3 variables 3 equations (2 linear 1 quadratic)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around solving a system of equations involving three variables, x, y, and z, where two equations are linear and one is quadratic. The initial approach suggested by the book involves expressing two variables in terms of the third and substituting these into the quadratic equation. A participant mistakenly calculates z as 2 but later realizes this is correct, despite their confusion regarding the necessity of the quadratic equation. The conversation emphasizes that knowing z allows for simplification of the remaining equations to find x and y. Ultimately, the quadratic equation appears to be unnecessary for finding a solution once z is determined.
Appleton
Messages
91
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Find three numbers x,y,z satisfying the following equations:
9x-6y-10z=1
-6x+4y+7z=0
x2+y2+z2=9


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


The book suggests that the best approach is to express 2 unknowns in terms of the third unknown from the first 2 linear equations and, by substituting these expressions in the last equation, obtain a quadratic equation for the third unknown.
So i try this:
4(9x-6y-10z=1)= 36x-24y-40z=4
6(-6x+4y+7z=0)= -36x+24y+42z=0
(36x-24y-40z=4) + (-36x+24y+42z=0)= 2z=4
z=2
I figure I've gone wrong somewhere because this is not the strategy outlined in the book (it's also not the correct answer for z according to the book)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Appleton said:

Homework Statement


Find three numbers x,y,z satisfying the following equations:
9x-6y-10z=1
-6x+4y+7z=0
x2+y2+z2=9


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


The book suggests that the best approach is to express 2 unknowns in terms of the third unknown from the first 2 linear equations and, by substituting these expressions in the last equation, obtain a quadratic equation for the third unknown.
So i try this:
4(9x-6y-10z=1)= 36x-24y-40z=4
6(-6x+4y+7z=0)= -36x+24y+42z=0
(36x-24y-40z=4) + (-36x+24y+42z=0)= 2z=4
z=2
I figure I've gone wrong somewhere because this is not the strategy outlined in the book (it's also not the correct answer for z according to the book)

If you have stated the problem correctly, you are right: z = 2, no matter what the book says. In fact, there are two solutions; they both have z = 2 but have different x,y values.
 
Thanks for your reply. On further inspection I realize that the book does in fact say that z is equal to 2. However this still leaves me a bit confused about the purpose of the quadratic equation since it seems it is superfluous to the requirements for providing a solution.

The problem is question 1A, page 44 (in the pdf digital copy. Or 22 in the hard copy)
of this book:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39412845/Mathematics-and-Plausible-Reasoning-Vol1-Induction-and-Analogy-in-Mathematics-Polya-1954
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Appleton said:
Thanks for your reply. On further inspection I realize that the book does in fact say that z is equal to 2. However this still leaves me a bit confused about the purpose of the quadratic equation since it seems it is superfluous to the requirements for providing a solution.

The problem is question 1A, page 44 (in the pdf digital copy. Or 22 in the hard copy)
of this book:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39412845/Mathematics-and-Plausible-Reasoning-Vol1-Induction-and-Analogy-in-Mathematics-Polya-1954

If you know z = 2 you can put this into the first and third equations (for example), to get two equations in the two unknowns x and y. One of the equations is linear, so that helps.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the help I'll try that.
 
I picked up this problem from the Schaum's series book titled "College Mathematics" by Ayres/Schmidt. It is a solved problem in the book. But what surprised me was that the solution to this problem was given in one line without any explanation. I could, therefore, not understand how the given one-line solution was reached. The one-line solution in the book says: The equation is ##x \cos{\omega} +y \sin{\omega} - 5 = 0##, ##\omega## being the parameter. From my side, the only thing I could...
Back
Top