From Red to Blue: A Scientific Investigation of Algebraic Transformations

  • Thread starter Thread starter Miike012
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Algebra
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding the transition from a red-highlighted term to a blue-highlighted term in a mathematical context, specifically involving the quadratic formula and the conditions for real roots of a quadratic equation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of the quadratic formula, particularly the discriminant, and question the conditions under which real roots exist. There is a focus on the values of y that yield different root scenarios and the relevance of these conditions to the original equation.

Discussion Status

The conversation includes various interpretations of the conditions for real roots, with some participants expressing confusion over the statements made in the book. There is an ongoing exploration of the implications of specific values of y and how they relate to the original equation, with no clear consensus reached on the importance of these findings.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential ambiguities in the book's language regarding the conditions for y, specifically the phrasing around values that are "between" or "from" certain numbers. The discussion reflects a mix of mathematical reasoning and personal reflections on the relevance of the topic to their studies.

Miike012
Messages
1,009
Reaction score
0
I would like to know how the book went from the term highlited in red to the term in blue.
 

Attachments

  • math.jpg
    math.jpg
    14.5 KB · Views: 484
Physics news on Phys.org
Miike012 said:
I would like to know how the book went from the term highlited in red to the term in blue.
They are using the quadratic formula. The expression in blue is what's inside the radical in this formula, the expression b2 - 4ac.

Here a = 1, b = 2(1 - y), and c = 6y - 11
 
The book is saying... if 2> y> 6 then there will be real roots ( I think ).
What does this have to do with the original equation (x^2 +2x - 11)/(2(x-3)) ?
 
Miike012 said:
The book is saying... if 2> y> 6
This doesn't make any sense, because 2 is not greater than 6. I think what they are saying is the either y < 2 OR y > 6.
Miike012 said:
then there will be real roots ( I think ).
What does this have to do with the original equation (x^2 +2x - 11)/(2(x-3)) ?

It has to do with the quantity in the radical in the quadratic formula. This quantity is 4(1 - y)2 - 4(6y - 11) = 4(1 - 2y + y2) - 24y + 44
= 4 - 8y + 4y2 - 24y + 44 = 4y2 - 32y + 48
= 4(y2 - 8y + 12) = 4(y - 2)(y - 6).

In order for there to be two real roots of the quadratic equation, the quantity under the radical has to be > 0. This means that 4(y - 2)(y - 6) > 0, which means that either y < 2 or y > 6. Notice that if y = 2 or y = 6, there will be only a single real root of the quadratic equation.
 
When I took the original equation and set it eqaul to 2 I got (x - 1)^2
=6 I got (x - 5)^2

Thus when y = 2 there is only one root of 1
y = 6 there is only one root of 5...

Is this what they are saying? And why would this matter? There must be something I am not seeing.
 
Miike012 said:
When I took the original equation and set it eqaul to 2 I got (x - 1)^2
=6 I got (x - 5)^2

Thus when y = 2 there is only one root of 1
y = 6 there is only one root of 5...

Is this what they are saying? And why would this matter? There must be something I am not seeing.

The last line in the book said, to the effect; "so y cannot have values between 2 and 6 - all other values are allowed".

The value 2 is NOT between 2 and 6

Had they said y could not take on values from 2 to 6 it would be different

between 2 and 6 means 2 < y < 6 or (2,6)

from 2 to 6 means 2<= y <= 6 or [2,6]

the (2,6) and [2,6] specifications assumes you are familiar with that technique of answer.
 
Miike012 said:
The book is saying... if 2> y> 6 then there will be real roots ( I think ).
What does this have to do with the original equation (x^2 +2x - 11)/(2(x-3)) ?

firstly 2 > y > 6 is not a great statement, as it implies 2 is greater than 6.
The book did not actually say that. Firstly they used only words, but the symbol version was

y > 6 gives two roots
y < 2 gives two roots

Implication was
y = 6 gives two equal roots - sometimes called just one root
y = 2 gives two equal roots - sometimes called just one root

leading to 2 < y < 6 means no real roots - or no real value if you like.

Since they named the original expression y, this means the original expression "can have all values except as lie between 2 and 6",
 
Yes I understand that. I just wanted to see what would happen if y = 2 or 6.

But what is the importance? Why would someone need to know this?
 
From post #4.
Mark44 said:
Notice that if y = 2 or y = 6, there will be only a single real root of the quadratic equation.
 
  • #10
Mark44 said:
From post #4.

And this is important why? How is this applicable? How will knowing this information help me?
 
  • #11
Miike012 said:
And this is important why? How is this applicable? How will knowing this information help me?

Have a read of the original question to re-focus on what you were trying to find.
 
  • #12
Miike012 said:
And this is important why? How is this applicable? How will knowing this information help me?

It is not designed to help you. We are just saying that y = 2 is an achievable value, as is y = 6. All values < 2 or > 6 are also achievable. In fact, for a value of y > 6, say y = 7 there will be two values of x that give you that value of (x^2 +2x - 11)/(2(x-3)). For y = 2 or y = 6, only one single value of x will be obtained.

RGV
 
  • #13
How will it help you? It probably won't; not today, anyway. :wink:

How does it help others? Well, if you are designing/building a mechanical or electrical or fluidic system, its dynamic behaviour can be characterised by a binomial equation like what you are examining. If that binomial equation has no roots (more exactly, no real roots) then that system won't bounce around when it gets a jolt. For example, when you flick ON an electrical switch, you generally wouldn't want the switch contacts to bounce, which could cause the circuit to switch ON then OFF then back ON then OFF until if finally stays ON. Bad bounce like that could be dangerous, or shorten the life of the switch or the load.

Other examples include applications where you DO accept some bounce or overshoot, because this means the response to a sudden jolt is faster or more comfortable. For example, in the suspension of your car, when a tyre hits a bump you want the car body to bounce up and down a bit (just once is ideal), to make the ride safer (less likely to break an axle), and more comfortable to the passengers. So in this case, you don't want the describing binomial to have real roots, because real roots point to behaviour that will be sluggish, slower to respond, and not so comfortable or as safe.

If the equation is of the parabolic trajectory of an arrow fired skywards, then with 2 roots there are two locations it could intercept a passing duck, with no roots the duck is safe. :smile:
 
  • #14
Ok. So this what ever it is, I don't know what to call it, seems like a waste of space in an alg book.
I guess right now, seeing that I will be starting calc 1, will have not benefit to me.
 
  • #15
Miike012 said:
Ok. So this what ever it is, I don't know what to call it, seems like a waste of space in an alg book.
I guess right now, seeing that I will be starting calc 1, will have not benefit to me.

Come back in 6 months and tell us whether you're right. :smile:
 
  • #16
NascentOxygen said:
Come back in 6 months and tell us whether you're right. :smile:

Lol ok, Ill leave a note on my mirror to remind me.
 

Similar threads

Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 146 ·
5
Replies
146
Views
12K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K