If xy^2 = ab^2 : Does xy = ab?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Femme_physics
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the equation xy² = ab² and whether it implies that xy = ab. Participants explore the implications of the original equation and the conditions under which the equality might hold.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Some participants question the assumption that xy = ab follows directly from xy² = ab², suggesting that other scenarios, such as xy = -ab, could also be valid. Others explore specific numerical examples to illustrate the point.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with various interpretations being explored. Participants have offered insights into the conditions under which the original statement might hold true, particularly focusing on the implications of squaring terms and the significance of variable relationships.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of potential confusion regarding the notation used, with some participants suggesting that the original poster may have intended to express (xy)² = (ab)² instead of xy² = ab². Additionally, the impact of zero denominators is noted as a relevant consideration in the discussion.

Femme_physics
Gold Member
Messages
2,548
Reaction score
1
If

xy2 = ab2

Does that mean automatically that xy = ab?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Not necessarily. It's possible that xy = -ab.
 
Got it :) Thanks
 
Let's try something.

1 \cdot 2^2 = 4 \cdot 1^2 is true isn't it?

But is: 1 \cdot 2 = 4 \cdot 1 ? :confused:
 
Oh, I was assuming the OP meant (xy)^2 = (ab)^2. If it's how you're suggesting, then (if x y^2 = a b^2, then xy = ab) only if y=b.
 
@CL: I suspect that it was what the OP meant too, but I felt the playful need to point out to the OP that round thingies should be used. :smile:
 
Oh, of course. Round thingies should always be used. Or square thingies, they work too.

[xy]^2 = (ab)^2.
 
a^2-b^2 =0
<=> (a-b)(a+b)=0
<=> a=b or a=-b
 
Femme_physics said:
If

xy2 = ab2

Does that mean automatically that xy = ab?
Femme_physics,
By chance, you don't mean (xy)2 = (ab)2, do you?
 
  • #10
Assuming you mean (xy)^2 = (ab)^2, xy does not neccesarilly equal ab:

sqrt[(xy)^2] = sqrt[(ab)^2]
then
(+/-)xy = (+/-)ab
which is true for only two out of four cases:
+xy=+ab
-xy=-ab
But, you wind up with problems when -xy = +ab and +xy=-ab.

Hope that helps a little.
 
  • #11
Alex1812 said:
Assuming you mean (xy)^2 = (ab)^2, xy does not neccesarily equal ab:

sqrt[(xy)^2] = sqrt[(ab)^2]
then
(+/-)xy = (+/-)ab
which is true for only two out of four cases:
+xy=+ab
-xy=-ab
But, you wind up with problems when -xy = +ab and +xy=-ab.
I did not assume the OP meant {if (xy)^2 = (ab)^2, does xy = ab. I approached it as written {if xy^2 = ab^2 does xy = ab} which is false. Without proving it, by testing empirically, it becomes obvious it is false.

However if we assume it the first way, I don't see 4 cases, only 2, but that is sufficient to show the two equations are not equal (see below cases iii and iv, resolve to i and ii. Below my designation for case and equation numbering are interchangeable).

(i) xy = ab
(ii) xy= -ab
(iii) -xy= ab; multiply eq. by -1, you get xy= -ab (which is eq. ii)
(iv) -xy = -ab; multiply eq. by -1, you get xy = ab (which is eq. i )
 
  • #12
You're right Ouabache, I didn't bother equating the pairs of equations to reduce it to two cases.

As written,
if (xy^2)=(ab^2)
then (x/a) = (b^2/y^2)

if xy=ab
then (x/a)=(b/y)

Then the original statement is true only iff (b/y)=(b^2/y^2)=((b/y)^2) which, as previously pointed out, is only true iff b=y.

And apologies for my ignorance of TeX.
 
  • #13
Alex1812 said:
if (xy^2)=(ab^2)
then (x/a) = (b^2/y^2)

if xy=ab
then (x/a)=(b/y)

Then the original statement is true only iff (b/y)=(b^2/y^2)=((b/y)^2) which, as previously pointed out, is only true iff b=y.
.
not true if y =0 and x = 0
 
  • #14
That's true. Always good to keep in mind the impact of nul denominators. Anyway, I think we've disproven this more ways than Femme_Physics has time to read about lol
 

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K