You got there. Actually you got the answer (r) to the question essentially in #130. However, for completeness it is necessary to know the corresponding x and y. You have got x
2 and so the two x, and from x
2 and r
2 you can now get
y2. Then you can get
y, however you previously saw that not every combination of and x and
y that you get is allowable.
If that previous conclusion depended on a calculus argument, and here you want to do an algebraic argument, then you need to complete this.
You have been doing things a long way around in my opinion, but I hope you have learned some things.
For example I hope as soon as you saw
Karol said:
in #130, you realized that one solution would be the reciprocal of the other.This happens when coefficients of a polynomial equation equidistant from the ends are equal. Called reciprocal equations their solution can be reduced to solving equations of half the degree plus a quadratic. In your case you only have a quadratic anyway, I don't think there is any saving.
The problem which was previously solved by calculus here you are solving by an algebraic argument. That depended on saying that two roots of an equation have to be equal at the shortest distance. I used the same argument in #45, or at least it could be worded that way. I think it has to be admitted that that was a whole lot faster and easier. Probably on analysis your argument could be shown to be equivalent.
To complete this learning and take on board this other point of view, I again invite you to use the approach of #45 to get the
maximum distance. If you do not do this by about Monday I will do it here.