Simplifying $s=w_1-c$, where $c=frac{1}{2}(w_1-t_1+frac{w_2-t_2}{R})$












2














I have to solve this easy equation, but can't find the same answer as the correction of the exercise.



We have two equations that I want to simplify (plugging $c$ into $s$)



$$c=dfrac{1}{2}left(w_1-t_1+dfrac{w_2-t_2}{R}right)$$



$$s=w_1-c$$



I find:



$$s=w_1-dfrac{1}{2}left(w_1-t_1+dfrac{w_2-t_2}{R}right)=dfrac{1}{2}left(w_1+t_1-dfrac{w_2+t_2}{R}right)$$



The correction actually says:



$$s=w_1-dfrac{1}{2}left(w_1-t_1+dfrac{w_2-t_2}{R}right)=dfrac{1}{2}left(w_1-t_1-dfrac{w_2-t_2}{R}right)$$



I must be wrong but I don't know why. Could somebody explain this to me?






algebra-precalculus







share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Raphaël Huleux is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • Your simplification seems fine excepting $w_2+t_2$ should be $w_2-t_2$.
    – Yadati Kiran
    2 days ago












  • What are the solving variables?
    – Dr. Sonnhard Graubner
    2 days ago










  • Both answers, as presented here, are incorrect (in different ways). In your answer, the $t_2$ should be negative; in their answer, the $t_1$ should be positive. Please check for typographic errors one way or the other, so that we can be sure we're comparing things correctly.
    – Blue
    2 days ago


















2














I have to solve this easy equation, but can't find the same answer as the correction of the exercise.



We have two equations that I want to simplify (plugging $c$ into $s$)



$$c=dfrac{1}{2}left(w_1-t_1+dfrac{w_2-t_2}{R}right)$$



$$s=w_1-c$$



I find:



$$s=w_1-dfrac{1}{2}left(w_1-t_1+dfrac{w_2-t_2}{R}right)=dfrac{1}{2}left(w_1+t_1-dfrac{w_2+t_2}{R}right)$$



The correction actually says:



$$s=w_1-dfrac{1}{2}left(w_1-t_1+dfrac{w_2-t_2}{R}right)=dfrac{1}{2}left(w_1-t_1-dfrac{w_2-t_2}{R}right)$$



I must be wrong but I don't know why. Could somebody explain this to me?






algebra-precalculus







share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Raphaël Huleux is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • Your simplification seems fine excepting $w_2+t_2$ should be $w_2-t_2$.
    – Yadati Kiran
    2 days ago












  • What are the solving variables?
    – Dr. Sonnhard Graubner
    2 days ago










  • Both answers, as presented here, are incorrect (in different ways). In your answer, the $t_2$ should be negative; in their answer, the $t_1$ should be positive. Please check for typographic errors one way or the other, so that we can be sure we're comparing things correctly.
    – Blue
    2 days ago
















2












2








2







I have to solve this easy equation, but can't find the same answer as the correction of the exercise.



We have two equations that I want to simplify (plugging $c$ into $s$)



$$c=dfrac{1}{2}left(w_1-t_1+dfrac{w_2-t_2}{R}right)$$



$$s=w_1-c$$



I find:



$$s=w_1-dfrac{1}{2}left(w_1-t_1+dfrac{w_2-t_2}{R}right)=dfrac{1}{2}left(w_1+t_1-dfrac{w_2+t_2}{R}right)$$



The correction actually says:



$$s=w_1-dfrac{1}{2}left(w_1-t_1+dfrac{w_2-t_2}{R}right)=dfrac{1}{2}left(w_1-t_1-dfrac{w_2-t_2}{R}right)$$



I must be wrong but I don't know why. Could somebody explain this to me?






algebra-precalculus







share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Raphaël Huleux is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











I have to solve this easy equation, but can't find the same answer as the correction of the exercise.



