Only a few steps to solve this algebra equation… 

Depend on what kind of problems your life presents. To some folks, not understanding math ensures you won't have to worry about it. When I give talks to workers in the grain industry about figuring out grain flow rates in numerous ways, I lead off with, "Remember in math class when you used to ask, "When am I ever going to need this?"? Well, today is that day. Hope you paid attention." Haha!

@@mikemorgan5015 "To some folks, not understanding math ensures you won't have to worry about it." It also pretty much ensures you will struggle with many things in life and you won't understand why.

@@pauls5096 100% agree! And then end up blaming others for their misfortune, end up believing the Earth is flat, vaccines don't work, storming the Capitol and going to prison for it. THAT'S WHY you should have paid attention in math class. Initially I typed this to be funny, but there's some truth in this.

​@@jnielsen1956untrue. That is simple math. 250 miles divided by 10 gallons. I never ever took algebra or any higher math. It horrified me. But I love numbers

O My.

Sounds like a teacher with very limited teaching skills and patience. Don't give up! You can learn if diligent and want to learn. Saying I can't already sets the result. It will be hard work, however I believe you CAN learn math. We each are given gifts, so math may be more of a challenge than for others. But an understanding can grow. Try it! I believe you can do it!

Don't like or admire that man, have him black balled. (that means the man could never work again). I have a severe LD. Top therapists and "experts" were willing to bet their million dollar homes and take a vow of poverty that I would never graduate high school with strictly "normal" classes. Proved them wrong. It is discipline plain and simple. Brutal work extreme conditioning and practice practice practice. During the four years of high school I ate, slept, shite, and studied. Nothing more, nothing less. No summer vacation, no sick days, no time out with family. Graduated with honours 3 of my classes were actually AP classes. Anyways don't give up and unless you got an ego 50 times bigger than Texas don't burn your self out like I did. It ain't worth it for the "mentally strong"

agree: it isn't difficult but it is highly structured. a bad teacher is nothing but FRUSTRATING. What's cool about RU-vid lessons is you can rewind as needed and you can also speedup the video. This time around you can be an algebra star!! I'm 76

Well great for you for getting lucky. But if your degree required higher math, going to every class won't just be enough. Yes you're not going to need high math for ordering at McDonalds. But you will probably end up working a trade job, instead of a higher paying job requiring high math.

@@user-cf9mf1ri1o-- My degree was in history, so higher math skills were unnecessary.

Exactly. My friend of 50 yrs teaches high school and community college math I feel sorry for his students as he is one of the worse communicaters I've ever known but I love him like a brother anyways

T isn’t It Wonderful?

Are you saying that school wasted your time with Algebra, and now you're excited about repeating all that waste with your grandchild ? Poor kid doesn't stand a chance 😢

We simplify ALL final answers because that is the convention, the implicit agreement among people who teach and "do" math. We insist on using this convention so that students will simplify their answers automatically, as a matter of course. Your observations about √12 vs 2√3 are true in that working with either expression isn't particularly difficult, which appears to undermine the protocol requiring simplifying. But how about √1728? Would you prefer working with a square root of a four digit number, or would you find 24√3 more workable, easier to comprehend, etc ? Of course, this argument can easily apply to enormously long and complicated expressions. Simplifying keeps things .. simple .

There is a nice Casio calculator with a display for algebra. You should check.

All of the factors of the lowest common denominator have to be in the denominator. The only factor in the denominator in this equation is 2. 6 is in the numerator, as you can see when you write it as 6/1.

No. You have to MULTIPLY the left side by 2 to eliminate 2 which is in the denominator. Secondly, if your method so far was right, you'd have X times X equal 3, where did you get 1.5? Thirdly, you don't halve a number to find its square root!

@@enidmmullinyes,multiply both sides by the fraction upside down(the inverse of the fraction )

Hilarious

Did u graduate?

+-2sqrt(3) be like: yeah, f- me

He's a math teacher. English is a different channel.

