How to solve equations of the form (a*x+b)^(1/2)+(m*x+n)^(1/2)=c

  • Thread starter Thread starter Storm Butler
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Form
AI Thread Summary
To solve equations of the form (a*x+b)^(1/2)+(m*x+n)^(1/2)=c, start by isolating one of the square root terms. After squaring both sides, linear terms remain alongside square root terms, complicating the solution. Continue squaring the equation to eliminate the square roots, leading to a polynomial equation. Expand and rearrange the resulting equation into standard quadratic form to find the roots. Finally, substitute the roots back into the original equation to verify their validity.
Storm Butler
Messages
74
Reaction score
0
Hello,
I was wondering how you would go about solving for x in an equation like \sqrt{ax+b}+\sqrt{mx+n}=C (where a,b,m, and n are constant numbers). The problem is if you square the expression you just end up with some linear terms multiplied by terms to the power of 1/2. If you keep squaring you never get rid of them. So how do you go about solving something like this?

Thanks for any help
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
(a*x+b)^(1/2)+(m*x+n)^(1/2)=c
(a*x+b)+(m*x+n)+2*[(a*x+b)*(m*x+n)]^(1/2)=c²
2*[(a*x+b)*(m*x+n)]^(1/2)=c² -(a*x+b)-(m*x+n)
4*(a*x+b)*(m*x+n)=[c² -(a*x+b)-(m*x+n)]²
Expand and solve (...)*x²+(...)*x+(...)=0
Then bring back the roots x into the first equation in order to check if each root is valid or not.
 
After squaring both sides, move all the terms without square root on one side and leave the square root alone on the other side (of the equal sign). Then square again.
 
Thank you. I just kept trying to simplify the left hand after squaring, i didnt even think about moving everything over. I feel kind of silly now.
 
Storm Butler said:
Thank you. I just kept trying to simplify the left hand after squaring, i didnt even think about moving everything over. I feel kind of silly now.
Welcome to the club!
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top