MHB Solve √(x^2+3x+7)-√(x^2-3x+9)+2=0

  • Thread starter Thread starter SigmaS
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on solving two algebraic equations, specifically one involving square roots. The first equation, x^2 + m^2 - 2mx = n^2x^2, can be rearranged to (1 - n^2)x^2 - 2mx + m^2 = 0, allowing the use of the quadratic formula for solutions. The second equation, √(x^2 + 3x + 7) - √(x^2 - 3x + 9) + 2 = 0, requires careful manipulation, including isolating square roots and squaring both sides, to avoid introducing extraneous solutions. Participants emphasize the importance of correctly applying algebraic identities and the potential pitfalls of squaring equations. The conversation concludes with a request for clarification on the transformations used in the first equation.
SigmaS
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I'm struggling with two particular equations in my Algebra textbook.

1) $x^2+m^2=2mx+(nx)^2 $
2) $\sqrt{x^2+3x+7}-\sqrt{x^2-3x+9}+2=0$

I know the answer to the first equation is {$\frac{m}{1-n}, \frac{m}{1+n}$}. The answer to the second equation is {$-\frac{9}{5}$}.

I don't understand why I'm struggling on problems that look so simple. Here's how I approached the first problem:
$$x^2+m^2-2mx=n^2(x^2)$$
$$x^2+2mx+m^2-2mx=n^2x^2$$
$$\sqrt{x^2+m^2}=\sqrt{n^2x^2}$$
$$x=\frac{x+m}{n}, \frac{x-m}{n}$$

I suspect my answer is actually correct but it is only translated differently. I'm not too sure. I did plug my answer into a simplified version of the problem and indeed, I got, $x=\frac{x+m}{n}, \frac{x-m}{n}$ but I don't think that's trustworthy.

My approach to the second problem goes as follows:
$$\sqrt{x^2+3x+7}-\sqrt{x^2-3x+9}=-2$$
$$(\sqrt{x^2+3x+7})^2-(\sqrt{x^2-3x+9})^2=(-2)^2$$
$$x^2+3x+7-x^2+3x-9=4$$
$$6x=6$$
$$x=1$$

I don't believe squaring the roots actually works the way I tried here, but this was the best I could do. I tried factoring the polynomials within the roots individually, but that led to some really messy results so I avoided it.

Could someone please explain each step of either problem using TeX commands? Other people I asked either gave vague answers without much explanation or did part of the problem in hopes I would connect the dots and complete the rest. I'd really just appreciate a straight forward, detailed solve. Also, I would prefer if you do not skip steps - I don't mind if it's very long.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
SigmaS said:
I don't understand why I'm struggling on problems that look so simple. Here's how I approached the first problem:
$$x^2+m^2-2mx=n^2(x^2)$$
$$x^2+2mx+m^2-2mx=n^2x^2$$
$$\sqrt{x^2+m^2}=\sqrt{n^2x^2}$$
$$x=\frac{x+m}{n}, \frac{x-m}{n}$$

I suspect my answer is actually correct but it is only translated differently. I'm not too sure. I did plug my answer into a simplified version of the problem and indeed, I got, $x=\frac{x+m}{n}, \frac{x-m}{n}$ but I don't think that's trustworthy.

At the second line you added the term 2mx just on the left side of the equation. Instead, we can use the formula $(a-b)^2=a^2-2ab+b^2$. Then we have the following:
\begin{equation*}x^2+m^2-2mx=n^2(x^2) \Rightarrow x^2-2mx+m^2=n^2x^2 \Rightarrow (x-m)^2=(nx)^2 \end{equation*} Now we take the square root and get \begin{equation*}\sqrt{(x-m)^2}=\sqrt{(nx)^2 }\Rightarrow x-m=\pm nx\end{equation*}
So we get \begin{align*}&x-m=nx \ \text{ or } \ x-m=-nx \\ & \Rightarrow x-nx =m \ \text{ or } \ x+nx =m \\ & \Rightarrow x(1-n) =m \ \text{ or } \ x(1+n) =m \\ & \Rightarrow x =\frac{m}{1-n} \ \text{ or } \ x =\frac{m}{1+n}\end{align*}

SigmaS said:
My approach to the second problem goes as follows:
$$\sqrt{x^2+3x+7}-\sqrt{x^2-3x+9}=-2$$
$$(\sqrt{x^2+3x+7})^2-(\sqrt{x^2-3x+9})^2=(-2)^2$$
$$x^2+3x+7-x^2+3x-9=4$$
$$6x=6$$
$$x=1$$

I don't believe squaring the roots actually works the way I tried here, but this was the best I could do. I tried factoring the polynomials within the roots individually, but that led to some really messy results so I avoided it.

