Is Trial and Error the Only Method to Solve Cubic Equations?

  • Thread starter Thread starter calky360
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Error trial
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on solving the equation 294/B^2 = 102.61B + 250.47, with trial and error yielding an approximate solution of 0.92. Participants suggest using numerical methods, such as iterative techniques, to refine this approximation, achieving high precision in just a few iterations. An alternative approach mentioned involves transforming the equation into a cubic form, allowing for exact solutions through established methods. However, it is noted that using the cubic formula may exceed the assignment's scope. Overall, while trial and error is a valid method, more precise numerical techniques and cubic solutions are available for solving cubic equations.
calky360
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
So I have pretty much finished the question, trying to determine "B" this is where i am at.

294/B^2 = 102.61B + 250.47

I found a very similar question in a book and they just skipped straight to answer saying trial and error was used.

Using trial and error I got approximately 0.92, however I'm not sure if this is a sufficient method to get full marks.

Any other way this can be solved that isn't trial and error?

Regards Callum.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you plot the lhs and rhs on a common graph, you will find it has only one (real) solution.

attachment.php?attachmentid=33779&stc=1&d=1301579311.png

Then, you can use a numerical method to find an approximate numerical solution, which seems fine because the coefficients are also given with finite precision. Specifically, you could use the iterative method. Solve for the B on the lhs:

<br /> B = \sqrt{\frac{294}{102.61 B + 250.47}} \equiv \varphi(B)<br />

Take an initial guess B = 1 (the rhs is positive then) and use the iterative procedure to get successive approximations:

<br /> B^{(n + 1)} = \varphi(B^{(n)})<br />

We get:

<br /> \begin{align*}<br /> B^{(1)} = 0.912508894 \\<br /> <br /> B^{(2)} = 0.924335701 \\<br /> <br /> B^{(3)} = 0.92271007 \\<br /> <br /> B^{(4)} = 0.922933009 \\<br /> <br /> B^{(5)} = 0.922902426 \\<br /> <br /> B^{(6)} = 0.922906621 \\<br /> <br /> B^{(7)} = 0.922906046 \\<br /> <br /> B^{(8)} = 0.922906125 \\<br /> <br /> B^{(9)} = 0.922906114 \\<br /> <br /> B^{(10)} = 0.922906115 \\<br /> <br /> B^{(11)} = 0.922906115 \\<br /> \end{align*}<br />

In just 10 iterations we arrived at the numerical solution with 9 decimal places! You can use this solution to see that the original equation is satisfied.

EXTRA QUESTION:
Try to see what you would have gotten if you had used an iterative function obtained by solving for the B found in the r.h.s. of your original equation!
 

Attachments

  • plot1.png
    plot1.png
    2.3 KB · Views: 710
Theres a few method:
Classical mindless trail and error,
Newton Raphson Approx,
Cubic Formula.

I'm using another method:

F(a)=\int_{0}^{a}f(x)dx
For b>a>0

We want to find \mid F(a) \mid &gt; \mid F(b) \mid
For x is in the interval if (a,b)

I've managed to find x is in between 0.92 and 0.925 within seconds...
(Because i know that the value of x is close to \sqrt{\frac{2.8625}{0.81366..}}=1.083 , Hence we can use 1.083 for the initial point for Newton method or this interval approx)

I take the mean of 0.92 and 0.925 which is about 0.9225 (U can even narrow the interval)
 
Last edited:
Multiplying by B^2 yields a cubic equation: 294 - 102.61B^3 - 250.47B^2 = 0

Answers must be checked in the original equation as the new equation has no restrictions on B
 
coolul007 said:
Multiplying by B^2 yields a cubic equation: 294 - 102.61B^3 - 250.47B^2 = 0

Answers must be checked in the original equation as the new equation has no restrictions on B

A cubic equation can be solved exactly as is shown on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_function.
However, I believe this will be outside the scope of your assigment.
 
Back
Top