x=-1
easy

-1
obvious mathfail is obvious
what are you in, algebra?

>>27173626
I'm a physics teacher, you little shit.

nigger, -1

underage b&

I'm not going to do your algebra homework, faggot

>>27173654
Herp.
Where did you get your degree? Community college?
x= UNDEF

not allowed divide zero

x = -1

ITT: idiots

Reduces to (x+1)/(x-1)=0.

No solution unless
>hurfdurf imaginary numbers

Uhhhh isn't it -0.5...?

I get permabanned for saying >my face in /sp

Threads like this spammed constantly, on every board, nothing done about it.

>>27173726

((x+1)(x+1))/((x+1)(x-1)) = 0

(x+1)/(x-1) = 0

x = -1

/a/ - Algebra & Mathematics

double check your work fags
-1 squared = 1
1-1 =0
divide by zero, oh shi-
etc. etc.

Same exact thread every day.

Answer is Undefined unless you want to be a hurr durr and play with imaginary numbers.

x=-1

Holy fuck, people.

FAGGOTS CANT PLAY WITH IMAGINATION

>>27173726
>x= UNDEF
Your ivy league education really paid off, I see.

>>27173812
as others have stated, the denominator is eliminated.

Undefined.
Imaginary numbers are for faggots get out.

>>27173840
UNDEF=underpfined, fagget

x=-1, depending on how you define "solution", works. There's a removable singularity at x=-1, so you have to first continue the function at x=-1 in order to find a solution. But the continued function is not everywhere identical to the original function, so you might not accept that as a solution.

Take the limit faggot!

x^2 + 2x +1 / x^2 -1 = 0
2x + 1 / -1 = 0
-2x - 1 = 0
-1 = 2x
-1/2 = 2x/2
-0.5 = x

Contour integration, bitches. There are poles at x = 1 and x = -1. However, I'm too lazy to actually try and solve the equation that way.

-1
the fuck is undef

=(x+1)*(x+1)/((x+1)*(x-1))=(x+1)/(x-1)=0
f(-1)=(-1+1)/(-1-1)=0/2

(x+1)^2 / X^2-1 = 0
(-1+1)^2 / -1^2-1 = 0
(0)^2 / 1-1 = 0
0 / 0 = 0

x = -1

>>27173909
no, it simply isn't accepted as a solution. the function is not defined at that point. simple as that.

x=-1 and 1

>>27173937
Why the fuck would you be doing contour integration to find the zero of a real function? That's retarded. There is a numerical strategy involving contour integration that will find zeros of complex function, but that's a bit much here.

ITT tons of retards dividing by 0

No solution

dont divide by zero. it's something bad

it isn't a function, it's an equation people...

Bottom is difference of two squares, so you can rewrite it as (x+1)(x-1), then cancel one of the (x+1)'s in the numerator leaving ((x+1)/(x-1))=0. The only value which will result in the numerator being 0 while the denominator is a nonzero number is -1, which would make it ((-1+1)/(-1-1))=0 which when simplified is: (0/-2)=0 which becomes 0=0, which is true.

Therefore the answer is -1, you dumb nigger.

>>27174138
You can't do that.

answer is -1 that took about 2 seconds to figure out

what's mean "divide by zero"? you cant break a number in zero.

>>27174198
Gongrats on failing math.

>>27174162

And why not?

Y'all niggas is postin' in a troll thread

>>27174231
Division by 0, retard

What's the attraction of posting math problems in /a? They're always really stupid algebra problems too. Take square root of top and bottom, factor out X+1 and you're left with (X+1)/(x-1). This isn't a problem you solve arithematically, X is a domain.

I want you guys to be totally honest with me, none of you are seriously suggesting that -1 is the answer are you?
You're just trolling right?
Please restore my faith in humanity and tell me you are trolling.

>>27174265

WRONG

>>27174265

Wow, even my calculator gave me -1 when I solved it, that's odd.

There's actually a discontinuity at the point on the function, so...

>>27174265

There is no division by zero occuring.

>>27174297

Nice trolling bro, graph the equation and you'll see it hits 0 at -1.

