Rearrange $x-y=1$

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
1
down vote

favorite













Given the equation $x-y = 1$, I want to rearrange it to solve for $y$. The answer in the learning materials I have is $y = x-1$.




When I try to rearrange the equation myself I go through the following thought process:



$x-y =1$
--- first I think I want to get the x over to the right hand side of the equals sign so that I'm left with the $-y$ on the left side. So I do minus $x$ on both sides:



$-y = 1-x$



---Then I'm thinking that I want to change the minus $y$ to positive $y$. So then I multiply both sides by minus $1$



$y = -1 + x$



--Then I assume I can just switch around the position of $-1$ and $x$ to give
$y = x-1$



My question is: Is this the same thought process that you would go through to solve this simple equation or am I taking too many unnecessary steps?




algebra-precalculus




share|cite|improve this question

















  • 6




    This is $textbfexactly$ the thought process you should have. This should develop your intuition as to why the shortcuts taken in converting these two forms of the same equation are valid.
    – Rushabh Mehta
    Aug 3 at 21:37














up vote
1
down vote

favorite













Given the equation $x-y = 1$, I want to rearrange it to solve for $y$. The answer in the learning materials I have is $y = x-1$.




When I try to rearrange the equation myself I go through the following thought process:



$x-y =1$
--- first I think I want to get the x over to the right hand side of the equals sign so that I'm left with the $-y$ on the left side. So I do minus $x$ on both sides:



$-y = 1-x$



---Then I'm thinking that I want to change the minus $y$ to positive $y$. So then I multiply both sides by minus $1$



$y = -1 + x$



--Then I assume I can just switch around the position of $-1$ and $x$ to give
$y = x-1$



My question is: Is this the same thought process that you would go through to solve this simple equation or am I taking too many unnecessary steps?




algebra-precalculus




share|cite|improve this question

















  • 6




    This is $textbfexactly$ the thought process you should have. This should develop your intuition as to why the shortcuts taken in converting these two forms of the same equation are valid.
    – Rushabh Mehta
    Aug 3 at 21:37












up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Given the equation $x-y = 1$, I want to rearrange it to solve for $y$. The answer in the learning materials I have is $y = x-1$.




When I try to rearrange the equation myself I go through the following thought process:



$x-y =1$
--- first I think I want to get the x over to the right hand side of the equals sign so that I'm left with the $-y$ on the left side. So I do minus $x$ on both sides:



$-y = 1-x$



---Then I'm thinking that I want to change the minus $y$ to positive $y$. So then I multiply both sides by minus $1$



$y = -1 + x$



--Then I assume I can just switch around the position of $-1$ and $x$ to give
$y = x-1$



My question is: Is this the same thought process that you would go through to solve this simple equation or am I taking too many unnecessary steps?




algebra-precalculus




share|cite|improve this question














Given the equation $x-y = 1$, I want to rearrange it to solve for $y$. The answer in the learning materials I have is $y = x-1$.




When I try to rearrange the equation myself I go through the following thought process:



$x-y =1$
--- first I think I want to get the x over to the right hand side of the equals sign so that I'm left with the $-y$ on the left side. So I do minus $x$ on both sides:



$-y = 1-x$



---Then I'm thinking that I want to change the minus $y$ to positive $y$. So then I multiply both sides by minus $1$



$y = -1 + x$



--Then I assume I can just switch around the position of $-1$ and $x$ to give
$y = x-1$



My question is: Is this the same thought process that you would go through to solve this simple equation or am I taking too many unnecessary steps?





algebra-precalculus





share|cite|improve this question












share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 3 at 21:37









Math Lover

12.2k21132




12.2k21132









asked Aug 3 at 21:33









axiom111

93




93







  • 6




    This is $textbfexactly$ the thought process you should have. This should develop your intuition as to why the shortcuts taken in converting these two forms of the same equation are valid.
    – Rushabh Mehta
    Aug 3 at 21:37












  • 6




    This is $textbfexactly$ the thought process you should have. This should develop your intuition as to why the shortcuts taken in converting these two forms of the same equation are valid.
    – Rushabh Mehta
    Aug 3 at 21:37







