Can I get a little help? (Factoring difference of 2 sqaures).

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holocene
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Difference
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a misprint in a math book regarding the factorization of the expression x^6 - (1/2)^6. The book states the factorization method as x^n - c^n = (x^(n/2) - c^(n/2))(x^(n/2) + c^(n/2)), but an example incorrectly uses (1/2)^6 instead of the correct (1/4)^2 for the difference of squares. Participants clarify that the correct factorization should reflect the difference of two squares, leading to x^6 - (1/4)^2. The confusion arises from the incorrect representation of the terms, emphasizing the importance of accurate notation in mathematical expressions. Overall, the thread highlights the significance of precise calculations in algebraic factorization.
Holocene
Messages
237
Reaction score
0
The book claims the method for the factorization is:

x^n - c^n = (x^\frac{n}{2} - c^\frac{n}{2})(x^\frac{n}{2} + c^\frac{n}{2})

However, one example uses this:

x^6 - \frac{1}{64} = x^6 - (\frac{1}{2})^6 = (x^3 - \frac{1}{2})(x^3 + \frac{1}{2})

My question is, why isn't 1/2 raised the 3rd power like the method tells you to do?

Any information would be greatly appreciated!
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
because it should be better written as

x^6 - \frac{1}{16} = (x^3)^2 - (\frac{1}{4})^2
to show how exactly it is a difference of two squares.
 
Note that

(\frac{1}{2})^6 = \frac{1}{64}

and not 1/16.
 
James R said:
Note that

(\frac{1}{2})^6 = \frac{1}{64}

and not 1/16.

Thanks. I copied it wrong.
 
Holocene said:
The book claims the method for the factorization is:

x^n - c^n = (x^\frac{n}{2} - c^\frac{n}{2})(x^\frac{n}{2} + c^\frac{n}{2})

However, one example uses this:

x^6 - \frac{1}{64} = x^6 - (\frac{1}{2})^6 = (x^3 - \frac{1}{2})(x^3 + \frac{1}{2})

My question is, why isn't 1/2 raised the 3rd power like the method tells you to do?

Any information would be greatly appreciated!

Well, because the book misprinted it. :) You can easily expand all the terms on the RHS out to get:

\left( x ^ 3 - \frac{1}{2} \right) \times \left( x ^ 3 + \frac{1}{2} \right) = x ^ 6 - \frac{1}{4} \neq x ^ 6 - \frac{1}{64}
 
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...
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 '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