Solve Quadratic Equations for x: Mechanics Notes & Error Check

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around solving a quadratic equation where the expected solution for x is 3, but the poster calculates a value of 2.12 instead. Participants point out that neither value is correct based on the equation provided, suggesting a possible mistake in the original notes. One contributor clarifies that the equation must be adjusted to yield valid roots. Ultimately, the correct factorization leads to solutions of approximately 4.604 and 7.984 for x. The conversation highlights the importance of accurately setting up and simplifying quadratic equations.
RStars
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hey,

I was going through some mechanics notes and came across this quadratic equation to solve for x. In my notes it is supposed to equal 3 however I do not get that result. I am not sure if I am simplifying it wrong or what. I am ending up with 2.12 for the positive value. Please let me know if you get 3 or 2.12 so that I know if the error is in my calculations or in my notes.

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/338/codecogseqno.gif

Thanks in advanced.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
RStars said:
Hey,

I was going through some mechanics notes and came across this quadratic equation to solve for x. In my notes it is supposed to equal 3 however I do not get that result. I am not sure if I am simplifying it wrong or what. I am ending up with 2.12 for the positive value. Please let me know if you get 3 or 2.12 so that I know if the error is in my calculations or in my notes.

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/338/codecogseqno.gif

Thanks in advanced.



It must be some mistake in your notes: if you put x=3 in the given eq., one gets that the LHS is not an integer

whereas the RHS is...

DonAntonio
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Neither 3 nor 2.12 are roots of the equation as you wrote it.
 
3 is correct if the LHS is amended to contain 144x2 rather than 144 + x2.
 
um... I haven't done this in a while so forgive me for being simple... but that's not an equation.

if you put x=10 you end up with the equation 122=900, which isn't true.

There's been some kind of mistake.
 
evilbrent said:
um... I haven't done this in a while so forgive me for being simple... but that's not an equation.

if you put x=10 you end up with the equation 122=900, which isn't true.

There's been some kind of mistake.



No, that is too an equation. To solve it means to find out the numerical values of x that when substituted in the equation give

a true equality. What you've shown above is that the numerical value x = 10 is not (one of the) a solution(s) of the equation.

DonAntonio
 
oh, ok, yes. Sorry engineering maths was a decade ago for me. It's amazing how quickly the knowledge vanishes.

I reduced the original equation down to 0=-71.5x^2+900x-2628 and got 0=(x-4.604)*(x-7.984)
 

Similar threads

Back
Top