How do mathematica and maple solve cubics?

  • Context: Mathematica 
  • Thread starter Thread starter wumple
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Maple Mathematica
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Mathematica and Maple can solve cubic equations both numerically and algebraically, depending on user instructions. They utilize advanced algebraic theorems and highly optimized numeric codes to achieve solutions. The discussion highlights the complexity of symbolic computation, particularly in relation to solving cubics, which often involves intricate algebraic manipulations. Users seeking to understand the methods employed by these tools should explore both symbolic factorization and numerical approaches.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of cubic equations and their properties
  • Familiarity with symbolic computation concepts
  • Knowledge of numerical methods for equation solving
  • Basic proficiency in using Mathematica and Maple software
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the symbolic computation capabilities of Mathematica
  • Learn about numerical methods for solving cubic equations in Maple
  • Investigate advanced algebraic theorems related to cubic solutions
  • Study the implications of angle trisection in algebraic solutions
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, computer scientists, and students interested in computational algebra, particularly those working with Mathematica and Maple for solving cubic equations.

wumple
Messages
57
Reaction score
0
Hi,

Does anyone know how mathematica and maple solve cubics? Do they do it numerically?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Simon_Tyler said:

Not to be rude, but that link by itself isn't terrifically helpful for him.


I don't know the answer to your question, but Mathematica can solve an equation numerically or algebraically, depending on the instructions you give it. Do you have a spefic problem in mind?
 
I once tried to learn the basic of symbolic computation but it's not easy, I quitted :) They use very advanced algebra theorems for convergences and so on. The numeric codes should be as complicated as the symbolic ones as well. They're all highly optimized.
 
dreiter said:
Not to be rude, but that link by itself isn't terrifically helpful for him.

I agree -- but so many times on this forum, you put in a lot of effort into an answer and never get a reply.

Notice that the OP has not replied to your request for more information about whether their interested in symbolics or numerics.

The OP posted a one line question which showed very little hint that they'd done any reading on the subject - so I assumed they were just wowed by the large algebraic mess that solving cubics gives. The wikipedia article gives a good discussion of the history and method.

If the OP then wanted to be more specific about numerics or say symbolic factorization over various rings, then they could have come back and clarified their interest.
 
Well my understanding is that solving a cubic algebraically comes down to trisecting an angle, which is of course not terribly doable...for example, I put in coefficients that should give me a real root of -1 for the depressed cubic

x^3 + ax + b = 0

but if I make the substitution x = u + v and go through the algebra, I come up with something of the form

x = ((1+z)^(1/3) + (1-z)^(1/3))

So how do these programs get around this issue?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K