2010-11-20, 11:40 PM
Uhm no. I stared at this for such a long time..Gosh.
In your hand work, you actually already subbed in the b-a part, which is where you're getting that extra +k, but of course if you choose b = a, in this case a = 0 and b = 0, then of course it's coming out to 0.
In your "correct" solution you're just plugging in your 0 value to find what 0 equals, which is -k.
Do I make sense?
In your hand work, you actually already subbed in the b-a part, which is where you're getting that extra +k, but of course if you choose b = a, in this case a = 0 and b = 0, then of course it's coming out to 0.
In your "correct" solution you're just plugging in your 0 value to find what 0 equals, which is -k.
Do I make sense?