Relationships between the roots

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bruno Tolentino
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relationships Roots
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on expressing the roots of a cubic equation in terms of its coefficients, drawing parallels with the relationships established for quadratic equations. The cubic equation is represented as x^3 - 3Ax^2 + 3B^2x - C^3 = 0, with A, B, and C defined in relation to the roots a, b, and c. The challenge lies in finding expressions for the roots x1, x2, and x3 as linear combinations of a, b, and c, as well as in terms of new variables u, v, and w. The conversation references Lagrange's Method and touches on the derivation of roots from the sum and product of coefficients, similar to the quadratic case. The original poster seeks clarity on these relationships for cubic equations, indicating an ongoing quest for understanding.
Bruno Tolentino
Messages
96
Reaction score
0
A quadratic equation in this format x² - 2 A x + B² = 0
where:

A = (a + b)×(1/2)
B = (a × b)^(1/2)

a and b are the roots and the roots can be expressed in terms of midpoint and radius

u = midpoint
v = radius

a = u + v
b = u - v
can be modified and expressed like: x² - 2 (u) x + (u² - v²) = 0.

The roots x1 and x2 are therefore: x_1 = x_1(u,v) = u + v x_2 = x_2(u,v) = u - v Or: x_1 = x_1(a, b) = \frac{a+b}{2} + \frac{|a-b|}{2} x_2 = x_2(a, b) = \frac{a+b}{2} - \frac{|a-b|}{2}

Until here, these relationships are known. No problem! The problem begins when I ask: "how are these relationships for the cubic equation?"

I know that analog cubic equation is x^3 - 3 A x^2 + 3 B^2 x - C^3 = 0 and that
A = \frac{a+b+c}{3} B = \sqrt[2]{\frac{ca + ab + bc}{3}} C = \sqrt[3]{abc}
a, b and c are the roots. The roots can be called too of x1, x2 and x3. But, by analogy with the relationships above, how I can to express x1, x2 and x3 in terms of a linear combination of a, b and c?
x_1 = x_1(a, b, c) = ? x_2 = x_2(a, b, c) = ? x_3 = x_3(a, b, c) = ?

And how express x1, x2 and x3 in terms of u, v and w?

x_1 = x_1(u, v, w) = ? x_2 = x_2(u, v, w) = ? x_3 = x_3(u, v, w) = ?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I usually look at these this way:

QUADRATIC FORMULA:
To solve a quadratic equation X^2 -bX + c = 0, first assume the solutions are X=r and X=s, and note that then (by the root-factor theorem), the equation factors as X^2 -bX + c = (X-r)(X-s) = X^2 -(r+s)X + rs, so that we must have b = r+s and c = rs. Thus we know in particular the sum b of the roots. Hence if we only knew the difference, say d = r-s, of the roots, we would be done, since then we would have 2r = b+d and 2s = b-d.

So we assume the roots are expressed as a sum, namely r = b/2 + d/2, and s = b/2 - d/2. Then c = rs = b^2/4 - d^2/4, so d^2 = b^2-4c.

Thus 2r = b + sqrt(b^2-4c) and 2s = b - sqrt(b^2-4c), the usual formula, if you notice we had a minus sign in the linear term of our original equation.CUBIC FORMULA:
To solve a cubic equation, we start with a simplified one of form X^3 -3bX + c = 0, and again assume we want to find X as a sum X = (p+q). Plugging in gives (p+q)^3 = 3b(p+q) + c, and expanding gives p^3 + 3p^2q + 3pq^2 + q^3 = p^3 + q^3 + 3pq(p+q) =
3b(p+q) + c, and for this to hold means that pq = b, and c = p^3+q^3. Cubing the first of these gives p^3q^3 = b^3, and p^3+q^3 = c. Since we know b and c, we know both the sum and the product of the cubes p^3 and q^3. Can we find p^3 and q^3 from this? If so, then we could take cube roots and find p and q, and finally add them and get our root X = p+q.

Just recall in a quadratic equation of form X^2 - BX + C, that B and C are precisely the sum and product of the desired roots, and we can find those roots from B and C. I.e. we can find any two numbers when we know their sum and product, by solving a quadratic.

Since p^3+q^3 = c and p^3q^3 = b^3, the numbers p^3 and q^3, which can be used to give a solution X = p+q of our cubic, are solutions of the quadratic equation
t^2 -ct + b^3 = 0e.g. to solve X^3 = 9X + 28, we have b = 3, c = 28, and so we solve t^2 -28t + 27 = 0. Here B^2-4C = 676, whose square root is 26, so we get t = (1/2)( 28 ± 26) = {27, 1}, for p^3 and q^3, so p,q are 1 and 3, and hence X=1+3 = 4 solves the cubic. Of course if we know about complex numbers, there are two more cube roots of 1 and 27, and we get two more complex roots. (Only two more because b = pq, so we must always have q = b/p, i.e. the choice of the cube root q is determined by the choice of p.)

Finally, one can translate the variable in any cubic equation to change it into one with zero quadratic term, so this process works in general.
 
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

Back
Top