We have two equations that I want to simplify (plugging $c$ into $s$)



$$c=dfrac{1}{2}left(w_1-t_1+dfrac{w_2-t_2}{R}right)$$



$$s=w_1-c$$



I find:



$$s=w_1-dfrac{1}{2}left(w_1-t_1+dfrac{w_2-t_2}{R}right)=dfrac{1}{2}left(w_1+t_1-dfrac{w_2+t_2}{R}right)$$



The correction actually says:



$$s=w_1-dfrac{1}{2}left(w_1-t_1+dfrac{w_2-t_2}{R}right)=dfrac{1}{2}left(w_1-t_1-dfrac{w_2-t_2}{R}right)$$



I must be wrong but I don't know why. Could somebody explain this to me?






algebra-precalculus




algebra-precalculus






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Raphaël Huleux is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Raphaël Huleux is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 2 days ago









Henning Makholm

238k16303540




238k16303540






New contributor




Raphaël Huleux is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 2 days ago









Raphaël HuleuxRaphaël Huleux

134




134




New contributor




Raphaël Huleux is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Raphaël Huleux is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Raphaël Huleux is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • Your simplification seems fine excepting $w_2+t_2$ should be $w_2-t_2$.
    – Yadati Kiran
    2 days ago












  • What are the solving variables?
    – Dr. Sonnhard Graubner
    2 days ago










  • Both answers, as presented here, are incorrect (in different ways). In your answer, the $t_2$ should be negative; in their answer, the $t_1$ should be positive. Please check for typographic errors one way or the other, so that we can be sure we're comparing things correctly.
    – Blue
    2 days ago




















  • Your simplification seems fine excepting $w_2+t_2$ should be $w_2-t_2$.
    – Yadati Kiran
    2 days ago












  • What are the solving variables?
    – Dr. Sonnhard Graubner
    2 days ago










  • Both answers, as presented here, are incorrect (in different ways). In your answer, the $t_2$ should be negative; in their answer, the $t_1$ should be positive. Please check for typographic errors one way or the other, so that we can be sure we're comparing things correctly.
    – Blue
    2 days ago


















Your simplification seems fine excepting $w_2+t_2$ should be $w_2-t_2$.
– Yadati Kiran
2 days ago






Your simplification seems fine excepting $w_2+t_2$ should be $w_2-t_2$.
– Yadati Kiran
2 days ago














What are the solving variables?
– Dr. Sonnhard Graubner
2 days ago




What are the solving variables?
– Dr. Sonnhard Graubner
2 days ago












Both answers, as presented here, are incorrect (in different ways). In your answer, the $t_2$ should be negative; in their answer, the $t_1$ should be positive. Please check for typographic errors one way or the other, so that we can be sure we're comparing things correctly.
– Blue
2 days ago






Both answers, as presented here, are incorrect (in different ways). In your answer, the $t_2$ should be negative; in their answer, the $t_1$ should be positive. Please check for typographic errors one way or the other, so that we can be sure we're comparing things correctly.
– Blue
2 days ago












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















1














You first expand a bit to simplify for the coefficient of $w_1$:



$$w_1-frac{1}{2}left(w_1-t_1+frac{w_2-t_2}{R}right) = w_1-frac{1}{2}w_1-frac{1}{2}left(-t_1+frac{w_2-t_2}{R}right)$$



$$= frac{1}{2}w_1-frac{1}{2}left(-t_1+frac{w_2-t_2}{R}right)$$



Factoring $frac{1}{2}w_1$ by $-frac{1}{2}$, the expression simplifies to:



$$-frac{1}{2}left(-w_1-t_1+frac{w_2-t_2}{R}right)$$



And factoring by $-1$ yields:



$$frac{1}{2}left(color{blue}{+}w_1color{blue}{+}t_1color{blue}{-}frac{w_2-t_2}{R}right)$$



You apparently made a mistake in the numerator of the final fraction. It should be $w_2-t_2$ rather than $w_2+t_2$, but I think it may have been a typo or an accident on your part. The rest is correct.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • I'm sorry I must have some kind of mental block but I still don't get it:
    – Raphaël Huleux
    2 days ago






  • 1




    No problem, I’ll add an extra step!
    – KM101
    2 days ago










  • Thanks! The $w_2-t_2$ was not a typo but my actual question. I guess I was just confused about the sign change with the fraction.
    – Raphaël Huleux
    2 days ago











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});






Raphaël Huleux is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3062978%2fsimplifying-s-w-1-c-where-c-frac12w-1-t-1-fracw-2-t-2r%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









