MHB Is it possible to solve such a system of equations?

AI Thread Summary
The system of equations presented is initially deemed unsolvable due to inconsistencies between equations one and three. However, after correcting equation three to reflect a value of 552.52 instead of 553, it becomes redundant, allowing for the possibility to solve the remaining equations. By assuming a known value for one variable, such as z = 15, and using the derived equations, approximate values for x and y can be calculated. The discussion also explores the potential for solving a revised system of equations with four unknowns using matrix methods. Ultimately, the conversation emphasizes the importance of consistency and the correct application of algebraic techniques in solving such systems.
zrs
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi,

Is it possible to solve such an equation used as a must at my job?

1- x + y + z + ((x + y + z) * x1)= 276.26
2- x + 1,5y + z + ((x + 1,5y + z) * x1)= 327.35
3- 2x + 2y + 2z + ((2x + 2y + 2z) * x1)= 553
4- 3x + 2y + 2z + ((3x + 2y + 2z) * x1)= 709.74

The figures depending the equation above are:

1- 140 + 91 + 15 + ((140 + 91 + 15) * 0.123)= 276.26
2- 140 + 136.50 + 15 + ((140 + 136.50 + 15) * 0.123= 327.35
3- 280 + 182 + 30 + ((280 + 182 + 30) * 0.123)= 552.52
4- 420 + 182 + 30 + ((420 + 182 + 30) * 0.123)= 709.74

Thanks for your kindest help, very appreciated
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Re: Possible to solve such an equation?

There is no solution.

For starters, note that each equation factors. For example: (x + y + z)(1 + x1) = 276.26

Also note that the third equation becomes: 2(x + y + z)(1 + x1) = 553, so we know that (x + y + z)(1 + x1) = 553/2.

We are looking at the two equations:
(x + y + z)(1 + x1) = 276.26
(x + y + z)(1 + x1) = 553/2

Looking at this note that the LHS of each equation is equal. But on the RHS we need 553/2 = 276 in both equations, which is not true. So the system cannot be solved.

-Dan
 
Re: Possible to solve such an equation?

zrs said:
Hi,

Is it possible to solve such an equation used as a must at my job?

1- x + y + z + ((x + y + z) * x1)= 276.26
2- x + 1,5y + z + ((x + 1,5y + z) * x1)= 327.35
3- 2x + 2y + 2z + ((2x + 2y + 2z) * x1)= 553
4- 3x + 2y + 2z + ((3x + 2y + 2z) * x1)= 709.74

The figures depending the equation above are:

1- 140 + 91 + 15 + ((140 + 91 + 15) * 0.123)= 276.26
2- 140 + 136.50 + 15 + ((140 + 136.50 + 15) * 0.123= 327.35
3- 280 + 182 + 30 + ((280 + 182 + 30) * 0.123)= 552.52
4- 420 + 182 + 30 + ((420 + 182 + 30) * 0.123)= 709.74

Thanks for your kindest help, very appreciated
As topsquark points out, equations 1. and 3. are incompatible as they stand. But suppose we change the constant on the right side of equation 3. from 553 to 552.52. Then equation 3. is exactly twice equation 1. So 3. is then redundant (it only tells us what we already knew from 1.). We can therefore jettison 3., but then we are left with only three equations for the four unknowns $x,y,z$ and $x_1$.

You can't expect to get a unique solution for a system where there are more unknowns than equations. But suppose that we already knew the value of one of the unknowns. You can then use that information to solve for the other three unknowns. For example, suppose we knew that $x_1 = 0.123$. I prefer to write $w = 1+x_1 = 1.123$, because then we can write equations 1, 2 and 4 as

$1.\quad w(x+y+z) = 276.26,$
$2.\quad w(x+1.5y+z) = 327.35,$
$4.\quad w(1.5x+y+z) = 354.87.$

If you now subtract 1. from 2. you get $\frac12wy = 51.09$, so that $wy = 102.18.$

Similarly, subtract 1. from 4., getting $\frac12wx = 78.61$, so that $wx = 157.22.$

Then substitute those values into 1., and you find that $wz = 16.86.$

Now, if you use the value $w = 1.123$ to divide those three results by $w$, then you come up with the solutions $x = 140$, $y = 90.98$ and $z = 15.01$, which are very close to those that you quote as the desired solution.
 
Last edited:
Re: Possible to solve such an equation?

Thanks for both replies really very helpful but sorry for my mistake in #3 had to be 552.52 instead of 553.

You are right that #3 is double of #1 and redundant as you stated.

The only estimation can be made for z = 15 but rest are always unpredictable. If I rewrite the equation with considered value of 15 as in below within "opalg" advises, how can be the calculation of equation? I am not good at mathematics and apologize for my weird questions.

w(x + y + 15)= 276.26
w(x + 1.5y + 15)= 327.35
w(1.5x + y + 15)= 354.87

Regards
 
Re: Possible to solve such an equation?

zrs said:
The only estimation can be made for z = 15 but rest are always unpredictable. If I rewrite the equation with considered value of 15 as in below within "opalg" advises, how can be the calculation of equation? I am not good at mathematics and apologize for my weird questions.

w(x + y + 15)= 276.26
w(x + 1.5y + 15)= 327.35
w(1.5x + y + 15)= 354.87
Solving those equations as in my previous comment, you get $wx = 157.22$, $wy = 102.18$ and $wz = 16.86$. (I had a different value for $wz$, but that was a typo that I have since corrected.)

If you know that $z = 15$ then the equation for $wz$ becomes $15w = 16.86$. This tells you that $w = \frac{16.86}{15} = 1.124$. Put that into the other two equations and you get $x = 139.875$, $y = 90.907$ (almost exactly what you had before).
 
Re: Possible to solve such an equation?

Thanks indeed really resqued me from a very big headache.

This is good enough but wonder your thought to solve the revised equation below with 4 unknowns. I checked some 4 unknowns equations on internet solved with matris process and curious to learn the applicability of the same process or another to this one.

1- w(x + y + z)= 276.26
2- w(x + 1.5y + z)= 327.35
3- w(1.5x + y + z)= 354.87
4- w(2x + 1.5y + z)= 484.57

Sincerely
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...

Similar threads

Back
Top