chwala said:
##(0.75xy)^3=9xy+ 3xy(0.75xy)##
Just piling on: Please refrain from doing this. Instead keep the 0.75 as ##3/4##. Doing so will benefit you in the long run. Plus, this is a sign that you are relying on your calculator far too much.
chwala said:
Let ##m=xy##
##0.421875m^3-2.25m^2-9m=0##
Keeping this to rational factors, this is better expressed as ##\frac{27}{64}m^3 - \frac94m^2-9m=0##, or
[tex](m)(\frac{27}{64}m^2 - \frac94m - 9) = 0\tag{1}[/tex]
You should not have fed the equation you found to a calculator. It will blindly see that it was given a cubic and use its cubic solver. This is a cubic, but it also is ##m## times a quadratic in ##m##. The only solutions are ##m=0## and the two solutions to the quadratic, ##3m^2-16m-64 = 0##.
The trivial solution, ##m=0##, can and must be ruled out due to the problem statement, which involves divisions by ##x## and by ##y##. This means that both
x and
y must be non-zero for the problem statement to make sense, and hence so must their product ##xy\equiv m## be non-zero. Sometimes making substitutions or equating two expressions can introduce false solutions. That definitely is the case here, where the trivial solution is a false solution. This is something to be aware of and be on the watch for.
The quadratic equation ##3m^2-16m-64 = 0## can be factored fairly easily. If a root is an integer, it must be a factor of 64. 1, 2, and 4 are easy to rule out. ##m=8## works perfectly, yielding ##(m-8)(3m+8) = 0## as the factorization. Alternatively, the generic quadratic equation solver works nicely here. Both approaches yield ##m=8## as one solution and ##m=-\frac83## (rather than ##m\approx-2.6## or ##m\approx-2.7##) as the second solution.