Its always a good idea to state the domain for x before solving so: and .Solve the following equation
sin^-1 (x) - cos^-1 (x) = sin^-1 (3x+1)
In case anyone does not see through why this part of the step is true:Its always a good idea to state the domain for x before solving so: and .
Now take the sin of both sides to obtain:
Note that: and by the pythagorean identities, we only have to take the positive case here since
Therefore:
But so the only solution is:
fk latexIn case anyone does not see through why this part of the step is true:
It's because of the domain's of inverse trig functions.
Though that solution is a bit long lol.
Obviously
"/>"/>
You cant assume without proof. Nor can you assumeIn case anyone does not see through why this part of the step is true:
It's because of the domain's of inverse trig functions.
Though that solution is a bit long lol.
[/TEX]
trivialYou cant assume without proof. Nor can you assume
ahhh stupid latex good now i thinkfk latex
is this actually not assumable. it's so trivial.You cant assume without proof. Nor can you assume
If it’s not on the formula sheet you can’t assume it!is this actually not assumable. it's so trivial.
that's like all of 4u that you cant assume bruhIf it’s not on the formula sheet you can’t assume it!
Both results need the double angle formula which is similar to what I did so will result in the same length of working.is this actually not assumable. it's so trivial.
Only things you can assume are basic definitions and axioms and results that are on the data sheet (like )that's like all of 4u that you cant assume bruh
no just draw a triangle.Both results need the double angle formula which is similar to what I did so will result in the same length of working.
this is why real men take BOS Trials. Screw HSC.Only things you can assume are basic definitions and axioms and results that are on the data sheet (like )
Yeah u need double angle then 'draw a triangle,?' Prove without double angle?no just draw a triangle.
bruh draw a triangle, its so obvious that sin inverse + cos inverse x = 90 degrees it's not even funny.Yeah u need double angle then 'draw a triangle,?' Prove without double angle?
FYI we mark the BoS trials in similar way to HSC lol. You can’t just assume results like that without proof, otherwise you can argue the result you’re trying to prove in the first place is also “trivial”.this is why real men take BOS Trials. Screw HSC.
ur trolling.FYI we mark the BoS trials in similar way to HSC lol. You can’t just assume results like that without proof, otherwise you can argue the result you’re trying to prove in the first place is also “trivial”.
Daily struggles of a 4U kid....FYI we mark the BoS trials in similar way to HSC lol. You can’t just assume results like that without proof, otherwise you can argue the result you’re trying to prove in the first place is also “trivial”.
trying to write working out is harder than solving the question *sigh*Daily struggles of a 4U kid....