MHB My First Algebra Question: Associative Property

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the Associative Property of addition, clarifying that the expression 3 + (8 + x) involves addition, not multiplication. The confusion arises from incorrectly applying multiplication to the terms within the parentheses. It is emphasized that the Associative Property allows for the reordering of addition without changing the outcome, such as in the example 4 + (7 + 2). The key takeaway is that addition does not require multiplication of the outer term with the contents of the parentheses. Understanding this distinction is crucial for correctly applying algebraic principles.
Duckfan
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
I am reading through a introductory algebra textbook and refreshing memory on this topic. In the matter of the Associative Properties, it is giving me the expression 3 + (8+x).

(I'm skipping the graphs section because I'm leaving that for my tutor Saturday. But I'm moving to algebra because I think I can refresh memory fairly quickly).

Now this is addition in this part of the book. However, I'm just a bit confused because I do remember some of my algebra where in this expression I would multiply 3 into 8 since it's part of (forgot the term) process to solve this equation which (in my memory) multiply 3 & 8 to get 24x. Anytime I deal with an expression (for example) 4 + (7x+10) would work out to 28x +10. Because it's in the ( ) I'm required to multiply the expression inside the ( ).

And it also states I need to change the order: 3 + (x +8). Not understanding this aspect.

Am I correct on this question or do I need to clarify more?
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Re: My FIrst Algebra Question

Duckfan said:
I am reading through a introductory algebra textbook and refreshing memory on this topic. In the matter of the Associative Properties, it is giving me the expression 3 + (8+x).

(I'm skipping the graphs section because I'm leaving that for my tutor Saturday. But I'm moving to algebra because I think I can refresh memory fairly quickly).

Now this is addition in this part of the book. However, I'm just a bit confused because I do remember some of my algebra where in this expression I would multiply 3 into 8 since it's part of (forgot the term) process to solve this equation which (in my memory) multiply 3 & 8 to get 24x. Anytime I deal with an expression (for example) 4 + (7x+10) would work out to 28x +10. Because it's in the ( ) I'm required to multiply the expression inside the ( ).

And it also states I need to change the order: 3 + (x +8). Not understanding this aspect.

Am I correct on this question or do I need to clarify more?

No you are missing the fact that the 3 is added to and not multiplied against the result of the bracket. The only way you'd multiply the three (3) from your first example or the four (4) from your second against the brackets is if the addition was replaced by a multiplication sign (*) or not present.

i.e. $$3 + ( x + 8) \ne 3 * (x + 8) $$ and $$4 + (7x + 10) \ne 4 * (7x + 10)$$

Associative property of math means that the order in which the operations are done is not relevant. Addition is associative since the order you add numbers together does not affect the result. For example if you have 4 + 7 + 2 it doesn't matter if I force the addition to be (4 + 7) + 2 or 4 + (7 + 2) the result will be the same.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top