1














You first expand a bit to simplify for the coefficient of $w_1$:



$$w_1-frac{1}{2}left(w_1-t_1+frac{w_2-t_2}{R}right) = w_1-frac{1}{2}w_1-frac{1}{2}left(-t_1+frac{w_2-t_2}{R}right)$$



$$= frac{1}{2}w_1-frac{1}{2}left(-t_1+frac{w_2-t_2}{R}right)$$



Factoring $frac{1}{2}w_1$ by $-frac{1}{2}$, the expression simplifies to:



$$-frac{1}{2}left(-w_1-t_1+frac{w_2-t_2}{R}right)$$



And factoring by $-1$ yields:



$$frac{1}{2}left(color{blue}{+}w_1color{blue}{+}t_1color{blue}{-}frac{w_2-t_2}{R}right)$$



You apparently made a mistake in the numerator of the final fraction. It should be $w_2-t_2$ rather than $w_2+t_2$, but I think it may have been a typo or an accident on your part. The rest is correct.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • I'm sorry I must have some kind of mental block but I still don't get it:
    – Raphaël Huleux
    2 days ago






  • 1




    No problem, I’ll add an extra step!
    – KM101
    2 days ago










  • Thanks! The $w_2-t_2$ was not a typo but my actual question. I guess I was just confused about the sign change with the fraction.
    – Raphaël Huleux
    2 days ago
















1














You first expand a bit to simplify for the coefficient of $w_1$:



$$w_1-frac{1}{2}left(w_1-t_1+frac{w_2-t_2}{R}right) = w_1-frac{1}{2}w_1-frac{1}{2}left(-t_1+frac{w_2-t_2}{R}right)$$



$$= frac{1}{2}w_1-frac{1}{2}left(-t_1+frac{w_2-t_2}{R}right)$$



Factoring $frac{1}{2}w_1$ by $-frac{1}{2}$, the expression simplifies to:



$$-frac{1}{2}left(-w_1-t_1+frac{w_2-t_2}{R}right)$$



And factoring by $-1$ yields:



$$frac{1}{2}left(color{blue}{+}w_1color{blue}{+}t_1color{blue}{-}frac{w_2-t_2}{R}right)$$



You apparently made a mistake in the numerator of the final fraction. It should be $w_2-t_2$ rather than $w_2+t_2$, but I think it may have been a typo or an accident on your part. The rest is correct.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • I'm sorry I must have some kind of mental block but I still don't get it:
    – Raphaël Huleux
    2 days ago






  • 1




    No problem, I’ll add an extra step!
    – KM101
    2 days ago










  • Thanks! The $w_2-t_2$ was not a typo but my actual question. I guess I was just confused about the sign change with the fraction.
    – Raphaël Huleux
    2 days ago














1












1








1






You first expand a bit to simplify for the coefficient of $w_1$:



$$w_1-frac{1}{2}left(w_1-t_1+frac{w_2-t_2}{R}right) = w_1-frac{1}{2}w_1-frac{1}{2}left(-t_1+frac{w_2-t_2}{R}right)$$



$$= frac{1}{2}w_1-frac{1}{2}left(-t_1+frac{w_2-t_2}{R}right)$$



Factoring $frac{1}{2}w_1$ by $-frac{1}{2}$, the expression simplifies to:



$$-frac{1}{2}left(-w_1-t_1+frac{w_2-t_2}{R}right)$$



And factoring by $-1$ yields:



$$frac{1}{2}left(color{blue}{+}w_1color{blue}{+}t_1color{blue}{-}frac{w_2-t_2}{R}right)$$



You apparently made a mistake in the numerator of the final fraction. It should be $w_2-t_2$ rather than $w_2+t_2$, but I think it may have been a typo or an accident on your part. The rest is correct.






share|cite|improve this answer














You first expand a bit to simplify for the coefficient of $w_1$:



$$w_1-frac{1}{2}left(w_1-t_1+frac{w_2-t_2}{R}right) = w_1-frac{1}{2}w_1-frac{1}{2}left(-t_1+frac{w_2-t_2}{R}right)$$



$$= frac{1}{2}w_1-frac{1}{2}left(-t_1+frac{w_2-t_2}{R}right)$$



Factoring $frac{1}{2}w_1$ by $-frac{1}{2}$, the expression simplifies to:



$$-frac{1}{2}left(-w_1-t_1+frac{w_2-t_2}{R}right)$$



And factoring by $-1$ yields:



$$frac{1}{2}left(color{blue}{+}w_1color{blue}{+}t_1color{blue}{-}frac{w_2-t_2}{R}right)$$



