Constant term

[Saumyojit]

I was reading from wiki " It is notable that a term that is constant, with a constant as a multiplicative coefficient added to it (although this expression could be more simply written as their product), still constitutes a constant term as a variable is still not present in the new term. Although the expression is modified, the term (and coefficient) itself classifies as constant. However, should this introduced coefficient contain a variable, while the original number has a constant meaning, this has no bearing if the new term stays constant as the introduced coefficient will always override the constant expression - for example, in

when x is multiplied by 2, the result, 2x, is not constant; while 1 * -2 is -2 and still a constant " END OF QUOTATION

SO this part " It is notable that a term that is constant, with a constant as a multiplicative coefficient added to it (although this expression could be more simply written as their product), still constitutes a constant term as a variable is still not present in the new term. Although the expression is modified, the term (and coefficient) itself classifies as constant"

I think this para corresponds to this eg : 1* -2 is -2 and still constant . ONLY If my guess is right then ,
Here 1 and -2 are constants or both are factors . What is the "multiplicative coefficient" that they are referring to ? In 1*-2 there are two constants whereas as far i know a "multiplicative coefficient' means that it has to be "of a variable" i.e 2 in 2x is a coefficient of x .

q2: in the eg 1* -2 which one they chose as the term and the "multiplicative coefficient" ? Did they chose randomly or there was some logic

Now this part: " However, should this introduced coefficient contain a variable, while the original number has a constant meaning, this has no bearing if the new term stays constant as the introduced coefficient will always override the constant expression - for example, in

when x is multiplied by 2, the result, 2x, is not constant "

I think this para corresponds to this eg : when x is multiplied by 2, the result, 2x, is not constant . ONLY If my guess is right then ,
q1: is the 'x' above they are referring to as "introduced coefficient" and the original no means the '2' . Then how can 'x' be the introduced coefficent ; Coefficient is something that is "of a variable" . Confused ....

q2: "this has no bearing if the new term stays constant" --> What do they mean by "this" and why do they say " if the new term stays constant" - i understand that multiplying 2 with x gives us 2x so the new term will defintely not be a constant term for sure.

@Dr.Peterson @JeffM

 

[Dr.Peterson]

You are quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_term; you should have given the source in order to provide context.

I'm not sure I have seen any paragraph in Wikipedia that is more poorly written than this. I am honestly not sure what it is supposed to mean, or why it hasn't yet been deleted. I find it confusing, and have no interest in trying to parse it, as it adds nothing to the article. If it says anything, it is only that "constants are constants, no matter how they are written".

Please ignore it.

 

[Saumyojit]

I have spent 8-9 Hours on this trying to find the meaning of the paragraph.
So many stress I had to go through .
Please see my Op .
As I tried my level best to decipher .
Please.

 

[Dr.Peterson]

It is incomprehensible, and totally unnecessary. I have previously warned you not to try to learn from Wikipedia. Please heed the warning. Not only is it often at the wrong level, it is not always written well at all. Don't waste your time.

An important part of literacy is to be willing to give up reading something when it is clearly not going to be worth the effort.

If you saw a glass of liquid on the table, took a sip (maybe an 8-hour sip) and couldn't swallow it, then someone came along and said it was poison, would you still insist on drinking it?


The phrase "a multiplicative coefficient added to it" is nonsense. Any coefficient is multiplicative, and can't be added. As soon as I see that, I assume that the rest is not worth slogging through.

But as far as I can figure it out, you got the intended ideas, to the extent that there is anything there.

 

[Saumyojit]

The phrase "a multiplicative coefficient added to it" is nonsense. Any coefficient is multiplicative, and can't be added. As soon as I see that, I assume that the rest is not worth slogging through.But as far as I can figure it out, you got the intended ideas, to the extent that there is anything there.

I had high hopes from wikipaedia but how can it happen that what they are trying to tell u dont understand. In the associative case u deciphered every small things so clearly .

"a multiplicative coefficient added to it" is nonsense-- after seeing the eg i.e 1*-2 i got that added to means just mixing with the other term but the operation is MULTIPLICATION
It took me 2 hours to understand this line " It is notable that a term that is constant, with a constant as a multiplicative coefficient added to it " If they did not give the eg i could not have deciphered it .

But as far as I can figure it out, you got the intended ideas, to the extent that there is anything there.

I did not get anything . Please see my questions and doubts .

 

[JeffM]

It is VERY badly written. What it means is this: if a is a constant and b is a constant, then a * b is a constant.

 

[Saumyojit]

Now this part: " However, should this introduced coefficient contain a variable, while the original number has a constant meaning, this has no bearing if the new term stays constant as the introduced coefficient will always override the constant expression - for example, in

when x is multiplied by 2, the result, 2x, is not constant "

I think this para corresponds to this eg : when x is multiplied by 2, the result, 2x, is not constant . ONLY If my guess is right then ,
q1: is the 'x' above they are referring to as "introduced coefficient" and the original no means the '2' . Then how can 'x' be the introduced coefficent ; Coefficient is something that is "of a variable" . Confused ....

q2: "this has no bearing if the new term stays constant" --> What do they mean by "this" and why do they say " if the new term stays constant" - i understand that multiplying 2 with x gives us 2x so the new term will defintely not be a constant term for sure.

