of merely looking up stuffs, users need to verify or make further checks on the links provided by google to ascertain if such can be trusted. If I ask a question concerning a world cup event for example, a link like the fifa's website from google can be trusted because FIFA is the organiser of the competition every four years. Imagine seeing a link from something like " Lola Ademola's blog" or one of those numerous funny blog names for the same query. Common sense should tell one not to take such serious. That is just a slight verification process. Every information one sees online should be subjected to scrutiny

Moreover, the blogosphere needs to be cleansed from what my sister terms " vanity blogging". Every one just want to blog and the annoying thing is that 80% of these so called blogs only do copy and paste and they are usually the carrier of fake and unverified information.

The same stupidity is usually brought here on this platform when some people will ask you to type " Buhari is ..............." or " Jonathan is a ........" on google and then those funny suggestions start coming up. As funny as these sound, some people still end up believing those. Do not be surprised if you hear them say " google said Jonathan is a failure", "google said Buhari is a dullard" etc.

Key points of the write up;
1. Google and other search engines are not some demi gods or oracle that knows everything. They only provide links to things that appear online.
2. The blogosphere is filled with vanity blogging.
3. Every information seen online should be verified for authenticity.
Thumbs up Mathschic!

.

nnamdi1998:
please can you solve it?

I will try when I am free

nnamdi1998:
if i can solve it will i be posting it?

Okay bro. I thought it was the normal indices initially. I see it is a bit advanced now. No vex

nnamdi1998:
more

You mean you cannot solve these??

Dyt:
With annoyance

hahahahahaha. calm down!

Dyt:
OMG!!!!!!!

*Rips pa-i-nt*

You ehn. With a scissors I guess.

dejt4u:
will chat you up on whatsapp.. Are you still using the number 08035****46?

Yeah but it is not available for now. My phone fell into water. Will soon be available on whatsapp but I can get calls.

agentofchange1:
This group still exist ? ..




Greetings all. Men and brethren.....



Just passing by...

Benbucks cum agentofchange.....How are you? You just go hibernate sha.

hammmedb:
iwasnt here then can you plz help out

I will re upload that one I solved today later on and use a different colour of pen so you can see it better. I will cc you when I do.

Hadampson:
Okay.. thank u sir

You are welcome!

Hadampson:
I can't see the workings very well.. please can you type it instead?

If you use an android phone, just expand the screen, you will see the solutions clearly.The phone I used was not too good and it cannot be typed .

I got 2 set of solutions but only one set is correct .
The final set of answers is
Constant ratio = 2
First term = 5
Sum of first 20 terms = 5242875.

Question 3.

Hadampson:
Gurus in the house, please help me with diz question on sum of geometric progression... IN AN EXPONENTIAL SERIES OF INCREASING POSITIVE TERMS, THE SUM OF THE FIRST SIX TERMS IS NINE TIMES THE SUM OF THE FIRST THREE TERMS. THE SUM OF THE FOURTH AND THE FIFTH TERM IS 120. FIND THE
(1) CONSTANT RATIO
(2) FIRST TERM
(3) SUM OF THE FIRST TWENTY TERMS.

The questions were not rightly stated. Questions should come in plural form. I will upload the solution now.