What is the General Method for Deriving Cubic Roots?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around deriving general solutions for cubic roots, specifically for the equation \( ax^3 + bx^2 + cx + d = 0 \). Participants explore various methods and approaches to achieve this without seeking direct solutions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses a desire to derive general solutions for cubic roots and questions the validity of a proposed solution involving \( \sqrt{-c/a} \).
  • Another participant suggests that if one solution \( x_0 \) is known, the cubic can be reduced to a quadratic by dividing by \( x - x_0 \).
  • A different approach is proposed involving a change of variable to eliminate the \( bx^2 \) term, which some participants find promising.
  • Concerns are raised about the validity of certain derived solutions and whether they hold under the general case.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not agree on a single method for deriving cubic roots, and multiple approaches are discussed without consensus on their effectiveness.

Contextual Notes

Some participants mention issues with formatting, particularly with LaTeX code, which may affect the clarity of mathematical expressions. There is also uncertainty regarding the assumptions made in deriving solutions.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in mathematical methods for solving polynomial equations, particularly cubic equations, may find this discussion relevant.

AndyCav
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
I've been trying to derive general solutions for cubic roots, i.e. the general solutions of (will Latex just work?)

$ax^3+bx^2+cx+d=0$

I do not want to be shown the solutions - but does anyone know what direction to go into achieve this?

I thought I'd found solutions at one point but they relied on one of the solutions (the simplest in form) being $\sqrt{-c/a}$ and that doesn't appear to be true!

Andy
 
Physics news on Phys.org
PS Anyone know how some peole are making Latex code work in their messages?
 
[tex]x_{0}=\sqrt{\frac{-c}{a}}[/tex]

Ha ha, I appear to have found out!
 
This is what I tried:

[tex]f(x)=ax^3+bx^2+cx+d=0[/tex] is the general equation to solve, and intersects the y-axis a distance d from the origin.

So, consider [tex]f(x-x_0)=g(x)[/tex] where [tex]x_0[/tex] is one solution of [tex]f(x)=0[/tex]. As we have shifted the original function along the x-axis the new function [tex]g(x)[/tex] now passes through the origin.

After substituting [tex]x-x_0[/tex] into f to get g, expand g to get it in the form [tex]g(x)=px^3+qx^2+rx+s[/tex]. As said above g passes through the origin so that s=0.

Therefore, [tex]s=0=d-ax_0^3+bx_0^2-cx_0[/tex]. Rearranging for d in terms of [tex]x_0[/tex] and a, b and c and substituting back into the original form for f we get [tex]f(x)=a(x^3-x_0^3)+b(x^2-x_0^2)+c(x-x_0)[/tex].

Now, as [tex]x_0[/tex] is by definition a solution of f; [tex]f(x_0)=0[/tex] we get:

[tex]ax_0^3+cx_0=0[/tex] which gives the trivial solution [tex]x_0=0[/tex] (i.e. d=0) and the two solutions

[tex]x_0=+-\sqrt{\frac{-c}{a}}[/tex].


These don't seem to work. Am I doing something stupid?

Andy
 
Last edited:
There's meant to be a sqaure root sign over that -c/a but it's not coming out on my screen.

[tex]x_0[/tex] is of course just one solution of the cubic.
 
If you have one solution [tex]x_0[/tex] to the cubic, you can just divide by [tex]x-x_0[/tex] to reduce it to a quadratic and you're done.

If you really want a general solution like Cardanno's, I think the first step would be to remove the [tex]bx^2[/tex] term by a change of variable.
 
Well I'm trying to derive all solutions generally so I don't have [tex]x_0[/tex] to begin with. That's a fantastic idea about the change of variable to remove the even term though...! Cheers! I'll have dinner then have another try.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
16K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K