Is there an easy method to solve x³ - x - 1 = 0?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter glueball8
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around finding an easy method to solve the cubic equation x³ - x - 1 = 0. Participants explore various approaches, including algebraic methods, numerical techniques, and substitutions, while addressing the complexity of the equation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that there are exact solutions for cubic equations in terms of radicals, but the specific case of x³ - x - 1 = 0 may require special consideration.
  • One participant mentions a method involving hyperbolic functions, proposing a substitution that simplifies the cubic equation.
  • Another participant discusses using synthetic division to find potential factors of the polynomial, although they later acknowledge an error in their assumption about x - 1 being a root.
  • Some participants reference the "depressed cubic" method and suggest that a non-linear substitution can lead to a simpler form of the equation.
  • There is mention of expressing the solution in terms of trigonometric functions, although the details of this approach are not fully explored.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the easiest method to solve the equation. Multiple competing views and methods are presented, with some participants correcting or challenging each other's claims.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the effectiveness of various methods and the complexity involved in solving the cubic equation. There are also references to potential arithmetic errors in earlier claims, indicating that the discussion is still evolving.

glueball8
Messages
345
Reaction score
1
Is there a easy way to solve x^3-x-1=0? I know there's Newton's method and depressed method... but is there a easy way?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Third degree and fourth degree polynomial equations have exact solutions in terms of radicals. With a little searching, you can find them.
 
mathman said:
Third degree and fourth degree polynomial equations have exact solutions in terms of radicals. With a little searching, you can find them.

Hmm its not that simple... you can't use long division or the |_____...

its a special polynomial equation..

its from trying to solve (1+(1+(1+...)^1/3)^1/3)^1/3...
 
It is that simple: there are solutions for cubics in terms of the coefficients and sums and radicals thereof. Just google for them.
 
ok.
Actually, because this cubic has only one real root, you should use the hyperbolic cosine instead.
The triple angle formula is [itex]\cosh(3\theta)=4\cosh^3\theta-3\cosh\theta[/itex]. Try putting [itex]x=a\cosh\theta[/itex] into your formula for x.
[tex] a^3\cosh^3(\theta)-a\cosh(\theta)=1.[/tex]
notice if a2 = 4/3 then you can multiply both sides by 3/a,
[tex] 4\cosh^3(\theta)-3\cosh(\theta)=3/a=3\sqrt{3}/2[/tex]
Putting this together, you have [itex]x = \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}\cosh\left(\cosh^{-1}(3\sqrt{3}/2)/3\right)[/itex].
 
Hmm? What's so hard about it? The constant term is -1, so chances are x - 1 or x +1 divides the polynomial. A little synthetic division magic and we see x-1 divides the cubic without remainder. Since x - 1 is a factor, we know:

[tex](x^3 -x -1) = (x-1)(x^2 +x+1) = 0[/tex]

So [tex]x-1 = 0[/tex] and or [tex]x^2 +x +1 = 0[/tex] (I assume you know how to solve quadratic equations)

Little method I use for solving polynomials with an order > 2 is:

1) Figure out which factors there might be of the equation. Usually in x^n +- x^(n-1)...+-C there is a factor x - c such that c is a factor of C. For instance, in [tex]x^4 - x^3 + x^2 - 8[/tex] possible factors could be x +- 2, +-4, or +-8.

2) Divide the polynomial by the possible factors until you find one without a remainder.

3) Repeat step 2 until you 'take out' all the factors.

4) Try the answers, because some roots don't always work!
 
  • #10
Daniel Y. said:
Hmm? What's so hard about it? The constant term is -1, so chances are x - 1 or x +1 divides the polynomial. A little synthetic division magic and we see x-1 divides the cubic without remainder. Since x - 1 is a factor, we know:

[tex](x^3 -x -1) = (x-1)(x^2 +x+1) = 0[/tex]
No.

So [tex]x-1 = 0[/tex] and or [tex]x^2 +x +1 = 0[/tex] (I assume you know how to solve quadratic equations)

Little method I use for solving polynomials with an order > 2 is:

1) Figure out which factors there might be of the equation. Usually in x^n +- x^(n-1)...+-C there is a factor x - c such that c is a factor of C. For instance, in [tex]x^4 - x^3 + x^2 - 8[/tex] possible factors could be x +- 2, +-4, or +-8.

2) Divide the polynomial by the possible factors until you find one without a remainder.

3) Repeat step 2 until you 'take out' all the factors.

4) Try the answers, because some roots don't always work!
Apparently this is harder than you think it is because x= 1 is obviously NOT a root. 13- 1- 1= -1, not 0.
(x-1)(x2+ x+ 1)= x3+ x2+ x- x2- x- 1= x3- 1, not x3- x- 1.
 
  • #11
Bright Wang said:

Yes, unless you can just happen to guess one real solution (as per Daniel Y's attempt, it's always worth attempting this first --- although it appears Daniel made an arithmetic error or something in this case and got it wrong) then that "depressed cubic" method is really the best way to go.

Personlly I like to do via a non-linear substitution. Fundamentally it's really the same thing as using those formulas you linked but I find it somehow more satisfying to use the substitution.

Given a depressed cubic [itex]z^3 + pz + q = 0[/itex], if you make the non-linear substition [itex]z = w - p/(3w)[/itex] then it "magically" simplifies into a quadratic in [itex]w^3[/itex]. Give it a try, it's easy enough. Although be prepared to work in the complex domain for all the intermediate work, even for cases when all the final roots are real!
 
  • #12
uart said:
Yes, unless you can just happen to guess one real solution (as per Daniel Y's attempt, it's always worth attempting this first --- although it appears Daniel made an arithmetic error or something in this case and got it wrong) then that "depressed cubic" method is really the best way to go.

Personlly I like to do via a non-linear substitution. Fundamentally it's really the same thing as using those formulas you linked but I find it somehow more satisfying to use the substitution.

Given a depressed cubic [itex]z^3 + pz + q = 0[/itex], if you make the non-linear substition [itex]z = w - p/(3w)[/itex] then it "magically" simplifies into a quadratic in [itex]w^3[/itex]. Give it a try, it's easy enough. Although be prepared to work in the complex domain for all the intermediate work, even for cases when all the final roots are real!

ya my teacher showed me that one... I thought it was too complex... and I didn't understand it...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K