Questions about quadratic formula

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the quadratic formula and the evaluation of double and triple negatives in the context of randomly generated second-degree equations. Participants explore the implications of defining "random" coefficients and the resulting probabilities of encountering specific sign combinations in the calculations.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the percentage of equations that would yield a double negative for -b and a triple negative for -4ac, seeking a probabilistic approach.
  • Several participants express confusion over the concept of "percent of equations," with some suggesting that the infinite nature of real numbers complicates the question.
  • There is a discussion about defining "random" in the context of coefficients a, b, and c, with some suggesting a uniform distribution of signs.
  • One participant argues that without a specified probability distribution for the coefficients, the original question lacks a definitive answer.
  • Another participant proposes that the signs of a, b, and c could be treated as independent random variables with equal probability for positive and negative values.
  • Some participants suggest that the original inquiry could be better addressed through combinatorial problems rather than probabilistic percentages.
  • One participant attempts to analyze the problem by plotting parameters and discussing the nature of solutions based on the discriminant of the quadratic equation.
  • There is a recognition that the original poster's focus on double and triple negatives may have been overlooked in the broader discussion of parameter distributions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on how to define "random" in this context or how to approach the question of percentages related to double and triple negatives. Multiple competing views remain regarding the interpretation of randomness and the implications for the quadratic formula.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in defining randomness for real coefficients and the challenges in applying probabilistic reasoning to an infinite set of equations. There are unresolved mathematical steps regarding the distribution of coefficients and their impact on the evaluation of the quadratic formula.

agentredlum
Messages
484
Reaction score
0
I have 2 questions about -b and - 4ac in the formula...

x = (-b +-sqrt(b^2 - 4ac))/(2a)

If you are given 2nd degree equations at random (that can be solved using above formula)

Question1: What percent of the equations given would you expect to compute a double negative for -b?

Question2: What percent of the equations given would you expect to compute a triple negative for - 4ac?

For instance if b is -5 then -(-5) must be evaluated, how often would you expect to see 2 negatives?

If a is -2 and c is -3 then - 4(-2)(-3) must be evaluated, how often would you expect to see 3 negatives?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
LOL, what are you talking about? 'Percent of equations'?!
 
Dickfore said:
LOL, what are you talking about? 'Percent of equations'?!

Suppose you are given 1000 random equations, how many of them would require computing double negatives? How many would require computing triple negatives?
 
Define random in this context.
 
Dickfore said:
Define random in this context.

Random real numbers for the coefficients a, b, c
 
'Random real number' is a contradictio in adjecto. If you meant they are random variables, you must say something about their distribution.
 
You will probably get into difficulties defining a random polynomial of second degree the way you want.
 
disregardthat said:
You will probably get into difficulties defining a random polynomial of second degree the way you want.

How so?
 
agentredlum said:
How so?

You tell me, what is your distribution of the random variables a, b and c?
 
  • #10
disregardthat said:
You tell me, what is your distribution of the random variables a, b and c?

I just want to explore the signs of a, b, c. The signs should have equal probability distribution, like flipping a fair coin for each sign, say tails=negative, heads=positive.
 
  • #11
Then solve a problem in combinatorics.
 
  • #12
Well, there's the problem. If you have only a finite number of possible outcomes, then it is perfectly reasonable to say "random" meaning "equally likely" (well, maybe not "reasonable" but commonly done!), the "uniform" distribution. However, the set of real numbers in any interval is not finite and there is no "equally likely" or "uniform" distribution. Until you specify a probability distribution for your coefficients, your question has no answer.
 
  • #13
There are infinitely many real numbers, it is nothing like a coinflip.
 
  • #14
Dickfore,
Don't be ungracious.

agentredlum,
The range of possible equations is an infinite set so you cannot really talk about percentages. You can however consider regions of types by plotting the parameters.

First consider the original equation [itex]ax^2 + bx + c = 0[/itex] and notice that multiplying the equation by a constant doesn't change its solutions. So really you have two free parameters defining which equation (and likewise two solutions).
Consider the equation of the form [itex]x^2 + Bx + C = 0[/itex] where B=b/a and C = c/a.
The solutions are: [itex]x = \frac{-B \pm \sqrt{B^2 - 4C}}{2}[/itex]
Now consider the range of solutions by plotting the points (B,C) in the Cartesian plane.