What about this part? Multiplying a constant with a variable gives us a non constant term .
@JeffM @pka @Dr.Peterson
EDIT: What i just saw in the wikipaedia page of "coefficient" is that 2 in 2x is known as coefficient (general) but 2x+5 ; 5 is known as "constant coefficient"

with a constant as a multiplicative coefficient added to it

thats why the constant is termed as multiplicative "constant" coefficient.

 

[pka]

What about this part? Multiplying a constant with a variable gives us a non constant term .

Saumyojit, How many times do you have to be told that the piece you are reading is total nonsense?
Give it up guy. Please read and reread reply #4 with the intention of inwardly digesting its message.
Put another way: STOP WASTING TIME. This topic has nothing to do with mathematics.

 

[Saumyojit]

Saumyojit, How many times do you have to be told that the piece you are reading is total nonsense?
Give it up guy. Please read and reread reply #4 with the intention of inwardly digesting its message.
Put another way: STOP WEASTING TIME. This topic has nothing to do with mathematics.

Wikipaedia is genrally a "go to" website for most of the students . Seriously I am disappointed reading their piece but i think if u guys try to read ;can bring out the meaning as you guys are experienced

 

[Dr.Peterson]

Wikipaedia is genrally a "go to" website for most of the students . Seriously I am disappointed reading their piece but i think if u guys try to read ;can bring out the meaning as you guys are experienced

Why do you refuse to believe anything we say? We tell you this paragraph is poorly written; believe it! There is no sense in trying to make sense out of nonsense.

If your goal is to learn English by reading this, it will not help; this author does not know how to communicate in English.

If your goal is to learn mathematics by reading this, it will not help; this author does not know how to communicate mathematics.

Wikipedia is popular, but it is also well-known that many people write it, not all equally intelligent or knowledgeable, and that it changes constantly (but that some bad parts can remain for years uncorrected). It is not perfect. Read this:

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years.

I know enough not to rely on it, but to use it as a source of sources, or to check things I already know. I know enough not to expect everything to be readable. I will not waste my time on this any more. You must do the same.

 

[Saumyojit]

If your goal is to learn English by reading this, it will not help; this author does not know how to communicate in English.

If your goal is to learn mathematics by reading this, it will not help; this author does not know how to communicate mathematics.

Wikipedia is popular, but it is also well-known that many people write it, not all equally intelligent or knowledgeable, and that it changes constantly (but that some bad parts can remain for years uncorrected). It is not perfect. Read this:

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I know enough not to rely on it, but to use it as a source of sources, or to check things I already know. I know enough not to expect everything to be readable. I will not waste my time on this any more. You must do the same.

Really surprising for me but for the last 2 years i am gaining my knowledge from this ; how to know what i am reading wrong or right as i am still a naive kid in maths . What will be a good "website then" where i will get all info on any maths topic that i search in google.
Wiki always come first .

Why do you refuse to believe anything we say? We tell you this paragraph is poorly written; believe it! There is no sense in trying to make sense out of nonsense.

I beleive it is poorly written i agree 100 percent but when i went through it yesterday for 40 th time maybe i found out that " comparing the paragraph with the given eg" it makes sense to some what thats why i thought if you guys " can go on re reading the para for sometime you guys can actually decipher out what they are saying"[/QUOTE]

 

[Saumyojit]

I dont know what i am reading is right or wrong? My trust issues has come down to zero . Please tell me other than ur site what else i can rely upon 100 percent
In Algebraic the eg: 3x^2-2xy + c they have told that 'c' is a constant but not a 'term' .
In Khan academy the last eg that they showed clearly tells us that we consider "constant" as a term .
In the comment section of khan academy one person says ''A constant is something like '5', where it won't be affected because of variables. A term can be a constant, but not always is. A constant, however, can be a term "

in 2x + 3 ; 3 is a constant term acc to khanacademy but wiki does not agree.
What does it mean "but not always is" - what i feel is that (2 interpetations)

(i) if there is a constant present ; still i will not consider it as a term as done in wiki .
(ii) or they are saying that a expression does not generally contains a constant like 2x^2 +3x or 4x^3+2x

@JeffM @HallsofIvy @Dr.Peterson

 

[JeffM]

Four points

(1) You have been told now by several different people that THIS wikipedia article is atrociously written. It is a disgrace. I also tutor at English Learners Stack Exchange, where I have a reputation over 20,000. I truly do know what is competent English. And pka and Dr. Peterson truly do know what is totally incompetent mathematical exposition. As pka has said, it is an utter waste of time trying to make sense of the dog’s breakfast that this text represents.

