Solving Nonlinear System: \alpha,\beta,\gamma from A,B,C

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bruno Tolentino
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Nonlinear System
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on solving a nonlinear system of equations defined by A, B, and C to express α, β, and γ in terms of these variables. The equations relate the arithmetic mean (A), geometric mean (B), and the product (C) of the variables. The approach involves substituting variables and transforming the cubic equation into a quadratic form, allowing for the use of the quadratic formula to isolate β in terms of α. This leads to expressions for γ and ultimately allows for a single equation in α. The process highlights the complexity of finding closed-form solutions for nonlinear systems.
Bruno Tolentino
Messages
96
Reaction score
0
I have this system of equation: A = \frac{\alpha + \beta + \gamma}{3} B = \sqrt[2]{\frac{\beta \gamma + \gamma \alpha + \alpha \beta}{3}} C = \sqrt[3]{\alpha \beta \gamma} And I want to solve this system for α, β and γ. In other words, I want to express α, β and γ in terms of A, B and C.

\alpha = \alpha (A,B,C)\beta = \beta (A,B,C)\gamma = \gamma (A,B,C)
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
What is your question or discussion point?
There is an obvious way to start solving it.
 
If α and β are the roots of the quadratic equation and A and B are the arithmetic and geometric mean, respectively, so, the quadratic formula becomes: A \pm \sqrt{A^2-B^2}. I'm trying to solve the cubic equation in the same way...
 
I would introduce new variables for B2 and C3. Solving the third equation for one variable and plugging it into another equation gives a quadratic equation for a second variable, which can be plugged into the third equation. If that has a degree of at most 4, there is an analytic solution in closed form, otherwise I doubt there is a way to solve it (because a solution would then probably allow to solve equations that are proven to have no closed analytic solution).
 
Bruno Tolentino said:
I have this system of equation: A = \frac{\alpha + \beta + \gamma}{3} B = \sqrt[2]{\frac{\beta \gamma + \gamma \alpha + \alpha \beta}{3}} C = \sqrt[3]{\alpha \beta \gamma} And I want to solve this system for α, β and γ. In other words, I want to express α, β and γ in terms of A, B and C.

\alpha = \alpha (A,B,C)\beta = \beta (A,B,C)\gamma = \gamma (A,B,C)
So, essentially, you want to solve
\alpha+ \beta+ \gamma= 3A
\alpha\beta+ \alpha\gamma+ \beta\gamma= 9B^2
\alpha\beta\gamma= C^3
and since A, B, and C are given values, so are 3A, 9B^2, and C^3.

From \alpha\beta\gamma=C^3, \gamma= \frac{C^3}{\alpha\beta}
so \alpha\beta+ \frac{C^3}{\beta}+ \frac{C^3}{\alpha}= 9B^2
Multiplying by \alpha\beta, \alpha^2\beta^2+ C^3\alpha+ C^3\beta= 9B^2\alpha\beta.

We can write that as \alpha^2\beta^2+ C^3\beta+ (C^3\alpha- 9B^2\alpha)= 0 and use the quadratic formula to solve for \beta in terms of \alpha, then put that into \gamma= \frac{C^3}{\alpha\beta} to get \gamma in terms of \alpha only.

Finally, put those into \alpha+ \beta+ \gamma= 3A to get an equation in \alpha only.
 
  • Like
Likes Bruno Tolentino
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...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
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...
Back
Top