Is the Cubic Formula More Complex Than the Quadratic Formula?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Char. Limit
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cubic Formula
Char. Limit
Gold Member
Messages
1,222
Reaction score
23
The proof of the quadratic formula was so simple, I moved to the proof of the cubic formula with supreme confidence. And found myself awash in as and cs and cubic roots.

Can you turn this equation into a cubic?

x=-\frac{b}{3a}

-\frac{1}{3a}\sqrt[3]{\frac{1}{2}(2b^3-9abc+27(a^2)d+\sqrt{(2b^3-9abc+27(a^2)d)^2-4(b^2-3ac)^3}}

-\frac{1}{3a}\sqrt[3]{\frac{1}{2}(2b^3-9abc+27(a^2)d-\sqrt{(2b^3-9abc+27(a^2)d)^2-4(b^2-3ac)^3}}
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Googling "proof of cubic forumla" gives this proof.
 
First, the cubic equation: ax^3+bx^2+cx+d. With x=y-\frac{a}{3}, you can reduce the equation to y^3+py+q. p=b-\frac{a^2}{3} and q=c-\frac{ab}{3}+\frac{2a^3}{27}. In a cubic equation there are 3 possible answers, the one you listed would be one of the 3, X_{1}
 
Last edited:
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
Back
Top