(2) To the extent that this mess has any meaning at all, it is the triviality that the product of two constants is also a constant, but that the product of a constant and a variable is a variable.

(3) I am not as negative about Wikipedia as Dr. Peterson, but I recognize the magnitude of its aim and the limitations of its resources. It is never more than a starting point. Pick a topic. Find a text that Dr. Peterson, pka, and Halls of Ivy recommend on that topic. Work on that text systematically.

(4) It appears to me that you jump from mathematical topic to mathematical topic. I doubt ANYONE can learn math that way. Math is an elaborately constructed piece of intellectual machinery. You can’t look at a bolt here, a screw there, a bearing up there, and a shim down here and understand it.

 

[JeffM]

And for goodness sake, don’t try to reconcile this particular wikipedia article with what anyone else says: the drugs that the author was on have fried whatever neurons his brain may have temporarily had. I suspect a Brompton cocktail was involved in the writing of this sentence.

 

[Saumyojit]

it is the triviality that the product of two constants is also a constant, but that the product of a constant and a variable is a variable

this line they have written in so complex way . What a waste of my time also . Yesterday 8 hours have gone

you jump from mathematical topic to mathematical topic. I doubt ANYONE can learn math that way

It is happening naturally. The way i taught myself mathematics was purely rote in school days . Not asking why and "what if"
I was out of touch of maths for the last 6 years. My high school days + 4 years of college . I was not studious at all.

 

[Saumyojit]

don’t try to reconcile this particular wikipedia article with what anyone else says

is this a reply to post no 12 .
and please help me in post #12

 

[JeffM]

is this a reply to post no 12 .
and please help me in post #12

Yes, it was reply to the issue in post # 12 about discrepencies between Sal Khan and Wikipedia.

I have no idea who the comment was by; it may have been by a student. Khan himself is usually clear in his exposition. Whether Khan said it or just some random peron said it, it was ineptly worded but not nonsense. What was meant is that a constant in an expression is a term in that expression, but terms in an expression may not be constants. Constants are just one kind of term.

 

[Saumyojit]

Please tell me other than ur site what else i can rely upon 100 percent for maths . In wiki it gives right info but sometimes it is poorly worded and there is a mistake. I dont have the experience of dr peterson to identify whether i should read this thing or not .


Another worst thing is that they are allowing anyone to edit in wiki . I just did now in that para of constant term u can see it. i was not asked whether i did a phd in maths or not or the validity of my claim. Its a serious con of wiki.

but terms in an expression may not be constants

they are saying that all terms in a expression may not be constants. like in 2x +3 ; one term is not constant and another is constant ; so all terms are not constants right??
whereas only in 3 ; the one term is constant .

In Algebraic the eg: 3x^2-2xy + c they have told that 'c' is a constant but not a 'term' .
In Khan academy the last eg that they showed clearly tells us that we consider "constant" as a term .

just tell me is "c" considered a term or not ? I hope yes ( a constant is also a term) acc to khan academy . That means in wiki once again they have made a mistake! Oh my God life will become much stressful for me thats for sure .

 

[JeffM]

Please tell me other than ur site what else i can rely upon 100 percent for maths . In wiki it gives right info but sometimes it is poorly worded and there is a mistake. I dont have the experience of dr peterson to identify whether i should read this thing or not .


Another worst thing is that they are allowing anyone to edit in wiki . I just did now in that para of constant term u can see it. i was not asked whether i did a phd in maths or not or the validity of my claim. Its a serious con of wiki.


they are saying that all terms in a expression may not be constants. like in 2x +3 ; one term is not constant and another is constant ; so all terms are not constants right??
whereas only in 3 ; the one term is constant .

In Algebraic the eg: 3x^2-2xy + c they have told that 'c' is a constant but not a 'term' .
In Khan academy the last eg that they showed clearly tells us that we consider "constant" as a term .

just tell me is "c" considered a term or not ? I hope yes ( a constant is also a term) acc to khan academy . That means in wiki once again they have made a mistake! Oh my God life will become much stressful for me thats for sure .

Yes, 2x is a variable term, and 3 is a constant term.

You are, I believe, misunderstanding the intent of the article on Algebraic Expressions, but I agree it is confusing. A term in an algebraic expression is any part of it that denotes a number. The article does not, I suspect, mean to imply that c is not a term. They are saying that it is the particular kind of term called a constant. They are giving you names for things, not implying that there are not other names for the same thing. In their example, they say 3 is a coefficient, but they do not intend to deny that 3 is also a numeral and also a constant

 

[Saumyojit]

Another thing in that same article Algebraic i found that there are various types of expression of which i am interested in 3 types
Algebraic, arithmetic expression , mathematical expression .
What is the difference between second and third . there is a table which states that a variable falls under ME but not Arithmetic expression .
whats the reason? Just in short