@geordieman100 In solving for x, we must isolate it on one side of the equation. That is, we must get it alone by itself on one side of the equation. Here, it’s being raised to the power of 2 and it’s being multiplied by 1/2 and thereby is not isolated alone. So, in order to isolate x by itself alone on that side of the equation we must first multiply x^2 by the reciprocal of 1/2, which is 2, in order to clear the fraction on that side, that is, get rid of it on that side of the equation and change the mathematical expression on the left side of the equation to x^2 only. And since what we do to one side of an equation we must at the same time also do to the other side of an equation to keep the equation equal on both sides, to keep its statement of equality and truth equal and true at every instance. So therefore we must also multiply the right side of the equation by 2 also and we then get the equation x^2 = 12. Then further, to completely isolate x by itself on that side of the equation, that is, the left side, we must take the square root of x^2. And then, and at the same time, and as stated above, we must also do the same to the right side of the equation by also taking the square root of 12. And that’s how we got to and get the √ 12! Which gives us x = +\- 2 √3 ≈ 3.46. The key point here being that powers and roots are inverses of each other! So that, when we want to solve an equation for x involving powers of x, such as this one, we must take the root of both sides of an equation whose root is equal in numerical value to the power x is being raised to. That is, for example, if we had x^17 = 131,072, we must then take the 17th root of the left side of the equation, and we must also take the 17th root of the right side of the equation at the same time in order to isolate x alone on the left side in order to solve for it. And we’ll find that x = 2. And, since the two processes of raising bases to powers and taking roots of bases are inverse processes of each other, if we had, for example, the 17th root of x = 2 and we’re told to solve for x, we must then do the inverse process of taking roots on both sides of the equation in order to solve for x. Since now, in this different and inverse case, where we have on the left side of the equation the 17th root of x is being taken as opposed to it being raised to the 17th power we must instead raise both sides of the equation to the 17th power, like so, (the 17th root of x)^17 = 2^17! And we’ll find x to equal 131,072. Mutually speaking, one process undoes what the other one does. And that’s crucial knowledge and therefore very helpful since we can use one process to check the correctness of the other. Since the √9 = +/-3 we can check our answer for correctness by raising +/-3 to the power of 2 to be sure we get 9, and vice versa. That is, from there we could go the other way in checking for correctness and take √9 to get +/-3, again, vice versa! Like, we can check our subtraction for accuracy and correctness by addition, and vice versa since the two operations are inverses of each other; same, and also vice versa, we can do the same for multiplication and division….

Cool or rad response 😂!

well, I'm going with that was the quick dirty estimate method.

YAY B+ (tho now you mention I could have at least remembered the plus/minus)

Yes, the video helped. It reminded me about how much I liked quadratics in 1985. Now I need a video that helps me forget again :) I'm not sure how I end up watching these videos, I suppose I did subscribe :) Must have been for a reason.

With regards to the +/- being expressed alongside the sqrt(12), well it seems odd to me. The graphing proof shows the existence of the 'minus' factor, so to create it before the sqrt(12) is performed seems premature, as I feel it belongs with the resolution, not the penultimate stage. Granted I didn't use polynomial methodology, but in that, I feel the +/- would have been erroneous to include. I'm happy with my B+, and I promise not to forget to resolve the common roots next time.

​@@markanderson3740Absolutely the ± must go before the √12. By definition, √12 is a single, positive value. But this is a quadratic equation so it has two solutions. We need BOTH square roots of 12, so it is objectively incorrect to say here that x = √12. x = √12 is not the answer. It's part of the answer.

I was a tad inaccurate. The whole solution is plus or minus 2 Times Square root of 3

😂 thank you!

I also forgot about the negative numbers in algebra.

😂❤

I'm 53 and I used to do inspections on soil so unfortunately I had to use not just algebra but calculus too and occasionally physics. However since then I've not used it at all!!

Ditto at 72. I find myself asking the same question I asked nearly 60 years ago. Why? Noone could ever explain to me why we used algebra. It's certainly not self explanatory

Depends why you're calculating the value. Yes, if you need to measure something then you need to convert it into a decimal approximation like that, to whatever level of accuracy matters for your application. But often when we calculate values it's because we need to use them for something (perform more calculations with that value, substitute it back into an equation it formula etc), in which case you want the exact value.