First graph the curve [itex]B^2 - 4C = 0[/itex] or [itex]C = \frac{1}{4}B^2[/itex] which is a parabola with vertex (0,0) and passing through the points (2,1) and (-2,1).
  • Above this parabola C is too big so you have no real solutions.
  • Along the parabola the discriminant is 0 so you have one repeated solution.
  • Below the parabola you have two distinct real solutions.

As to the signs of the solutions start by considering the case of one solution. Notice that with zero radical the sign of the solution is opposite the sign of B so cut the parabola in two halves the left half for positive repeated solutions and the right half for negative repeated solutions.

For the region below the parabola where there are two distinct solutions you have to consider the boundary case where one of the two solutions is zero.
That occurs when [itex]-B = \pm\sqrt{B^2 - 4C}[/itex] or squaring the equation where:
[itex]B^2 = B^2 - 4C[/itex], or where C = 0 (the B axis).

Testing points between these curves you get the full range of cases. Here is a picture:
attachment.php?attachmentid=38547&stc=1&d=1315139361.gif
 

Attachments

  • QuadraticRoots.gif
    QuadraticRoots.gif
    8.8 KB · Views: 909
  • #15
He is saying that a, b and c can have a probability of 1/2 for either sign independently of one another if I am not mistaken. The problem becomes that of elementary probability theory involving combinatorics.
 
  • #16
HallsofIvy said:
Until you specify a probability distribution for your coefficients, your question has no answer.

How do i do that? Can you provide some examples?
 
  • #17
jambaugh said:
Dickfore,
Don't be ungracious.

agentredlum,
The range of possible equations is an infinite set so you cannot really talk about percentages. You can however consider regions of types by plotting the parameters.

First consider the original equation [itex]ax^2 + bx + c = 0[/itex] and notice that multiplying the equation by a constant doesn't change its solutions. So really you have two free parameters defining which equation (and likewise two solutions).
Consider the equation of the form [itex]x^2 + Bx + C = 0[/itex] where B=b/a and C = c/a.
The solutions are: [itex]x = \frac{-B \pm \sqrt{B^2 - 4C}}{2}[/itex]
Now consider the range of solutions by plotting the points (B,C) in the Cartesian plane.

First graph the curve [itex]B^2 - 4C = 0[/itex] or [itex]C = \frac{1}{4}B^2[/itex] which is a parabola with vertex (0,0) and passing through the points (2,1) and (-2,1).
  • Above this parabola C is too big so you have no real solutions.
  • Along the parabola the discriminant is 0 so you have one repeated solution.
  • Below the parabola you have two distinct real solutions.

As to the signs of the solutions start by considering the case of one solution. Notice that with zero radical the sign of the solution is opposite the sign of B so cut the parabola in two halves the left half for positive repeated solutions and the right half for negative repeated solutions.

For the region below the parabola where there are two distinct solutions you have to consider the boundary case where one of the two solutions is zero.
That occurs when [itex]-B = \pm\sqrt{B^2 - 4C}[/itex] or squaring the equation where:
[itex]B^2 = B^2 - 4C[/itex], or where C = 0 (the B axis).

Testing points between these curves you get the full range of cases. Here is a picture:
attachment.php?attachmentid=38547&stc=1&d=1315139361.gif

This is not what the OP had asked. He is only interested in 'double' and 'triple' negative occurrences as defined in his op.
 
  • #18
Dickfore said:
This is not what the OP had asked. He is only interested in 'double' and 'triple' negative occurrences as defined in his op.

Oops! All that work with the graph and I should have read the post more carefully. My Bad!
 
  • #19
jambaugh said:
Dickfore,
Don't be ungracious.

agentredlum,
The range of possible equations is an infinite set so you cannot really talk about percentages. You can however consider regions of types by plotting the parameters.

First consider the original equation [itex]ax^2 + bx + c = 0[/itex] and notice that multiplying the equation by a constant doesn't change its solutions. So really you have two free parameters defining which equation (and likewise two solutions).
Consider the equation of the form [itex]x^2 + Bx + C = 0[/itex] where B=b/a and C = c/a.
The solutions are: [itex]x = \frac{-B \pm \sqrt{B^2 - 4C}}{2}[/itex]
Now consider the range of solutions by plotting the points (B,C) in the Cartesian plane.

