Halp pls

[SenriAkane]

RedHeadedLady, you are a maths goddess what studyscore did u get in methods when you did it? i have a feeling you got 40 scaled at least

I am ashamed to say I that I got 38 raw and still I cannot match RedHeadedLady

Nagisa: I see a stray Key/VisualArts Fan here

[Planck's constant]

r is obviously 3

Not necessarily.
You get the same answer with r=1/3 & b=9

Anyway, TrueTear's is the complete approach.

[TrueTears]

I am ashamed to say I that I got 38 raw and still I cannot match RedHeadedLady

Nagisa: I see a stray Key/VisualArts Fan here

haha Clannad After Story -> best anime ever in the history of anime, if you do not shed a tear in this anime you ain't human!

but yes, Key is fkn amazing, can't wait when little busters finishes airing, hope it lives up to its VN

[Nagisa]

Not necessarily.
You get the same answer with r=1/3 & b=9

Anyway, TrueTear's is the complete approach.

how does 1 cubed = 27? if u honestly looked at the 27 and the 3 and said "hey look its gonna be 1..."

[FlorianK]

The actual solution [nobody has the solution written in the correct way atm, in the way as its not a proof. Its not a proof in the same way as f''(x)=0 is not a proof for a point of infelction.] will be up after I'm finished having lunch with detailed explanations.

[Planck's constant]

This is how I did it in my head:

Find the factors of 27:

1,3,9,27.

Possible combinations that would multiply to equal 27 could be 1,1,27 or 3,3,3 or 1,3,9 etc.

Sorry, not rigorous enough.

Why cant the factors of 27 be : 1/5, 3, 45 ?

TrueTear's is the complete method

[Phy124]

Why cant the factors of 27 be : 1/5, 3, 45 ?

The coefficient of the term is a whole number (which as shown further down is the sum of -a, -b, -c). I observed this when I first looked at the question.

TrueTear's is the complete method

I do not dispute that TT's method is the best, but for the question at hand I found the way I did it much easier and was just offering a different approach.

[Nagisa]

Sorry, not rigorous enough.

Why cant the factors of 27 be : 1/5, 3, 45 ?

TrueTear's is the complete method

look bro, were u raised in a tent? if those were the roots, it wouldnt be in geometric progression. Pro tip: read question next time.

[Planck's constant]

look bro, were u raised in a tent? if those were the roots, it wouldnt be in geometric progression. Pro tip: read question next time.

1/5, 3, 45 are in a geometric progression, r=15

[Planck's constant]

The coefficient of the term is a whole number (which as shown further down is the sum of -a, -b, -c). I observed this when I first looked at the question.

Who is to say (without proof) that 3 rational factors of 27, which form a geometric progression cannot also add up to a whole number ?

[Nagisa]

Who is to say (without proof) that 3 rational factors of 27, which form a geometric progression cannot also add up to a whole number ?

the fact that it only has 3 roots, and that it is 1/5 pretty much proves it. only 3 coefficients can have , and so, it just couldnt work man. get around it man, no need to try so hard.

[FlorianK]

Here in some more detail.

[Planck's constant]

That pretty much covers it, FrorianK

[paulsterio]

I don't understand why everyone gets so heated up over things not even worth getting worked up about?

Nagisa - just stop being an asshole, calm down - let it go, why are you getting so worked up and pissed?

Argonaut - learn to respect other people, Clifford (Phy/RedHeadedLady...etc.) was just giving what he thought was a reasonable solution, if you don't agree with it, just say so and let it be, no need to put other people down - it's just a maths problem, do you have to treat it like it's the end of the world? Just be nice - I see no problem with what Clifford posted.