kaylala
  • kaylala
The rational expression a^3 - a^2 ----------- a^2 - 1 where a ≠ ±1 can be simplified as WHAT? TOPIC: Rational Expressions
Mathematics
  • Stacey Warren - Expert brainly.com
Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)
SOLVED
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
schrodinger
  • schrodinger
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
whpalmer4
  • whpalmer4
What happens if you factor the numerator of this expression? Do you see any common factors after you do so?
whpalmer4
  • whpalmer4
\[a^3-a^2 = a^2(a-1)\]right?
whpalmer4
  • whpalmer4
Nothing appears to be a common factor with the denominator, does it?

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

More answers

whpalmer4
  • whpalmer4
What if you now factor the denominator?
kaylala
  • kaylala
yes. @whpalmer4 see the image: (but there could be 2 answers; see the top and bottom image)
kaylala
  • kaylala
1 Attachment
kaylala
  • kaylala
1 Attachment
whpalmer4
  • whpalmer4
After you've factored both numerator and denominator you have the following: \[\frac{a^2(a-1)}{(a-1)(a+1)} = \frac{a^2\cancel{(a-1)}}{(a+1)\cancel{(a-1)}} = \frac{a^2}{a+1}\]
whpalmer4
  • whpalmer4
the original restrictions on \(a\) still apply: \(a \ne \pm 1\)
kaylala
  • kaylala
oh ok thanks @whpalmer4 by the way, what original restrictions?
whpalmer4
  • whpalmer4
\(a\ne \pm1\) if a=1 or a = -1, the denominator of the original expression would equal 0, and the result dividing by 0 is undefined...for the new expression, in theory we could have a = 1 without any problem (the denominator would equal 2, and dividing by 2 is a commonly accepted practice :-) but we are trying to make a simpler but equivalent version of the original expression, and so to make it 100% equivalent, we have to put a=1 as off-limits, just as it was in the original.
whpalmer4
  • whpalmer4
otherwise, it isn't equivalent — it's a function that is defined somewhere where the other one wasn't.
kaylala
  • kaylala
ah... okay thank you so much @whpalmer4
whpalmer4
  • whpalmer4
you're welcome.

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.