First graph the curve [itex]B^2 - 4C = 0[/itex] or [itex]C = \frac{1}{4}B^2[/itex] which is a parabola with vertex (0,0) and passing through the points (2,1) and (-2,1).
  • Above this parabola C is too big so you have no real solutions.
  • Along the parabola the discriminant is 0 so you have one repeated solution.
  • Below the parabola you have two distinct real solutions.

As to the signs of the solutions start by considering the case of one solution. Notice that with zero radical the sign of the solution is opposite the sign of B so cut the parabola in two halves the left half for positive repeated solutions and the right half for negative repeated solutions.

For the region below the parabola where there are two distinct solutions you have to consider the boundary case where one of the two solutions is zero.
That occurs when [itex]-B = \pm\sqrt{B^2 - 4C}[/itex] or squaring the equation where:
[itex]B^2 = B^2 - 4C[/itex], or where C = 0 (the B axis).

Testing points between these curves you get the full range of cases. Here is a picture:
attachment.php?attachmentid=38547&stc=1&d=1315139361.gif

This is an amazing post. How did you construct it so quickly? there's a lot of useful information in your post
jambaugh, I'm not sure how it is going to answer my questions?

I am interested in the signs of a, b, c, not in the nature of the solutions.

EDIT: Didn't see dickfore post.
 
  • #20
Dickfore said:
He is saying that a, b and c can have a probability of 1/2 for either sign independently of one another if I am not mistaken. The problem becomes that of elementary probability theory involving combinatorics.

Yes, this is what i am asking.
 
  • #21
agentredlum said:
Yes, this is what i am asking.

Cool, now provide your attempt at a solution.
 
  • #22
Well if we are only interested in the sign of the parameters, there are eight combinations in total: a can positive or negative, b can be positive or negative, and c can be positive or negative.

agentredlum said:
Question1: What percent of the equations given would you expect to compute a double negative for -b?

Well this is easy. b has a 50% per cent chance of being negative. We don't need to consider the other parameters.

Question2: What percent of the equations given would you expect to compute a triple negative for - 4ac?

So we need a negative and c negative. b can be either. So 2 / 8 = 25%.
 
  • #23
These are correct solutions.
 
  • #24
agentredlum said:
Yes, this is what i am asking.

Hiii agentredlum !

Yes b will have 0.5 probability to be either negative or positive .
Triple negatives occurrence i.e. (-4)(-a)(-c) will have 0.25 probability .

So , I think that all you are doing is to prove your formula in thread : https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=510105 to be simplified version of treating such situations , right ?


[BTW see your last private message which I had sent]
 
  • #25
Dickfore said:
Cool, now provide your attempt at a solution.

O-K, it's not a homework question but i will show my attempt as requested.

There are 3 positions where signs can change so there are a total of 8 possible configurations listed below
a, b, c
a, b, -c
a, -b, c
a, -b, -c
-a, b, c
-a, b, -c
-a, -b, c
-a, -b, -c

4 of these have -b so i would expect to compute a double negative, -(-b), half of the time.

2 of them have -a, -c so i would expect to compute a triple negative, -4(-a)(-c), a quarter of the time.

EDIT:Didn't see other posts.
 
Last edited:
  • #26
agentredlum said:
4 of these have -b so i would expect to compute a double negative, -(-b), half of the time.

2 of them have -a, -c so i would expect to compute a triple negative, -4ac, a quarter of the time.

Seems correct :smile:
 
  • #27
It would really help if you could extend your work to the http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/QuarticFormula.html .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
And I assume that the point of this is to show us that your "trick" is worthwhile?
 
  • #29
So 5 out of 8 times you are performing an un-necessary operation, because you have been taught a myth.

That's 62.5%
 
  • #30
agentredlum said:
So 5 out of 8 times you are performing an un-necessary operation, because you have been taught a myth.

That's 62.5%

Not necessarily. You have assumed that the distribution of the coefficients is uniform. This doiesn't need to be the case in practise!
You need more data to decide that.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
10K