Poll: Rationalize the denominator?

[Chaotic42]

For example, if you had 2/sqrt(3), would you leave it as is or change it to 2*sqrt(3)/3? My calc teacher says to leave the denominator as is.

 

[FoBoT]

i think this has something to do with math, so i voted the last option

 

[Kalvin00]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
i think this has something to do with math, so i voted the last option

:laugh:, me too

 

[Chronoshock]

Wtf are you talking about

OHHH you're talking about square roots. Do freaking sqrt(x) if you're going to represent it.
And yes you should rationalize the denom like you posted

 

[TheVrolok]

We stopped rationalizing denominators after basic algebra. I don't usually rationalize anymore, I don't really think of it as any kind of simplification, so I don't do it.

 

[BigPoppa]

^^ Ditto

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Chronoshock
Wtf are you talking about

OHHH you're talking about square roots. Do freaking sqrt(x) if you're going to represent it.
And yes you should rationalize the denom like you posted

I put a square root symbol there.

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: TheVrolok
We stopped rationalizing denominators after basic algebra. I don't usually rationalize anymore, I don't really think of it as any kind of simplification, so I don't do it.

Way too much work, sometimes leads to more complicated terms, doesn't simplify any calculus that I'm aware of.

Why make work for yourself?

 

[oneshot47]

only do it if it makes the expression easier to work with later, ie dont do it if thats the end of the problem. Rule of thumb in calc, dont simplify unless it makes it easier.

 

[Mik3y]

only rationalize the denominator if you are going to simplify it any further or find the domain(s) or the zeros of the function. otherwise, if its an answer, you shouldnt need to rationalize it any further.

 

[Chaotic42]

I see it's about split.

I only ask because I had quite a few teachers who would *seriously* count off for it. Of course, she still doesn't like negative exponents.

 

[DWW]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
For example, if you had 2/sqrt(3), would you leave it as is or change it to 2*sqrt(3)/3? My calc teacher says to leave the denominator as is.

When I took calculus they always stressed rationalizing it.

Edit: and I've never had a teacher who liked negative exponents either.

BTW what school are you taking calc at and what book are you using?

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: DWW
When I took calculus they always stressed rationalizing it.

BTW what school are you taking calc at and what book are you using?

I'm taking it at Pearl River Community College. I'm not sure of the book (it's in the car), but it loves to rationalize the denominator.

 

[yhelothar]

Teacher stopped caring after algebra2 if it was rationalized or not.

 

[Mo0o]

I dont, for me it keeps things simpler w/ less numbers that isn't 1

 

[DWW]

If you want a good calculus book, and I mean, to really LEARN it then buy Michael Spivak's Calculus.
Most community colleges settle for crap like Stewart. Spivak can be heavy but it is well worth it, and I'm not even that far into the book.

Though I did have some experience with calculus before picking up the book. Calculus noobs would prob find it difficult but you might enjoy reading it alongside to really understand the topics.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: DWW
If you want a good calculus book, and I mean, to really LEARN it then buy Michael Spivak's Calculus.
Most community colleges settle for crap like Stewart. Spivak can be heavy but it is well worth it, and I'm not even that far into the book.

Though I did have some experience with calculus before picking up the book. Calculus noobs would prob find it difficult but you might enjoy reading it alongside to really understand the topics.

I think for a nonmath major a book thats easier and just gets the general points across is more than enough.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: DWW
If you want a good calculus book, and I mean, to really LEARN it then buy Michael Spivak's Calculus.
Most community colleges settle for crap like Stewart. Spivak can be heavy but it is well worth it, and I'm not even that far into the book.

Though I did have some experience with calculus before picking up the book. Calculus noobs would prob find it difficult but you might enjoy reading it alongside to really understand the topics.

Here's our book

 

[DWW]

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: DWW
If you want a good calculus book, and I mean, to really LEARN it then buy Michael Spivak's Calculus.
Most community colleges settle for crap like Stewart. Spivak can be heavy but it is well worth it, and I'm not even that far into the book.

Though I did have some experience with calculus before picking up the book. Calculus noobs would prob find it difficult but you might enjoy reading it alongside to really understand the topics.

I think for a nonmath major a book thats easier and just gets the general points across is more than enough.

shrug
I'm not studying math at university. Though calculus was a personal interest so I guess that I just like a deeper understanding of things.

Besides, Spivak's book is half the pages of Stewart's and you don't have to do EVERY difficult problem. I still think its worthwhile because, if you understand the concepts well enough and the "why", then it will make it that much easier to ace an exam.

 

[Dowfen]

Originally posted by: DWW
If you want a good calculus book, and I mean, to really LEARN it then buy Michael Spivak's Calculus.
Most community colleges settle for crap like Stewart. Spivak can be heavy but it is well worth it, and I'm not even that far into the book.

Though I did have some experience with calculus before picking up the book. Calculus noobs would prob find it difficult but you might enjoy reading it alongside to really understand the topics.

I don't find Stewart's book crap, there's things I like about it and things I don't, but in the end I consider it a fairly adequate calculus book. After all, it's only a means to practice problems and you can still get into the formal definition of limits, epsilon/delta/n arguments if you so desire.

 

[wfbberzerker]

my teachers always taught me not to leave a root on the bottom.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Dowfen
I don't find Stewart's book crap, there's things I like about it and things I don't, but in the end I consider it a fairly adequate calculus book. After all, it's only a means to practice problems and you can still get into the formal definition of limits, epsilon/delta/n arguments if you so desire.

The first calc book that I ever read was Sylvanus P. Thompson's "Calculus Made Easy". That was 4 years ago. This is the first actual calc class I've taken.

 

[DWW]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Dowfen
I don't find Stewart's book crap, there's things I like about it and things I don't, but in the end I consider it a fairly adequate calculus book. After all, it's only a means to practice problems and you can still get into the formal definition of limits, epsilon/delta/n arguments if you so desire.

The first calc book that I ever read was Sylvanus P. Thompson's "Calculus Made Easy". That was 4 years ago. This is the first actual calc class I've taken.

You probably won't require much in a community college calc class anyhow. Forget my recommendation (unless you find calculus interesting and want to learn more)

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: DWW
You probably won't require much in a community college calc class anyhow. Forget my recommendation (unless you find calculus interesting and want to learn more)

I'm going for a PhD in mathematics so I'm open for whatever you have to recommend.

 

[pray4mojo]

Stopped rationalizing the denominator in Trig/Pre-Cal
Stopped simplifying negative exponents in Calc.