6




6




This is $textbfexactly$ the thought process you should have. This should develop your intuition as to why the shortcuts taken in converting these two forms of the same equation are valid.
– Rushabh Mehta
Aug 3 at 21:37




This is $textbfexactly$ the thought process you should have. This should develop your intuition as to why the shortcuts taken in converting these two forms of the same equation are valid.
– Rushabh Mehta
Aug 3 at 21:37










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote













The only way to do it more simply is this: It doesn't matter whether we solve for $y$ on the right or on the left. Thus, since $y$ is subtracted on the right, add it to both sides, and then subtract $1$ from each side to get $y$ alone over there: $$x-1=y.$$



There you have $y=x-1$, written the other way around.



I guess you could look at the original equation as telling you that taking $y$ away from $x$ leaves a remainder of $1$, which means that $y$ must be just $1$ less than $x$. Write this down in words, and you have the answer.



Is this what you were looking for?






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • I honestly don't think an answer is needed for this question...
    – Rushabh Mehta
    Aug 3 at 21:58










  • I think there's profit in looking at the detailed structure of our intuitions about arithmetic. If you find it fruitless, then I guess we differ in that regard. :)
    – G Tony Jacobs
    Aug 3 at 22:02










  • I think you misunderstand my point ... I believe OP was looking for confirmation in his approach, not a simplification of methodology. Hence, an affirmation was what he desired.
    – Rushabh Mehta
    Aug 3 at 22:03










  • Ok, I read the question and came to a different conclusion. Thanks, though.
    – G Tony Jacobs
    Aug 3 at 22:04










  • Thanks both for you comments. I guess I was after both confirmation as well as alternative possible simplifications in methodology. I hadn't thought of how the original equation is telling you that taking y away from x leaves a remainder of 1, which means that y must be just 1 less than x. This was useful :)
    – axiom111
    Aug 4 at 2:44










Your Answer




StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);








 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2871515%2frearrange-x-y-1%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

















1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
1
down vote













The only way to do it more simply is this: It doesn't matter whether we solve for $y$ on the right or on the left. Thus, since $y$ is subtracted on the right, add it to both sides, and then subtract $1$ from each side to get $y$ alone over there: $$x-1=y.$$



There you have $y=x-1$, written the other way around.



I guess you could look at the original equation as telling you that taking $y$ away from $x$ leaves a remainder of $1$, which means that $y$ must be just $1$ less than $x$. Write this down in words, and you have the answer.



Is this what you were looking for?






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • I honestly don't think an answer is needed for this question...
    – Rushabh Mehta
    Aug 3 at 21:58










  • I think there's profit in looking at the detailed structure of our intuitions about arithmetic. If you find it fruitless, then I guess we differ in that regard. :)
    – G Tony Jacobs
    Aug 3 at 22:02










  • I think you misunderstand my point ... I believe OP was looking for confirmation in his approach, not a simplification of methodology. Hence, an affirmation was what he desired.
    – Rushabh Mehta
    Aug 3 at 22:03










  • Ok, I read the question and came to a different conclusion. Thanks, though.
    – G Tony Jacobs
    Aug 3 at 22:04










  • Thanks both for you comments. I guess I was after both confirmation as well as alternative possible simplifications in methodology. I hadn't thought of how the original equation is telling you that taking y away from x leaves a remainder of 1, which means that y must be just 1 less than x. This was useful :)
    – axiom111
    Aug 4 at 2:44














up vote
1
down vote













The only way to do it more simply is this: It doesn't matter whether we solve for $y$ on the right or on the left. Thus, since $y$ is subtracted on the right, add it to both sides, and then subtract $1$ from each side to get $y$ alone over there: $$x-1=y.$$



There you have $y=x-1$, written the other way around.



I guess you could look at the original equation as telling you that taking $y$ away from $x$ leaves a remainder of $1$, which means that $y$ must be just $1$ less than $x$. Write this down in words, and you have the answer.



Is this what you were looking for?






