The Quadratic Equation Process, is this wrong?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the process of deriving the quadratic equation from the standard form of a second-degree polynomial. Participants are examining the steps involved in completing the square and questioning the accuracy of a referenced online resource.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to clarify the steps in completing the square and questions the notation used in a referenced image. Other participants encourage further calculations and provide insights into the steps taken, while some express confusion about the transformations involved in the process.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, with some offering guidance on correcting misunderstandings. There is a mix of interpretations regarding the steps in the derivation, and some participants have expressed realization and understanding of the process after further discussion.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of confusion regarding specific steps in the derivation, particularly around the manipulation of terms and the implications of dividing by coefficients. The original poster's reference to an external source has prompted questions about its accuracy.

mathzeroh
Messages
98
Reaction score
0
Hellooooo everybody. i have a very distinct feeling that there's something very wrong here...

OK, what I'm trying to do is to get to the quadratic equation through the standard form of a polynomial equation in the second degree. :smile:

watch this, and go to this website. it lists the process very briefly http://mathworld.wolfram.com/QuadraticEquation.html...in this picture http://mathworld.wolfram.com/qimg558.gif isn't it wrong to put the x+b/2a inside the parenthesis with the WHOLE thing raised to the second power?? i mean doesn't that mean that the WHOLE THING INCLUDING the 'x' gets squared?? that's wrong! aha! that's wrong! i knew it! i knew it! :biggrin: :biggrin: Nah I'm just kidding there but i really do want to know if that's a typo or not. I think that when completing the square, you should only raise the "b" term in (the standard form) to the second power. like this:

[tex]ax^2+bx+c=0[/tex]

[tex](\frac{b}{2})^2[/tex]

subtract the 'c' and bring it over to the other side, then complete the square:
[tex]ax^2+bx+(\frac{b}{2})^2=-c+(\frac{b}{2})^2[/tex]

is this right, as opposed to the ones shown on that website? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
The site is right, but I'm not sure what you're trying to do. What is your next step?
 
I'm sure what's on that site is not wrong.How about u finish your calculations...?

Daniel.
 
dextercioby said:
I'm sure what's on that site is not wrong.How about u finish your calculations...?

Daniel.

Hey, how's it going? :smile: I'm going to go do that, i'll get back at you all. :biggrin:
 
okay guys I am in a pot-hole. :confused: :confused:

here's my work:

[tex]ax^2+bx+c=0[/tex]

[tex]ax^2+bx+(\frac{b}{2})^2=-c+(\frac{b}{2})^2[/tex]

[tex]ax^2+bx+(\frac{b^2}{4})=-c+(\frac{b^2}{4})[/tex]

[tex]\left(x-\frac{b}{2a}\right)^2=\left(\frac{-c+\frac{b^2}{4}}{a}\right)[/tex]

Then i took the square root of both sides and got this:

(x-(b/2a))=\sqrt(-c+(b^2/4)/ \sqrt(a)

then i did that thing where you can't have a square root on the bottom (forgot what its called), and to do that, i multiplied the top and bottom of the right side of the equation with the square root of a over the square root of a (1 in essence).


then it wasn't looking like it was going in the right direction...help. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :frown:
 
After you implicity divided by a between the last two (latex) steps, you no longer had a perfect square on the left. You need that last term to be b^2/4a^2. That's why they divided by a first. Once you correct that, your method becomes identical to theirs.
 
Do you agree that the RHS of your last equation (written in tex) can be written
[tex]\frac{b^{2}-4ac}{4a}[/tex]

Now extract square root...

Daniel.

P.S.Yes,an "a" is missing in the numerator...
 
StatusX said:
After you implicity divided by a between the last two (latex) steps, you no longer had a perfect square on the left. You need that last term to be b^2/4a^2. That's why they divided by a first. Once you correct that, your method becomes identical to theirs.
i looked and looked and looked at it, but it didn't click.

how on Earth did they go from here:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/qimg557.gif

to here:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/qimg558.gif

what happened to the x in the left in the second step?? i mean, it was, (b/a)x :confused: :confused: :confused:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
expand the squared term and you'll see
 
  • #10
mathzeroh said:
i looked and looked and looked at it, but it didn't click.

how on Earth did they go from here:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/qimg557.gif

to here:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/qimg558.gif

what happened to the x in the left in the second step?? i mean, it was, (b/a)x :confused: :confused: :confused:

NEVERMIND, i see what they did
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
StatusX said:
expand the squared term and you'll see

hahah yeah, thanks man, i just saw that. :wink: :rolleyes:
 
  • #12
As an advice for future "events",ALWAYS TRUST MATHWORLD from WOLFRAM.COM.

I haven't seen one single mistake on their site.

Daniel.
 
  • #13
HOLY MOLY!

its like it all just revealed itself right before my eyes! IT WORKS! BY GOD ALMIGHTY IT WORKS! thanks for ur help! :) :smile: :smile: :biggrin:

thanks for the tip Daniel. i'll keep that in mind. mathworld rules. :cool: :cool: :wink:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
11K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K