Get our expert's

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your **free** account and access **expert** answers to this and **thousands** of other questions.

See more answers at brainly.com

Get this expert

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your **free** account and access **expert** answers to this and **thousands** of other questions

add 29 to both sides.

can you add 29 to both sides?

which sides?

Both.
\[x^2-12+7+29=0+29\]

and why 29?

To make the left side into perfect square because you have to have (-6) (-6) which equals 36.

Oh. Okay. I still don't quite get it, but lets move on. What shall I do next? :D

Uhh... which one is right?

Are all of these right, just in different ways?

You add 36 to both sides, not 29

But 36 - 7 = 29

@SolomanZelman, if that's true, then explain how I got my result

actually in (a+b)^2=a^2+b^2+2ab
here 2ab is 12x=2*x*6
so u need to make b^2 that is 36

I know exactly how the process works and what to add to both sides.

She'll only understand if those teaching know what they are talking about

STOP ARGUING!

YES, add 29

@Emily778, do you get how I came up with 29? Do you want to learn how to complete the square?

MODERATOR, please don't ruin the thread, and confuse teh asker, lets teach her!

Sorry If I was offensive, @Hero .

Take the square root of both sides

Can you show me how? I am so confused:(

to make the left side...typo

|dw:1384666594334:dw|

Emily, do you get it conceptually?

Add 6 to both sides to finish solving for x

yep.

I think you missed that last bit I posted in a drawing

oh, you have to square root first?

Yes you can't do anything until you take the square root of both sides.

If you don't believe me, I have ways of convincing you.

For one, I know you would never argue with WolframAlpha.

Hero, how does 36 make the left side into a perfect square, it is \[x^2+12x+7=0\]

Hang on, @SolomonZelman, WolframAlpha is undefeated.

I meant\[x^2-12x+7=0\]

okay, so it's actually
x-6+6=+=sqrt29=6?

Well yes it is then.

omg
don't argue with @Hero

@Hero, I am sorry to say this, but you have to rvw over some staff.

he is correct and I am telling you it

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

http://tr.im/4klyc

Don't tell me 1+1=4

I know I do not need a calculator and I know he is correct

Notice that wolframalpha says to add 36 to both sides.

In this here link:
http://tr.im/4klyc

maybe you put in -7, instead of +7.

OK, when you subtract 7, but you can just add 29, without subtracting 7.

See?

There's only one correct way to do it @SolomonZelman. Wolframalpha shows the steps. Go review them.

okay

Do you guys just argue, or actually READ MY REPLIES?

solomon, study more before you question

@nincompoop, you obviously didn't understand what i said.

just study

Do you understand what I said, I don't need to study, I am fine.

study

@SolomonZelman, there's a difference between wasting steps and skipping steps.

Skipping steps leads to confusion

I still think though, that emily didn't get it conceptually.

she never does...

That was quite offensive.

True, and I was trying to ask emily if she figured out the first step(s) in completing the square.

doubt it

Yes, me too, that's why I kept on asking that.

couldn't agree more

Well, not that they taught me that, but didn't get any points off.

it's cool
can't teach someone about skipping when that person barely knows anything to begin with

I see your point though....

1+1 = 4 though

And she still hasn't figure it out conceptually, just got the answer and left.

it's called precision

\(\huge {\color{green} {Yup,} }\)
forgot the name for this, I learned that last year.

anyway, good night

you too!

\[\(\huge {\color{green} {B^{Y^{E ^{!}}}} }\)\]

Didn't delete the parenthesis....

This is a systematic approach and you end up with
(x + b/2)^2 = b^2/4 + c

Well, then improper methodology just shows that the person who did the steps is SMART.

Now let's see @SolomonZelman explain his method in a systematic, generalized manner.

I would just use an example similar to the one we solved just now.

Examples are not generalized. And they don't show the systematic methodology.

Systematic methods have a better chance of being understood than non-systematic methods.