Can someone please explain to me how this works?

  • Thread starter Thread starter zeromodz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Explain Works
zeromodz
Messages
244
Reaction score
0
If let's say we have the following expression

√(x^2 - y^2)

If I wanted to factor out x, then why can't I just take x out because a square root of a square is the base.

x√(1 - y^2)

But it turns out that the answer to this is incorrect and the answer to factoring out x is.

x√(1 - y^2/x^2)

Why is it I divide by y^2, by x^2 ? I have no idea! Thanks.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Suppose it was (x-y)^2 you couldn't take out the x because it also effects the y,
ie. (x-y)^2 = (x-y)(x-y) = x^2 -2xy + y^2

and sqrt(x^2-y^2) is (x^2-y^2)^0.5 , same principle the x goes with the y
 
Use basic principles about fractions and the meaning of Multiplicative Inverse. You want to find an equivalent expression to your original one but you wish to show a factor of x2.

Look at the expression under the radical symbol.
x^2 - y^2

If you DIVIDE by x2 then you must also multiply by the reciprocal of x2 to state the same meaning of the expression.
x^2 (1 - \frac{y^2}{x^2})

With that you can then find the square root can be simplified with a factor of just x outside of the radical.
 
NobodySpecial said:
Suppose it was (x-y)^2 you couldn't take out the x because it also effects the y,
ie. (x-y)^2 = (x-y)(x-y) = x^2 -2xy + y^2

and sqrt(x^2-y^2) is (x^2-y^2)^0.5 , same principle the x goes with the y

I understand, but how does dividing y^2 by x^2 resolve the expression?
 
symbolipoint said:
Use basic principles about fractions and the meaning of Multiplicative Inverse. You want to find an equivalent expression to your original one but you wish to show a factor of x2.

Look at the expression under the radical symbol.
x^2 - y^2

If you DIVIDE by x2 then you must also multiply by the reciprocal of x2 to state the same meaning of the expression.
x^2 (1 - \frac{y^2}{x^2})

With that you can then find the square root can be simplified with a factor of just x outside of the radical.

Okay thank you so much, I understand now!
 
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