MHB How can we determine the sum of roots in a quadratic equation with real roots?

AI Thread Summary
To determine the sum of roots in the quadratic equation derived from the quartic equation, it is essential to analyze the product and sum of the roots. If the product of the roots is positive, both roots are either positive or negative, while a negative product indicates one positive and one negative root. A zero product implies at least one root is zero, ensuring a non-negative root exists. The discussion emphasizes that if there is at least one positive root, the sum must also be positive, while both roots being negative results in a negative sum. Ultimately, the conditions of the product and sum of the roots help ascertain the presence of real roots in the equation.
DaalChawal
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
1631340569988.png

I am confused in (iia) and (iib).

If $x^4 +( \alpha - 1) x^2 + \alpha + 2 = 0$ has real roots that means $y^2 + ( \alpha -1) + \alpha + 2 =0 $ should have at least one non-negative root. This means product of roots of (2) can be greater or less than zero...But I'm not able to comment on sum of roots.

Help Please.
 

Attachments

  • 1631340496942.png
    1631340496942.png
    60.7 KB · Views: 113
Mathematics news on Phys.org
DaalChawal said:
View attachment 11330
I am confused in (iia) and (iib).

If $x^4 +( \alpha - 1) x^2 + \alpha + 2 = 0$ has real roots that means $y^2 + ( \alpha -1) + \alpha + 2 =0 $ should have at least one non-negative root. This means product of roots of (2) can be greater or less than zero...But I'm not able to comment on sum of roots.

Help Please.
Let's assume from here on that the discriminant is $\ge 0$. Otherwise there is no solution.

Now let's forget about roots that can be zero for a moment.
If the product of the roots is positive, then that means that either both roots are positive, or both roots are negative.
Otherwise the product is not positive.
So we can't tell yet if we have at least one positive root.
However, if there is at least one positive, then the other root must also be positive, so their sum must be positive.
And if both roots are negative, then their sum must be negative.
So the sum of the roots allows us to distinguish cases.
In short if $\text{Product of roots} >0 \text{ and } \text{Sum of roots} > 0$, then we have a non-negative root as desired.

If the product of the roots is negative, then that means there is one positive root and one negative root, so we have what we need.
In short if $\text{Product of roots} <0$, then we have a non-negative root as desired.

Now let's go back to roots that could be zero.
If at least one root is zero, then the product is zero as well, and we have a non-negative root as desired.
In short if $\text{Product of roots} =0$, then we have a non-negative root as desired.

In all other cases, we don't have a non-negative root.

Can we combine those 3 conditions into what we have in (iia) and (iib)?
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
if there is at least one positive, then the other root must also be positive, so their sum must be positive.
Isn't there a possibility that other root can be negative but of less magnitude so that sum becomes positive and product becomes negative?
 
We can combine for (iia) and (iib) we will take union of those domains and for whole (i) and (ii) we can take intersection
 
DaalChawal said:
Isn't there a possibility that other root can be negative but of less magnitude so that sum becomes positive and product becomes negative?
If both roots are negative, then the sum is negative.
So in your case we must have a root that is positive.
Then the product is indeed negative.

If the product is negative, then we don't need to look at the sum at all because one of the roots must be positive, so that we have a solution.
 
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...
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...
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