My TI 89 say -1 is the answer. Also fuck you all.

>>27174162
you can, faggot

>>27174375
PROTIP: HOLES

>>27174384
Try (x+1)^2/(x^2-1)|x=-1

multiply the denominator on both sides

then input -1 into the left side

and you have 0

trolls trolling trolls

Here let me Maple that for you.

QED

...Am I seriously the only one here who understands limits and continuity? Oh right, you're using American high school math, lol.

>>27174266

Its because they make for excellent troll threads, because very few people solving the problem are 100% sure of their answer, and might be convinced they're wrong, even if they did it right, if the trolls are persistent and/or clever enough.

Stupid fags

(-1) squared = 1
-1 squared = -1

Therefore if u fill in x = -1 it would look like
0/-2 = 0 which is correct.

THIS WAS THE EASIEST CHALLENGE I'VE EVER HAD

>>27174468
You do not even need limits for this.

>>27174541

Yeah the other ones were better.

GIVE IN TO THE FIVES

>>27174575

I believe it's time for a bombing.

>>27174575
>>27174605
the fuck?

>>27174575
>>27174605

>5

>>27174605
>5

>>27174516
/a/ is too stupid for easy math

(x+1)^2 = 0(x^2-1)
(x+1)^2 = 0
x+1 = square root of 0
x+1 = 0
x = 0-1
x = -1

oh look it's this shit again

>>27174666

>666

HE COMES

>>27174666
OMFG

alright, i need somebody to explain why you're not allowed to simplify this equation as already explained. we're not dealing with a function here, unless we're putting this in the context of f(x)=0, but that's not what OP posted.

seriously, i'm doing college pre-calc right now, and my professors have failed to give me an adequate answer (they're too lazy to take the time) to explain why something like -1 doesn't work.

(x+1)^2 / x^2-1 = 0
then (x+1)^2 / x^2-1 * x^2-1 = 0 * x^2-1
then (x+1)^2 = 0
then (x+1)^2 / (x+1) = 0 / (x+1)
then (x+1) = 0
then x = -1

but wait a minute.

if (x=-1) is true, then the expression is like

(-1+1)^2 / (-1^2 - 1) = 0 / 0

what does 0 / 0 means?
can you zero cookie break in zero???????

>>27174685
is the wrong way of doing, x=-1 is only valid because you simplify the fraction

>>27174722
>college pre-calc
I think I found your problem.

>>27174755
-1 not (-1)

>>27174755
you cant.

put it in a calc and you still get undefined.

undefined because you can not divide by zero. just because you can reduce it to (x+1)/(x-1) doesn't mean you can ignore the fact that the denominator reduces to 0 in the instance where x = -1. if you were to make that into a function, then as x approached -1 y would approach 0, but the function is still undefined at that value so it never actually reaches it. I don't know why people were talking about imaginary numbers earlier, as I can't think of a different solution involving them, but perhaps if I thought about it more I could find one.

(x + 1)^2 / (x^2 - 1) = 0
[(x + 1) * (x + 1)] / [(x + 1) * (x - 1)] = 0
(x + 1) / (x - 1) = 0
x + 1 = 0
x = -1

ITT half of /a/ fails 7th grade algebra

>>27174722
It is because if you substitute -1 for x, then the bottom becomes 0.
And you cannot divide by 0 unless you are in calculus.
Is your school a good school or a bad school?

>KoG bombing
5!

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28%28%28x%2B1%29^2%29%2F%28%28x^2%29-1%29%29%3D0

DERP DERP

>>27174685
a = b
a-b = 0
(a-b)/(a-b) = 0/(a-b)
1 = 0

Saying x=-1 is not valid for this is like saying x=0 isn't a solution for x/2=0, just because you can bung in an x to make it x^2/2x=0, doesn't change anything.

>>27174117

>>27174840
I attend North Dakota State University. It's a decent school, and I know pre-calc is pretty fail (especially because I'm 24...) but I am the type to ask fundamental questions about math just to understand the workings of the numbers. I don't take "here are the rules of math" at face value.

I love all the arrogant retards claiming this is so easy, while giving the wrong answer.

