Solve the equation : ##x^4+12x^3+2x^2+25=0##

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around solving the quartic equation ##x^4 + 12x^3 + 2x^2 + 25 = 0##. Participants are exploring various methods and substitutions to simplify the equation and understand the underlying concepts.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the use of substitutions to transform the quartic into a 'depressed quartic' form, questioning the clarity of Wolfram's instructions. There are mentions of binomial expansions and factoring techniques. Some participants express confusion over specific steps and seek clarification on the methods used.

Discussion Status

The conversation is active, with multiple participants contributing different perspectives on solving the quartic equation. Some guidance has been offered regarding the substitution methods, but there is no explicit consensus on the best approach. Participants are still exploring various interpretations and methods.

Contextual Notes

There are noted typos in the original problem statement, which have led to some confusion. Participants are also discussing the challenges of solving quartic equations by hand versus using computational aids.

chwala
Gold Member
Messages
2,828
Reaction score
425
Homework Statement
Solve the equation ##x^4+12x^3+2x^2+25=0##
Relevant Equations
quartic equation
Wolfram gave the solution and a hint: i want to understand the hands on approach steps...

In my approach (following Wolfram's equation) i have,

##(x-3)^2(2+12(x-3)+(x-3)^2=-25##

##(x-3)^2((x+3)^2-33)=-25##

##(x-3)\sqrt{((x+3)^2-33)}=-5i##

...
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Wolfram says x^3 term vanish by the substitution.
 
chwala said:
Homework Statement: Solve the equation ##x^4+12x^3+2x^3+25=0##
Relevant Equations: quartic equation

Wolfram gave the solution and a hint: i want to understand the hands on approach steps...
You seem to have typo’s in the Title and the Homework Statement: presumably ##2x^3## should be ##2x^2##.

I’m not sure what you are asking. By using the substitution u=x-3 ##u=x+3## you can convert the equation into a ‘depressed quartic’ from form (##u^4+au^2+bu+c=0##; note there is no ##u^3## term). I guess that’s the gist of what Wolfram is suggesting. You then solve the depressed cubic quartic.

The technique is described in the Wiki article on quartics here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartic_equation

That's my guess.

Edits: as indicated by the strike-throughs!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: SammyS
chwala said:
Homework Statement: Solve the equation ##x^4+12x^3+2x^3+25=0##
Relevant Equations: quartic equation

Wolfram gave the solution and a hint: i want to understand the hands on approach steps...

In my approach (following Wolfram's equation) i have,

##(x-3)^2(2+12(x-3)+(x-3)^2=-25##
...
Here's a snip from your pdf.
Chwala quartic typo.png


So, Steve is correct. You have a typo.

The problem that you gave to Wolfram Alpha Is to solve the equation:

##\displaystyle \quad x^4+12x^3+2x^2+25=0##

Added in Edit: (Just about the same time Steve posted the following Post.)
The hint you, @chwala , were given could be more clearly stated as: Let ##\displaystyle\ u=x+3## . i.e. ##\displaystyle \ x=u-3## .

Look at the binomial expansions of ##\displaystyle \ (u-3)^4\ ## and ##\displaystyle \ 12(u-3)^3\ ##.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: chwala and Steve4Physics
SammyS said:
So, Steve is correct. You have a typo.
Thanks. In fact I'd messed-up so would like to add this...

I don't like the Wolfram instructions/notation to substitute '##x=x+3##' which seems ambiguous/confusing.

I think Wolfram is saying: use ##u=x+3##, i.e. ##x=u-3##, so that the original equation:
##x^4 +12x^3 + 2x^2 + 25 = 0##
becomes:
##(u-3)^4 +12(u-3)^3 + 2(u-3)^2 + 25 = 0##
which, when expanded, gives the more manageable depressed quartic form.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: MatinSAR
Steve4Physics said:
You seem to have typo’s in the Title and the Homework Statement: presumably ##2x^3## should be ##2x^2##.

