Question about Factoring Equation

  • Thread starter Thread starter optics.tech
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Factoring
AI Thread Summary
Factoring cubic equations can be approached using the cubic formula, similar to how the quadratic formula is used for quadratics. While the cubic formula is more complex, it allows for the identification of roots, which can be expressed in factored form as D(x - a)(x - b)(x - c). The discussion highlights the necessity of complex roots when a cubic equation has three real roots, emphasizing the significance of complex numbers in mathematics. Additionally, solving higher-order polynomial equations, such as quartics, often involves reducing them to cubic equations. Ultimately, the process of solving cubic equations reveals deeper mathematical concepts and the inevitability of using complex numbers.
optics.tech
Messages
79
Reaction score
1
Hi,

I use the \frac{-b \ \pm \ \sqrt{b^2 - 4ac}}{2a} formula to factoring the quadratic equation. Can anyone tell me how to factoring the cubic equation? Usually I use the division method to factoring higher order than quadratic equation such as cubic, etc., by trial, one-by-one.

Cheers http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/7776/cheers.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Well, use the cubic formula, of course! Just as you can use the quadratic formula to solve any quadratic equation, so you can use the cubic formula to solve any cubic equation and then the factors are D(x- a)(x- b)(x- c) where a, b, c are to roots of the equation.

Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_equation#Cardano.27s_method

Needless to say, it is considerably harder than the quadratic formula. There is also a formula for solving fourth order equations but it is even harder- in part it involves reducing to a cubic equation and using Cardano's formula. There is no formula for polynomial equations of degree higher than 4. It was proved in the nineteenth century that there exist such equations whose solutions cannot be written in terms of radicals.
 
The quoted pages may look a bit formidable to you.
The way I remember it and could always construct a solution if needed is: just as you solve a quadratic by "completing the square" - i.e. by expressing it as the difference of two squares, then the solution of that difference = 0 is one square equals the other... you know the rest, so you try to express the cubic as difference of two cubes. You find that in order to do that you are led to have to solve a quadratic equation.

You find that if the cubic equation has 3 real roots you will need to use the nonreal complex roots of that quadratic to get them. They could find no way not to use these, so that led to the discovery that square roots of negative numbers are not just a silly answer to a silly question but something serious, useful and it turned out, inevitable. I.e. it was hoped to find some way to solve using just real numbers but it was proved this would be impossible. I don't know how elementary and accessible that last bit is and am curious.

Anyway the point is that what looks like a specialised problem, solving the cubic, turns out to lead to one of the most important things in mathematics, also surely one of the key steps in the process of abstraction in maths. The ideas and calculation for solving the cubic and quartic are really less difficult and more natural than the formidable-looking formulae would lead you to think.
 
Last edited:
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...

Similar threads

Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Back
Top