I Can the general solution for y in Q*y - y^P = Q - 1 be found analytically?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter kairama15
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The equation Q*y - y^P = Q - 1 lacks a general analytical solution for arbitrary values of P. While specific integer values of P (from -3 to 4) and certain fractions allow for closed-form solutions, this is not the case for all P, particularly when P is between 0 and 1. The Abel-Ruffini theorem indicates that a solution by radicals exists only if the Galois group of the equation is solvable. For fractional values like 1/4, 1/3, and 1/2, the equation can be transformed into solvable forms, but this does not apply universally. The trivial solution y=1 is always valid, yet other solutions depend on the specific value of Q.
kairama15
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
I am having difficulty solving Q*y - y^P = Q - 1 for y.
If P = 2 or 0.5 or 0, I can solve it quadratically. However, I'd like to find a general solution for y. Any tips?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
There is no general solution. If P is an integer from -3 to 4, or a few special fractions, the equation has closed forms for its solutions, but for arbitrary P this is no longer true. Abel-Ruffini theorem.
 
kairama15 said:
I am having difficulty solving Q*y - y^P = Q - 1 for y.
If P = 2 or 0.5 or 0, I can solve it quadratically. However, I'd like to find a general solution for y. Any tips?

Where did you got this question from ?
 
For the particular problem I am trying to solve, P ranges from 0 to 1. Is there a closed form for 0<P<1 ?
 
y=1 is always a trivial solution, of course.
Are there more real solutions in some cases? Are you interested in complex solutions?

For 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, 3/4 you can convert it to a quadratic, cubic or quartic equation and solve it. Otherwise there is no closed form for a solution in the general case. There can still be values of Q were you can find all solutions, but it won't work for all Q any more, unless y=1 is the only solution.
 
Isn't the result that a solution by radicals exists iff the Galois group of the equation is solvable? EDIT: I mean, of course for this equation; we can construct equations whose group is not solvable, e.g., ##A_5 ##
 
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