guy

why can people afford art museums but not good quality homeless shelters? I always wondered why it seems that huge charitable donations make their ways to art galleries while comparable donations don't seem to be put to use for homeless shelters? What is stopping it from doing so, for it seems to be a more pressing need?

Thanks

find what multiplies to -10, and adds to -3?

why can or can't I factor out -4 to make (-h^2-3h+10)? It logically makes sense but, unlike whenever I factor out positives, I keep coming to factored forms that don't equal the original statement. what do you think is the reason?

8h^2-24h-320=0

factoring the above: -8(-h^2+3h+40)=8h^2-24h-320=0, since a(or -a) *c=the product you need therefore -1*40=-40, so find something that adds to 3 and multiplies to -40. 8*-5=-40, and 8+-5=3, so the further factorization is -8(-h+8)(h-5), -8((-h+8)(h-5)) by associative property =-8(-h^2+3h-40)=0, distributive property=8h^2-24h+320=8h^2-24h-320 (except it doesn't).

I was thinking of contacting one, but I couldn't find it at the district office.

I don't think so and my reasoning is that I've never really seen anyone use -1=a which would be really weird if this was okay. why is it okay or not?

I'm pretty sure that it is, since I'm pretty sure investment is a demand, not a supply factor but I could be wrong.

I actually factored it correctly but I don't know why the incorrect way is incorrect:

aren't -8*(-h^2+3h+40) factors of the original problem? If so then all I do is factor the stuff in the parentheses and I get -8(-h+8)(h-5) which is confusingly different from the real answer 8(h-8)(h+5)!?

some help please?

If not, why?

can you factor out (x+y)^2 as ((x+y)*(x+y))(1)?

(x-6)= -(x-3x)^1/2

why isn't this the same as

(-x-3x)^1/2 by the associative property of multiplication? or -1(-1)(-x+3x)^1/2 by the distributive property?

I don't think it could be because of the exponent since (x+3)^1 is the same as (-1)(-x-3)^1 etc. So if no exponent is consistent with the number properties then this one wouldn't but it is so it's not the exponent that is a problem.

(-1)(2*2)premise, 2*2=4 by pemdas, 4*-1=-4

(-1)(2*2) premise, (-1)(2*2)=4 by distributive property, but from the same premise was deduced 4 &-4, which is a contradiction so my question is where did I go wrong? I thought that the number properties and PEMDAS didn't have any priority over each other but apparently if you do one before the other, different answers are possible.

10 pts for best answer:

why isn't 1) (-1)(2)(2)=-(1*(2^2)) by the associative property of multiplication?

and 2) why isn't it that the associative property isn't a contradiction with the "P" in PEMDAS since the associative property says "if it is addition or mult. then it doesn't matter in what order you do the operation" and the"P" says, "if any number operation is in a parentheses, then it must be performed first such that if (a*b)+c then you can't do a*(b+c) by associative law).

I was trying to solve for x in (-(((x-2)^(1/2)))^2) but I figured this is equal to -1*y^(1/4) [y=(x-2)] *y^(1/4) so that applying the Associative property of multiplication I could rewrite the original as -1*(y^(1/4)*y^(!/4)). But if I did this I would get a different answer than from the original formulation of the problem. Is there something wrong with how I used the associative property?

-(1)^2= -1 since "-" is outside the parentheses, the exponent comes next, then finally the negative sign is multiplied through. Where did I go wrong, why should the "-" sign's scope be applied when it is outside the ()?

logically, you should be able to factor 3x^2-36=0 by simply factoring out the 3, first then finding out what adds to 0 and multiplies to -12. But you can't and this seems like an inconsistency and it is one that I don't get. Anyone have an answer?

I was thinking that if 3=--3, then that means you could factor out -1 from 3 and it should be correct. But I don't usually see people factoring negatives from positives -any help?

Just what the question asks.

Thanks people