I’m not sure what you are asking. By using the substitution u=x-3 ##u=x+3## you can convert the equation into a ‘depressed quartic’ from form (##u^4+au^2+bu+c=0##; note there is no ##u^3## term). I guess that’s the gist of what Wolfram is suggesting. You then solve the depressed cubic quartic.

The technique is described in the Wiki article on quartics here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartic_equation

That's my guess.

Edits: as indicated by the strike-throughs!
Let me fix that to mitigate any confusion for those following the thread...
 
Last edited:
chwala said:
Let me fix that to mitigate any confusion for those following through the thread...
What methods for solving quartics have you studied?

-Dan
 
Nice we then have,

##(u-3)^4+12(u-3)^3+2(u-3)^2+25=0##

##(u^4-12u^3+54u^2-108u+81)+12(u^3-9u^2+27u-27)+2u^2-12u+18+25=0##

##u^4-52u^2+204u-200=0##

##u^4=52u^2-204u+200##

...i am trying to follow this:

1699830930843.png

in my working i have,

##j=\dfrac{-200}{k}##

##k=\dfrac{1}{2}h^2-26-102h##

implying that

##j=\dfrac{1}{2}h^2-26-102h##

using ##\dfrac{q^2}{h^2} +4r##

i do not seem to see how ##h^4## is eliminated to realize the cubic equation.
... This approach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartic_equation seems to be ideal i will need to check and follow on it later. ...
 
Last edited:
  • #10
I managed to use the approach of Factoring Quartic into a product of two quadratics. This approach is straightforward.

##au^4+bu^3+cu^2+du+e = (u^2+pu+q)(u^2+ru+s)##
...
I then had the cubic equation,

##P^3-104P^2+3504P-41616=0##

Where ##P=p^2##

and

##0=p+r##
##\dfrac{d}{p}=s-q##
##d=ps+qr##

##P=52.0199, ⇒p=7.212##

thus,

##u^4-52u^2+204u-200= (u^2+7.212u-14.15)(u^2-7.212u+14.15)=0##
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: anuttarasammyak
  • #11
Good job! Why don't you fiish it to show us two real solutions and two conjugate complex solutions which Wolfram suggests ?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: chwala
  • #12
anuttarasammyak said:
Good job! Why don't you fiish it to show us two real solutions and two conjugate complex solutions which Wolfram suggests ?
Most definitely; having a coffee break now...laters.
 
  • #13
anuttarasammyak said:
Good job! Why don't you fiish it to show us two real solutions and two conjugate complex solutions which Wolfram suggests ?
using quadratic formula on

##u^2+7.212u-14.15=0##,

##u_1≈ -8.8168##

##u_2≈1.6048##

##u_3 ,u_4≈\left[ \dfrac{7.212±\sqrt{-4.6}}{2}\right]≈\left[3.606±\dfrac{2.14476i}{2}\right]≈3.606±1.07238i##

The solutions to our original problem are therefore,

##x_1≈-11.8168## and ##x_2≈-1.3952##

The textbook page below prompted me to seek for a method that would solve the quartic equation. Cheers guys.

1699869844295.png


Bingo!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: anuttarasammyak
  • #14
chwala said:
The textbook page below prompted me to seek for a method that would solve the quartic equation. Cheers guys.

View attachment 335280

Bingo!
I disagree with your source. You do not need to use any form of computational aid. There are ways to exactly solve quartic equations. Ferrari's method, for example, always works.

However, solving a general quartic by hand can be a real mess. (I admit that I've never actually managed to get the correct answer using Ferrari's method, except for the example problem I saw that was fiddled with to make everything easy.) I agree that you would probably find a computational aid to be quite useful, especially if all you need are approximate solutions.

-Dan
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: chwala
  • #15
topsquark said:
I disagree with your source. You do not need to use any form of computational aid. There are ways to exactly solve quartic equations. Ferrari's method, for example, always works.

However, solving a general quartic by hand can be a real mess. (I admit that I've never actually managed to get the correct answer using Ferrari's method, except for the example problem I saw that was fiddled with to make everything easy.) I agree that you would probably find a computational aid to be quite useful, especially if all you need are approximate solutions.

