I got 3(3x+4) (63+25) im not sure if this is right?
2007-02-10 05:29:24 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Mathematics
use substitution
let u =9x+3
7u^2 +32u+16
(7u+4)(u+4)
put 9x +3 back in for u
[7(9x+3)+4] [9x+3+4]
(63x+21+4)(9x+7)
(63x+25)(9x+7)
2007-02-10 05:37:26 · answer #1 · answered by dla68 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
7(9x+3)^2+32(9x+3)+16 = (63x + 25)(9x + 7).
I'm afraid that your own factorization doesn't work. There are several obvious flaws in it: (i) While the other terms are divisible by 3, ' 16 ' ISN'T --- so ' 3 ' CANNOT come outside; (ii) Your expression can't produce a term in x^2. Admittedly this latter may just be a typo --- I presume you meant the last factor to be (63 x + 25)? (iii) The "constant term" in the original expression is 7 (3)^2 + 32 (3) + 16 = 175. Assuming you DID mean (63 x + 25) for the last factor, your "constant term" would be 300.
My factorization proceeded in two steps. It's actually:
[7(9 x + 3) + 4][(9 x + 3) + 4] = (63 x + 25)(9x + 7).
I did this by mentally blotting out the "red herring" of the (9 x + 3) term, simply reading it as a variable ' z.' That makes the whole expression read as:
7 z^2 + 32 z + 16.
It is easy to see that THIS necessarily factors as (7 z + a)(z + b), since 7 is prime. It's then a question of seeing how to get a cross-term ' 32 ' out of a ' 7,' a ' 1,' and the possible factors of 16. Because of long experience, I immediately "saw" that 4 (7) + 4 = 32, in other words that ' a ' and ' b ' were both ' 4.'
Good luck with this sort of thing in future.
Live long and prosper.
2007-02-10 05:34:13 · answer #2 · answered by Dr Spock 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Same as before, I would sub in a= 9x + 3
7a^2 + 32a + 16
Factor and get (7a+4)(a + 4)
Sub back in for a and get [7(9x + 3) +4][(9x+3 + 4]
Simplify (63x + 21+4)(9x+7)
(63x+25)(9x+7)
2007-02-10 06:12:52 · answer #3 · answered by lizzie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Factor out the 9x + 3 term.
2007-02-10 05:35:53 · answer #4 · answered by Runa 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
7(9x+3)^2+32(9x+3)+16
7(81x^2 + 54x + 9) + 288x + 96 + 16
567x^2 + 378x + 63 + 288x + 96 + 16
567x^2 + 666x + 175
(9x+7)(63x+25)
2007-02-10 05:37:28 · answer #5 · answered by 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
My, my so many misunderstandings here I don't know where to begin! One trinitarian says you shouldn't take the Bible literally, another says you should. Another says look at the totality of scripture. Well, frankly those who have objectively come away with the conclusion that Jesus was exactly who he sai he was: The son of God, who is in complete harmony with his father. Talk about a "mountain of evidence"! Here is just a sample: John:20:17 _ Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' " NIV (Jesus worships the same God his followers do) Deuteronomy 6:4 _ Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: KJV (Not 3 in 1) Matthew 26:39 _ And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. KJV (Jesus could have a different will than his father) Colossians 1:15 KJV Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature (he is called "firstborn" showing a beginnia and "creature" showing that he was created) I deliderately quote from the King James Bible for the benefit of those who respect no other, however, one can research these scriptures and others in almost any version of the Holy Scriptures and find essentially the same thing.
2016-05-25 02:27:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i got 564x2
2007-02-10 05:46:00 · answer #7 · answered by lolly 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