You apparently made a mistake in the numerator of the final fraction. It should be $w_2-t_2$ rather than $w_2+t_2$, but I think it may have been a typo or an accident on your part. The rest is correct.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 2 days ago

























answered 2 days ago









KM101KM101

5,5611423




5,5611423












  • I'm sorry I must have some kind of mental block but I still don't get it:
    – Raphaël Huleux
    2 days ago






  • 1




    No problem, I’ll add an extra step!
    – KM101
    2 days ago










  • Thanks! The $w_2-t_2$ was not a typo but my actual question. I guess I was just confused about the sign change with the fraction.
    – Raphaël Huleux
    2 days ago


















  • I'm sorry I must have some kind of mental block but I still don't get it:
    – Raphaël Huleux
    2 days ago






  • 1




    No problem, I’ll add an extra step!
    – KM101
    2 days ago










  • Thanks! The $w_2-t_2$ was not a typo but my actual question. I guess I was just confused about the sign change with the fraction.
    – Raphaël Huleux
    2 days ago
















I'm sorry I must have some kind of mental block but I still don't get it:
– Raphaël Huleux
2 days ago




I'm sorry I must have some kind of mental block but I still don't get it:
– Raphaël Huleux
2 days ago




1




1




No problem, I’ll add an extra step!
– KM101
2 days ago




No problem, I’ll add an extra step!
– KM101
2 days ago












Thanks! The $w_2-t_2$ was not a typo but my actual question. I guess I was just confused about the sign change with the fraction.
– Raphaël Huleux
2 days ago




Thanks! The $w_2-t_2$ was not a typo but my actual question. I guess I was just confused about the sign change with the fraction.
– Raphaël Huleux
2 days ago










Raphaël Huleux is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















Raphaël Huleux is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













Raphaël Huleux is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












Raphaël Huleux is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3062978%2fsimplifying-s-w-1-c-where-c-frac12w-1-t-1-fracw-2-t-2r%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

Mario Kart Wii

Image
Please consider supporting The Cutting Room Floor on Patreon. Thanks for all your support! Mario Kart Wii From The Cutting Room Floor Jump to: navigation, search Mario Kart Wii Developer : Nintendo Publisher : Nintendo Platform : Wii Released in JP : April 10, 2008 Released in US : April 27, 2008 Released in EU : April 11, 2008 Released in AU : April 24, 2008 Released in KR : April 30, 2009 This game has unused animations. This game has unused areas. This game has unused code. This game has unused objects. This game has unused modes / minigames. This game has unused graphics. This game has unused models. This game has unused items. This game has unused music. This game has regional differences. This game has a notes page This game has a prerelease article Mario Kart Wii is the sixth game in the series (not counting Arcade editions), which intro
Read more

What does “Dominus providebit” mean?

Image
5 Does "Dominus providebit" mean "The Lord will provide" or "The Lord provides"? I once had a bit of an argument with a guy who studied Latin over that. It's an inscription that appears on the rim of some old Swiss coins that I have. meaning latin-to-english-translation grammar-identification share | improve this question edited Jan 18 at 15:27 V2Blast 105 4 asked Jan 17 at 22:49 Donald K. Donald K. 26 1
Read more

Antonio Litta Visconti Arese

Image
Antonio Litta Visconti Arese I duca Litta, VII marchese di Gambolò In carica 1797 – 1820 Predecessore Pompeo Litta Visconti Arese Successore Alfonso Litta Visconti Arese Trattamento Sua grazia Altri titoli Duca Litta Conte del Regno napoleonico d'Italia Patrizio milanese Don Nascita Milano, 2 maggio 1748 Morte Milano, 14 agosto 1820 Dinastia Litta Visconti Arese Padre Pompeo Litta Visconti Arese Madre Maria Elisabetta Visconti Borromeo Consorte Barbara Barbiano di Belgioioso Religione cattolicesimo Antonio Litta Visconti Arese , I duca Litta, VII marchese di Gambolò (Milano, 2 maggio 1748 – Milano, 14 agosto 1820), è stato un nobile e politico italiano. Composizione "Il pastore svizzero" di Pietro Morlacchi, con dedica Indice 1 Biografia 2 Onorificenze 3 Araldica 4 Albero genealogico 5 Note 6 Altri progetti Biografia | Antonio Litta Visco
Read more