Parametric equations for roots

Big-Daddy
Messages
333
Reaction score
1
Can I write the parametric equations for the graphs in the following case:

on the x-axis, I want to plot a real number 'b'. On the y-axis, I want to plot the roots (all real roots) for x of the equation (7+b2)x3+(6-b)x2+9x-6=0. e.g. when b=1, I plot 1 on the x-axis and x=0.46124674 (the real root of the equation 8x^3+5x^2+9x-6=0) on the y-axis.

(I chose the coefficients on the cubic pretty much arbitrarily but I want to see how it's done.)
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Big-Daddy said:
Can I write the parametric equations for the graphs in the following case:

I suggest that you plot a graph of the curves involved in that example and post it. Maybe that will inspire someone to comment on the general situation.

I'm guessing that your are interested in the general question of whether the roots of a polynomial equation can be expressed as functions of the coefficients of the equation.
 
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...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top