Finding simplest radical form of a 4th root?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Apollinaria
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Form Radical Root
AI Thread Summary
To find the simplest radical form of 4√(x^14), the expression can be simplified to x^3√x. Each occurrence of x^4 allows for x to be moved outside the radical. However, if x is negative, care must be taken as the simplification may not hold due to the nature of principal roots. For non-negative x, it can be simplified safely, but if x can be negative or complex, the simplification becomes more complex and requires additional considerations. Understanding these rules is crucial for accurately simplifying radical expressions.
Apollinaria
Messages
82
Reaction score
0
I haven't taken math in years and am having trouble understanding how to find simplest radical form of a 4√(x14).

I said x4√x10.

I realize I have 3 x4ths and x2 but I'm not sure if I can pull out more xs.

What are the rules for this? Ideas, insight?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Apollinaria said:
I haven't taken math in years and am having trouble understanding how to find simplest radical form of a 4√(x14).

I said x4√x10.

I realize I have 3 x4ths and x2 but I'm not sure if I can pull out more xs.

What are the rules for this? Ideas, insight?

For each occurance of x^4 as a factor in the term of the radicand, you have x to move to outside of the radical function.

\sqrt[4]{x^{14}}=\sqrt[4]{x^4\cdot x^4\cdot x^4\cdot x^2}

=x^3\sqrt[4]{x^2}
 
symbolipoint said:
For each occurance of x^4 as a factor in the term of the radicand, you have x to move to outside of the radical function.

\sqrt[4]{x^{14}}=\sqrt[4]{x^4\cdot x^4\cdot x^4\cdot x^2}

=x^3\sqrt[4]{x^2}

Can you simplify \sqrt[4]{x^2} still further to \sqrt{x}, or does that fall foul of something like principal roots?
 
Hi Apollinaria!

There are a few rules for dealing with radical form, powers from powers, and sums of powers.
Here's how it works in your case:
$$\sqrt[4]{x^{14}} = (x^{14})^{\frac 1 4} = x^{14 \cdot \frac 1 4} = x^{3 + \frac 1 2} = x^3 \cdot x^{\frac 1 2} = x^3 \sqrt x$$
 
sjb-2812 said:
Can you simplify \sqrt[4]{x^2} still further to \sqrt{x}, or does that fall foul of something like principal roots?

That doesn't work if x is negative. If you are considering all the complex roots, then \sqrt[4]{x^2} has 4 roots and \sqrt{x} has 2.

But, I think it works if you group together the solutions like \sqrt[4]{x^2} = \sqrt{x} or \sqrt{-x}.
 
sjb-2812 said:
Can you simplify \sqrt[4]{x^2} still further to \sqrt{x}, or does that fall foul of something like principal roots?

Khashishi said:
That doesn't work if x is negative. If you are considering all the complex roots, then \sqrt[4]{x^2} has 4 roots and \sqrt{x} has 2.

But, I think it works if you group together the solutions like \sqrt[4]{x^2} = \sqrt{x} or \sqrt{-x}.

With the assumption that x is a non-negative real, it can be safely simplified.

If x can be a negative real, we have that √(x2) = |x| and 4√(x2)=√|x|.
However, in general we need to be very careful with negative real numbers and fractional powers.
They are generally not well-defined.
See for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponentiation#Rational_exponents
(The last couple of lines of the section.)

If x can be a complex number, it becomes even worse:
See for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponentiation#Failure_of_power_and_logarithm_identities
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
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...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Back
Top