-Dan
Ferrari's method I admit took me round in circles...one has to be keen and accurate 💯 with the values...spent time on it without making any meaningful progress...
 
  • #16
chwala said:
Ferrari's method I admit took me round in circles...one has to be keen and accurate 💯 with the values...spent time on it without making any meaningful progress...
Well, that's because the exact form of the roots in this case are horrible. (It also tends to happen when the form of the roots are nice. It's just an ugly business.) All I am saying is that it can be done. I rarely even solve cubics exactly, which isn't too hard with a little practice, but you commonly get some really awkward expressions for integers, so I usually just use a calculator. (And I don't often need an exact expression anyway, as I'm a Physicist and not a Mathematician.)

-Dan
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: chwala
  • #17
chwala said:
The textbook page below prompted me to seek for a method that would solve the quartic equation. Cheers guys.

1699869844295.png


Bingo!

chwala said:
The textbook page below prompted me to seek for a method that would solve the quartic equation. Cheers guys.
As the graph shows
y=x^4+12x^3+2x^2+25
y(0)=25 > 0
y'(0)=y"(0)=0
x=0 is an inflection point. Usually x^4 and smaller order formula show double well shape but this one has only one well. We know the equation has two real solutions of minus sign.
y(-1)=16 >0
y(-2)=16-96+8+25=-47<0
We know a solution lies in (-2,-1).
y(-12)=2*144+25=313 >0 which comes back to small plus.
We may suspect that another one lies in (-12,-11).
 
Last edited:
  • #18
anuttarasammyak said:
As the graph shows
y=x^4+12x^3+2x^2+25 y(0)=25 > 0 y'(0)=y"(0)=0 x=0 is an inflection point. Usually x^4 and smaller order formula show double well shape but this one has only one well.
##\displaystyle y''(0)=4\ne0##

There is an inflection point at ##\displaystyle x=-3+\sqrt{\dfrac{26}{3}} \approx -0.05608## .

There is a double well shape, but the well at ##\displaystyle x=0## is very shallow. The relative maximum at ##\displaystyle x=\dfrac{-9+\sqrt{77}}{2} \approx -0.11252## is approximately ##0.008387## higher than the relative minimum of ##25## at ##x=0## .
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: anuttarasammyak and chwala
  • #19
SammyS said:
##\displaystyle y''(0)=4\ne0##

There is an inflection point at ##\displaystyle x=-3+\sqrt{\dfrac{26}{3}} \approx -0.05608## .

There is a double well shape, but the well at ##\displaystyle x=0## is very shallow. The relative maximum at ##\displaystyle x=\dfrac{-9+\sqrt{77}}{2} \approx -0.11252## is approximately ##0.008387## higher than the relative minimum of ##25## at ##x=0## .
@SammyS wow! You see deeper...that's new will check on the graph keenly later...
 
Last edited:
  • #20
chwala said:
@SammyS wow! You see deeper...that's new will check on the graph keenly later...
We do have two inflection points, that is at

##(x_1, y_1)= (-5.944,-1176.115)## & ##(x_2,y_2)=( -0.0561,25.00)##.
 
  • #21
I also check it for my study
y(u)=u^4-52u^2+204u-200
where
u=x+3
y^"=12u^2-104
In order y"=0
x=-3\pm\sqrt{\frac{26}{3}}
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: chwala
  • #22
How would we solve this simultaneous equation,

##a+b+c+d=-12##
##ab+ac+ad+bc+bd+cd=2##
##abc+acd+bcd=0##

Where ##a,b,c## and ##d## are the roots of the quartic equation.

I hope I got the equations right- without using software. Thks.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
chwala said:
How would we solve this simultaneous equation,

a+b+c+d=−12
ab+ac+ad+bc+bd+cd=2
abc+acd+bcd=0

I hope I got the equations right- without using software. Thks.
I am afraid that in this way we would not succed to reduce the effort than solving the equation itself.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: chwala
  • #24
Which means that in general for higher degree polynomials, that is where ##n>3## where ##n## denotes the degree... software is the way to go in determining the roots.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K