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • I honestly don't think an answer is needed for this question...
    – Rushabh Mehta
    Aug 3 at 21:58










  • I think there's profit in looking at the detailed structure of our intuitions about arithmetic. If you find it fruitless, then I guess we differ in that regard. :)
    – G Tony Jacobs
    Aug 3 at 22:02










  • I think you misunderstand my point ... I believe OP was looking for confirmation in his approach, not a simplification of methodology. Hence, an affirmation was what he desired.
    – Rushabh Mehta
    Aug 3 at 22:03










  • Ok, I read the question and came to a different conclusion. Thanks, though.
    – G Tony Jacobs
    Aug 3 at 22:04










  • Thanks both for you comments. I guess I was after both confirmation as well as alternative possible simplifications in methodology. I hadn't thought of how the original equation is telling you that taking y away from x leaves a remainder of 1, which means that y must be just 1 less than x. This was useful :)
    – axiom111
    Aug 4 at 2:44












up vote
1
down vote










up vote
1
down vote









The only way to do it more simply is this: It doesn't matter whether we solve for $y$ on the right or on the left. Thus, since $y$ is subtracted on the right, add it to both sides, and then subtract $1$ from each side to get $y$ alone over there: $$x-1=y.$$



There you have $y=x-1$, written the other way around.



I guess you could look at the original equation as telling you that taking $y$ away from $x$ leaves a remainder of $1$, which means that $y$ must be just $1$ less than $x$. Write this down in words, and you have the answer.



Is this what you were looking for?






share|cite|improve this answer













The only way to do it more simply is this: It doesn't matter whether we solve for $y$ on the right or on the left. Thus, since $y$ is subtracted on the right, add it to both sides, and then subtract $1$ from each side to get $y$ alone over there: $$x-1=y.$$



There you have $y=x-1$, written the other way around.



I guess you could look at the original equation as telling you that taking $y$ away from $x$ leaves a remainder of $1$, which means that $y$ must be just $1$ less than $x$. Write this down in words, and you have the answer.



Is this what you were looking for?







share|cite|improve this answer













share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer











answered Aug 3 at 21:38









G Tony Jacobs

25.5k43483




25.5k43483











  • I honestly don't think an answer is needed for this question...
    – Rushabh Mehta
    Aug 3 at 21:58










  • I think there's profit in looking at the detailed structure of our intuitions about arithmetic. If you find it fruitless, then I guess we differ in that regard. :)
    – G Tony Jacobs
    Aug 3 at 22:02










  • I think you misunderstand my point ... I believe OP was looking for confirmation in his approach, not a simplification of methodology. Hence, an affirmation was what he desired.
    – Rushabh Mehta
    Aug 3 at 22:03










  • Ok, I read the question and came to a different conclusion. Thanks, though.
    – G Tony Jacobs
    Aug 3 at 22:04










  • Thanks both for you comments. I guess I was after both confirmation as well as alternative possible simplifications in methodology. I hadn't thought of how the original equation is telling you that taking y away from x leaves a remainder of 1, which means that y must be just 1 less than x. This was useful :)
    – axiom111
    Aug 4 at 2:44
















  • I honestly don't think an answer is needed for this question...
    – Rushabh Mehta
    Aug 3 at 21:58










  • I think there's profit in looking at the detailed structure of our intuitions about arithmetic. If you find it fruitless, then I guess we differ in that regard. :)
    – G Tony Jacobs
    Aug 3 at 22:02










  • I think you misunderstand my point ... I believe OP was looking for confirmation in his approach, not a simplification of methodology. Hence, an affirmation was what he desired.
    – Rushabh Mehta
    Aug 3 at 22:03










  • Ok, I read the question and came to a different conclusion. Thanks, though.
    – G Tony Jacobs
    Aug 3 at 22:04










  • Thanks both for you comments. I guess I was after both confirmation as well as alternative possible simplifications in methodology. I hadn't thought of how the original equation is telling you that taking y away from x leaves a remainder of 1, which means that y must be just 1 less than x. This was useful :)
    – axiom111
    Aug 4 at 2:44















I honestly don't think an answer is needed for this question...
– Rushabh Mehta
Aug 3 at 21:58




I honestly don't think an answer is needed for this question...
– Rushabh Mehta
Aug 3 at 21:58












I think there's profit in looking at the detailed structure of our intuitions about arithmetic. If you find it fruitless, then I guess we differ in that regard. :)
– G Tony Jacobs
Aug 3 at 22:02




