• radicalautonomy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 hours ago

    It’s called a literal equation. The problem doesn’t state which variable to solve for, but the assumption here is that it is x. Solving literal equations is a basic part of mathematics courses.

    • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I’m a mathematician and I can’t recall a time I’ve ever heard the term “literal equation.” When I was in grade school the instructions were always “solve for x” if x was the variable being solved for.

      • radicalautonomy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        22 minutes ago

        I teach secondary and postsecondary math courses. The term “literal equation” was used in Texas where I taught for 17 years. The Algebra 1 state standard A.12E says that students are expected to “solve mathematic and scientific formulas, and other literal equations, for a specified variable.” I also taught college undergrad courses in Texas, including College Algebra, and I don’t recall ever seeing the the term used there, but I used it in class because my students were familiar with it. Now I teach in Oregon, and the term is not a part of this state’s standards from what I can tell.

      • Funkytom467@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Maybe it’s not universal but in school literal equation basically meant there were letters instead of numbers.

        It’s the term we use for instance when going from the equation of a line like y=3x+2 to lines in general y=ax+b (a and b in ℝ)

        And i agree it’s a lot better to specify to solve for x (because you can solve for anything or have multiple variables).

        Although x being a variable, and solving for it would be the most logical assumption.