# 日本語

32変数のd次方程式って32個があったら大抵変数を分かるようにできます。

この文を書いてたんですけど、間違えてたと思います。「何々が分かるようになる」を使えるのは分かりますが、「何々を分かるようにする」ってあってますか？僕の原因でそのことが分かるようになったみたいなことを言いたいです。

# 英語

First, for accurate context, a mathematically solid version thanks to @JansthcirlU:

Regarding polynomial equations in 32 variables of degree d, if we have 32 of them (such equations) we can find the solution to that system of equations containing them (find the values of each of the variables that satisfy the system of equations containing them).

If possible I'd like to keep the current structure of the Japanese line (see the Japanese version). It doesn't have to be in mathematics specific language. In fact, I prefer to write it in plain language, so the roughly equivalent English version which, albeit mathematically inaccurate, reflects the way I'd like to say it in Japanese, is:

In terms of d-th degree polynomial equations with 32 variables, if we have 32 of those equations, very likely we will be able to calculate the variables.

I would like to say the above sentence. I used "solve" in the English version, and I know I could use 「解く」, but I'd like to use this structure if possible「が分かるようにできる」. I understand that 「何々が分かるようになる」 works. But how should I use「が分かるようにできる」to indicate that "we can make them clear" and to imply it is an active process on our part?

• Jan 10 at 1:04
• No, we really don't have to continue this at all. Please just ignore the mathematical inaccuracy of my sentence for a second. I have made it abundantly clear mathematic accuracy is not a concern of this question. This is not Math SE. This is Japanese SE. Your questions in these comments have really skewed the focus. I think the original Q has made things pretty clear. But even your first question, which asked me to choose between "a polynomial with degree 32" and "a polynomial with 32 coefficients" when the Q clearly says "32変数" "方程式って32個", started off as a misunderstanding of the Q. Jan 10 at 1:11
• You're right that I've completely misunderstood and misinterpreted your clarification that this was in fact about a 32-variable polynomial. However, there's still something I don't quite understand in the original English comment which is what I wanted to chat about. Jan 10 at 1:20