I think there's profit in looking at the detailed structure of our intuitions about arithmetic. If you find it fruitless, then I guess we differ in that regard. :)
– G Tony Jacobs
Aug 3 at 22:02












I think you misunderstand my point ... I believe OP was looking for confirmation in his approach, not a simplification of methodology. Hence, an affirmation was what he desired.
– Rushabh Mehta
Aug 3 at 22:03




I think you misunderstand my point ... I believe OP was looking for confirmation in his approach, not a simplification of methodology. Hence, an affirmation was what he desired.
– Rushabh Mehta
Aug 3 at 22:03












Ok, I read the question and came to a different conclusion. Thanks, though.
– G Tony Jacobs
Aug 3 at 22:04




Ok, I read the question and came to a different conclusion. Thanks, though.
– G Tony Jacobs
Aug 3 at 22:04












Thanks both for you comments. I guess I was after both confirmation as well as alternative possible simplifications in methodology. I hadn't thought of how the original equation is telling you that taking y away from x leaves a remainder of 1, which means that y must be just 1 less than x. This was useful :)
– axiom111
Aug 4 at 2:44




Thanks both for you comments. I guess I was after both confirmation as well as alternative possible simplifications in methodology. I hadn't thought of how the original equation is telling you that taking y away from x leaves a remainder of 1, which means that y must be just 1 less than x. This was useful :)
– axiom111
Aug 4 at 2:44












 

draft saved


draft discarded


























 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2871515%2frearrange-x-y-1%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest
































































Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the equation of a 3D cone with generalised tilt?

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 2 down vote favorite What is the equation of a 3D cone with generalized tilt? I've noticed that in most equations given to represent a cone, there is no parameter which defines the tilt of the cone in 3D space and that most of them have their point at the origin $(0,0,0)$ - I was wondering if anyone could give me a more generalized cone equation for a cone in any position in 3D space 3d share | cite | improve this question edited Jul 25 '16 at 0:05 ervx 9,425 3 13 36 asked Jul 24 '16 at 15:38 Charlene 11 2 2 Welcome to Math.SE! Could you please explain a few things to help people give an answer useful to you: 1. What do you mean by "generalized tilt"? 2. Are you asking about a right circular cone? Does the angle at the vertex matter? 3. What form of answer (implicit, parametric...?) are you looking for? 4. If this is homework, what tools do you have available, an
Read more

Color the edges and diagonals of a regular polygon

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 5 down vote favorite 1 Here is the problem: For what $n$ is it possible to color the edges and diagonals of an $n$-side regular polygon with $dfracbinomn23$ colors, such that you use every color exactly three times and for every color the three segments (edges or diagonals) with that color form a triangle? Trivially $nequiv 0 text or 1 pmod3$. I can also prove that if the statement is true for $k$ than it is true for $3k$ as well. How to finish? Please help! Thanks combinatorial-geometry share | cite | improve this question edited Aug 6 at 21:57 alcana 118 4 asked Aug 6 at 21:15 Leo Gardner 356 11 Even assuming "polyhpn" in the title is a typo for polygon , it is unclear what you mean by "the edges and sides". Aren't the side of a regular polygon the same as the edges? A regular $n$-sided polygon has $n$ edges. – hardmath Aug 6 at 21:20 3 $n$ ne
Read more

Relationship between determinant of matrix and determinant of adjoint?

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 2 down vote favorite We are studying adjoints in class, and I was curious if there is a relationship between the determinant of matrix A, and the determinant of the adjoint of matrix A? I assume there would be a relationship because finding the adjoint requires creating a cofactor matrix and then transposing it. linear-algebra determinant adjoint-operators share | cite | improve this question asked Nov 17 '17 at 17:32 CluelessCoder 32 5 For a square matrix $A$ of order $n$, we have $A(operatornameadj A)=(operatornameadj A)A=|A|I_n$ where $I_n$ is the identity matrix of order $n$. This should tell you about the determinant of the adjoint in terms of that of $A$ (use multiplicative property and other elementary properties of determinants). – Prasun Biswas Nov 17 '17 at 17:35 1 @CluelessCoder: see here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/516127/… – Hector Blandin Nov 17 &
Read more