The very many questions-not-worth-their-own-thread question thread XXXI

[CKS]

Solve the first equation for x, substitute into the second equation to get
2a(-1-by)+2y=5
-2a -2aby+2y = 5
Now, if ab = 1, y drops out of the equation, giving no solutions.
Otherwise, you have a linear equation in y, giving a single solution.

 

[Takhisis]

Just to clarify, from the first one you can get:

x+by=-1
x=-1-by​

and then you replace the x in

2ax+2y=5​

 

[warpus]

I did this long proof in the math thread for someone and they didn't even respond. No more math help from this guy, I am boycotting all math related questions.

 

[Takhisis]

That seems like overkill.

 

[warpus]

When it comes to math, I only deal in absolutes

 

[sophie]

http://imgur.com/a/xIydC
The answers is b) ab≠1, but I have no clue how to get to that answer... Can someone help me?

Moderator Action: Moved from new thread. FP.

Mang I already took my GREs. I'm now officially too old for this ****.

 

[Gori the Grey]

By the way, we should be careful about doing some kid's math homework for him, especially a poster for whom this is his first post.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Meh, s/he's trying to learn. Even if we show the person everything there's a chance that they might actually learn from it instead of copying it thoughtlessly. None of us are compelled in any way to help him/her so if someone wants to volunteer their time I think it's a good thing. As for the chance we could be helping the person cheat - well that's between them and their professor. I just think knowledge is awesome and should be shared freely.

 

[Takhisis]

When it comes to math, I only deal in absolutes

I shall bear this in mind.

I just think knowledge is awesome and should be shared freely.

+1

 

[caketastydelish]

Socialites becoming famous for being socialites isn't new. The notion that pretty young women have to earn their fame by merit is a twentieth century one, a product of the age of mass media, and not one that we really take all that seriously; how much genuine merit has Miley Cyrus ever actually displayed? By refusing to identify themselves primarily as musicians or actresses or models, the Hiltons and Kardashians are just calling our collective bluff.

I'm not sure where you're going with this? There are male celebrities that are the same. What about the Jonas Brothers, One Direction. I think Justin Bieber doesn't write his own songs either. Among others.

 

[sophie]

I'm not sure where you're going with this? There are male celebrities that are the same. What about the Jonas Brothers, One Direction. I think Justin Bieber doesn't write his own songs either. Among others.

You might want to reread that post, because there's no connection between what he said and what you said.

Like at all.

 

[Mouthwash]

You might want to reread that post, because there's no connection between what he said and what you said.

Like at all.

Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[Hygro]

None of those boys are proof that there is an institution of men famous for being socialites first, and nothing really second.

 

[Flying Pig]

I think the point was more that famous young women 'should' do something other than be young, pretty and famous is quite a new one. Traitorfish is saying that 'reality TV stars' are really just reverting to the much older type. That type doesn't really exist for men - at least not if you exclude royalty, which I think would be a notable exception.

 

[warpus]

It's a lot harder for men to use their body and sexual image to make money. I think that's why. But aren't there male socialites around, or whatever we're calling these people?

 

[cardgame]

Apparently there is one, as I was rather infuriated to find out when this showed up unbidden on my netflix discovery queue

 

[warpus]

Isn't that Justin Bieber? Wait, who is that? Are you saying that's a male version of a Paris Hilton, someone who has no talents but is famous? But he's starting in a movie or TV show it seems, so..

 

[caketastydelish]

Maybe this sounds just a little bit sexist, but I've read studies that women are, biologically, more likely to be social than men. Women use more time using social media to interact with others, as one example. It could explain why men are more likely to have Asperger syndrome or autism, among other things. There is definitely a sexist aspect to this to. But there is some basis in reality that women are more social than men. It can be backed up with sufficient evidence.

 

[Traitorfish]

In this context, I think it's more that male and female socability were constructed in different ways. Female sociability was traditionally domestic and diplomatic, male sociability was public and competitive, thus, upper class women became socialites, while upper class men dueled and drank and gambled and became cavalry officers. Both sought public regard by exemplifying the expectations of their gender. I think some of that remains in how male and female celebrities are regarded, with the result that we forgive famous women an absence of talent if they can display grace and good looks, and we forgive famous men and absence of grace and good looks if they can display talent.

 

[warpus]

Hopefully in the future these gender-based pigeonholing principles no longer hold up, but I suppose at times you can't stop the free market from doing what it does