The denominator approaches 0, so there's a discontinuity at x = -1. The issue has nothing to do with factorising or simplifying. You just can't divide by 0. 0/0 is undefined.

>>27174928
no it's not because the OP's problem is given with x+1 being a factor of the denominator whereas the problem you gave does not have x as a factor of the denominator as an initial condition.

Protip people: if the equation can be reduced, then it MUST be reduced. Saying that its unreduced form produces an undefined answer is incorrect, because its reduced form provides an answer, and all we really care about is the reduced form.

ITT faggots don't know about removable discontinuities.

>>27174935
Integral D=!

ITT: Trolls not knowing what -1 is when squared.

>>27174755
Take it to the other side
(-1+1)^2 = 0 * (-1^2 - 1)
0 = 0

>>27175020
FUCKING FAGGOT YOU KNOW NOTHING.

Don't help the underage b& with his homework

>>27174952
I like to think of it this way.
6 divided by 3 is 2 because 3 times 2 is 6
6 divided by 0 is ? because 0 times ? is 6

the answer is 9!!!!!!!!!

anyway, i cant get how you can break the cookie in zero. i think the meaning is you don't break the cookie. so the genuine answer is you cant solve this expression.

>>27174935
The issue there is that \tilde{f} there while equal a.e. is not equal everywhere, specifically at x_0= -1. But whether you accept a zero of a function identical a.e. as the zero the original function has more to do about what you care about rather than any sort of fundamental significance.

Deep in my heart I wanna believe all those dividing by 0 fuckers were just trolling

>>27175020
...Are you fucking insane? Factorise it. It's still a 0/0 problem, it's still undefined at x=-1. The limit as x approaches -1 is zero, but it's discontinuous.

The lesson? Don't ask /a/ to attempt anything beyond middle school mathematics.

>>27175114

Well yeah, at X=-1.

We're solving for where x=0.

Which is where y=-1.

Nobody ever gave a fuck what y was at x=-1.

aiight kids take the god damn limit and u'll get your answer

0/0 = 1 Fucking christ /a/, can't you do simple mathematics? Any fucking number divided by itself is always 1.

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/mth251/cq/Stage4/Lesson/removable.html

Protip: Try plugging your "solutions" into the original equation. Simplified form = a different equation.

>>27175271
...What question are you looking at? The right side of the equation is 0, not -1.

>>27175289
Please tell me you're trolling.

I love math threads.
Bump for intense faggotry.

No solution, can't divide by zero

>>27175438

No I am not.

Isnt it just -1?

>>27175271
oh, you!

>>27175557
put -1 into the original equation and tell us

I get it. The people who are saying its undefined at -1 are solving it opposite. They're solving it as though y is the independent variable, which would produce undefined at -1. People who are solving for x as the independent variable get undefined at 1. Its the same graph, its just rotated.

0/Anything = 0

OP is a genius. By giving us a simple equation (and many answering it without any problems (x=-1)) he just trolled over half of /a/.
Let's assume that majority is over 18, now you know why there are so many unemployed people out there, cause they are fucking morons and should go back to school.

i wonder what happens with all this retards when they are taught limits

>>27175722
I think you are pants-on-head retarded

>>27175863
>i wonder what happens with all this retards when they are taught limits
>all this retards when they are taught limits
>this retards

We probably won't know untill you increase your knowledge in the english language.

I can't wait until you retards learn limits.

(x+1)^2 / x^2-1 = 0
(x+1)(x+1) / (x+1)(x-1) = 0
x+1 / x-1 = 0 |* (x-1)
x+1 = 0
x = -1

Easy stuff.
Now go back to school the rest of you.

>>27175959
and yet the original equation still returns 0/0

>>27176042
Take the denominator to the other side and its 0*0 which is acceptable.

protip: answer is no real solution, because -1 doesnt work. Makes a zero denominator, and ohshit divide by zero etc.

This thread hurts my head.

The solution is x=-1.

However, as in every equation you have to check it after you solve it, so you insert -1 and you get:

(-1+1)^2 / (-1)^2-1 = 0
0/0 = 0 -> which is not true, therefore the x is undefined.

>>27176072
of course it is