Finding existence of zeros of cubic by multiplying y values?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Celestion
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cubic Existence
Celestion
Messages
34
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I can do the question, but in a different way to the worked solution which I don't understand. So my question is can anyone explain the worked solution which is in point 3 below.

The question was to show there is exactly one zero to the function f(x) = Ax^3 - Ax + 1, with A>0, when A < 3sqrt(3) / 2.

Homework Equations



The part above this asks to find the stationary points, and there are two of them, at + and - 1/sqrt(3).

The Attempt at a Solution



My reasoning was that since A>0, which is the coefficient of x^3 (i.e. the highest degree term), the graph goes up into the top right of the first quadrant as x and y approach positive infinity. And therefore to have only one root, the y value of the stationary point at x = 1/sqrt(3) must be >0. (I also considered the case where the stationary point at 1/sqrt(3) was <0 and the one at -1/sqrt(3) was also <0, but this is impossible given the constant term of +1 and from playing with graphing software, and having A>0). Solving this, i.e. y = f(x) being >0 at x=1/sqrt(3) gives the correct answer of A < 3sqrt(3) / 2 from point 1 above.

HOWEVER, the worked solution calculates the y values at both + and - 1/sqrt(3), and then multiplies the y values together, giving a quadratic in A (i.e. containing A^2), and then uses the condition that the two y values multiplied together must be >0 for there to be only one zero. Which I don't understand at all...

i.e. f(1/sqrt(3)) * f(-1/sqrt(3)) = (1 - 2A/3sqrt(3))(1 + 2A/3sqrt(3)) = 1 - 4A^2 / 27

and when this is >0, i.e. when A < 3sqrt(3)/2, there will be only one zero of f(x).
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Draw a graph, without scale or axes, of a cubic of this sort. It'll come from ##-\infty## at the left, rising but curving downwards, then reach a maximum at ##x=x_1=-\frac1{\sqrt 3}, y=y_1##, curve down, go through an inflexion point at ##x=0##, start curving up, reach a minimum at ##x=x_2=\frac1{\sqrt 3},y=y_2##, then keep curving up towards ##+\infty##.

Now imagine that you can draw the x-axis anywhere on the page. The number of roots is the number of times the axis cuts the curve.

If the x-axis is tangent to the curve at the local maximum point ##(x_1,y_1)##, there are two roots. If it is higher than that, there is only one. If it is tangent to the curve at the local min point ##(x_2,y_2)## there are two roots. If it is lower than that, there is only one. If it is between the heights of the local minimum and the local maximum it cuts the curve three times.

So there is one root iff the x-axis cuts the curve below ##y_2## or above ##y_1##, which is the case iff the signs of ##y_1## and ##y_2## are the same, which is the case iff ##y_1\times y_2>0##.

I think your solution is just as good though.
 
  • Like
Likes Celestion
Thanks Andrew, that's great, it makes perfect sense. I think their/your solution is more elegant than mine :) now that I understand it
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top