Avoiding Lost Solutions in Equation Solving

  • Thread starter Thread starter member 529879
  • Start date Start date
member 529879
When you have the equation (x)(x+1)=0 solving will give you x=0 or x=-1. If you divide both sides by x, you get the equation x+1=0. Solving this equation gives you only x=-1. Why was a solution lost, and how can that be avoided while solving other problems?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Scheuerf said:
When you have the equation (x)(x+1)=0 solving will give you x=0 or x=-1. If you divide both sides by x, you get the equation x+1=0. Solving this equation gives you only x=-1. Why was a solution lost, and how can that be avoided while solving other problems?
When you divide by a variable, you're assuming that variable is not equal to 0. If in fact, one of the solutions is 0, then you've just lost it because of your assumption with dividing by zero. To avoid this problem, do not divide by variables, but rather factorize.

A lot of students when asked to solve
x^2+x=0
would first divide through by x resulting in
x+1=0
and then solve that. Do not do this, rather factorize it into
x(x+1)=0
and then solve each factor separately.
 
  • Like
Likes member 529879
It's clear that when you have an expression with factors like $x(x+1)=0$, either of the factors can be zero and it's a solution to the equation, but if you get rid of one of the factors, you are no longer considering the solution where that factor would be zero.

Another way to think is that the results from division only make sense if you don't divide by zero. So the equation you get only makes sense if you didn't divide by zero and you have to separately consider what if the factor was zero.
 
  • Like
Likes member 529879
chingel said:
It's clear that when you have an expression with factors like $x(x+1)=0$, either of the factors can be zero and it's a solution to the equation, but if you get rid of one of the factors, you are no longer considering the solution where that factor would be zero.
Yes, exactly.
chingel said:
Another way to think is that the results from division only make sense if you don't divide by zero. So the equation you get only makes sense if you didn't divide by zero and you have to separately consider what if the factor was zero.
Right.

BTW, to write something in LaTeX here (on PhysicsForums), use two $ characters at the start, and two more at the end of your expression/equation, not just one. That renders the expression on its own line, centered in the page. For inline LaTeX, use two # characters at the start and two at the end. If you have just a simple equation, such as x(x + 1) = 0, I don't see much advantage in using LaTeX, but it's useful for exponents, square roots (and cube and higher roots), limits, integrals, fractions, and quite a few things more.
 
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...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top