At the second line, if you square the equation it should be $(a-b)^2=a^2-2ab+b^2$ on the left side, instead of $a^2-b^2$. Then you have still one square root. You leave this root alone at one side of the equation and square again the equation.
 
The first equation, x^2+ m^2- 2mx= n^2x^2, can be written as (1- n^2)x^2- 2mx+ m^2= 0. Now use the quadratic formula.

For the second equation, \sqrt{x^2+ 3x+ 7}- \sqrt{x^2- 3x+ 9}= 2, no, your "method" is not valid. If a- b= 2 then (a- b)^2= a^2- 2ab+ b^2= 4, not "a^2- b^2= 4".

Because I would really rather not multiply two square roots together my first step would be to rewrite the equation as \sqrt{x^2+ 3x+ 7}= \sqrt{x^2- 3x+ 9}+ 2. NOW square both sides: x^2+ 3x+ 7= x^2- 3x+ 9+ 4\sqrt{x^2- 3x+ 9}+ 4.

Now isolate that remaining square root, 6x- 6= 4\sqrt{x^2- 3x+ 9} or 3x- 3= 2\sqrt{x^2- 3x+ 9}, and square again: 9x^2- 18x+ 9= 4(x^2- 3x+ 9). That is a fairly easy quadratic equation to solve for x.

Caution- when you square both sides of an equation, you may introduce new roots that do not satisfy the original equation. That last quadratic equation will have two roots but they may not both satisfy the original equation. Try both roots in the original equation to see.
 
SigmaS said:
My approach to the second problem goes as follows:
$$\sqrt{x^2+3x+7}-\sqrt{x^2-3x+9}=-2$$
$$(\sqrt{x^2+3x+7})^2-(\sqrt{x^2-3x+9})^2=(-2)^2$$
A simple example to show your method is not quite correct:

sqrt(25) - sqrt(4) = 3

[sqrt(25)]^2 - [sqrt(4)]^2 = 3^2

25 - 4 = 9
21 = 9

Do you "see" now why your method was not quite correct?
 
Country Boy said:
The first equation, x^2+ m^2- 2mx= n^2x^2, can be written as (1- n^2)x^2- 2mx+ m^2= 0. Now use the quadratic formula.

For the second equation, \sqrt{x^2+ 3x+ 7}- \sqrt{x^2- 3x+ 9}= 2, no, your "method" is not valid. If a- b= 2 then (a- b)^2= a^2- 2ab+ b^2= 4, not "a^2- b^2= 4".

Because I would really rather not multiply two square roots together my first step would be to rewrite the equation as \sqrt{x^2+ 3x+ 7}= \sqrt{x^2- 3x+ 9}+ 2. NOW square both sides: x^2+ 3x+ 7= x^2- 3x+ 9+ 4\sqrt{x^2- 3x+ 9}+ 4.

Now isolate that remaining square root, 6x- 6= 4\sqrt{x^2- 3x+ 9} or 3x- 3= 2\sqrt{x^2- 3x+ 9}, and square again: 9x^2- 18x+ 9= 4(x^2- 3x+ 9). That is a fairly easy quadratic equation to solve for x.

Caution- when you square both sides of an equation, you may introduce new roots that do not satisfy the original equation. That last quadratic equation will have two roots but they may not both satisfy the original equation. Try both roots in the original equation to see.

Hey, can you explain why I can rewrite the first equation as (1- n^2)x^2- 2mx+ m^2= 0? It's (1- n^2)x^2 that confuses me. I can complete from there without struggle, but I just don't understand why translating that way works. Also, thank you for the second equation, I finally got the right answer! However, I believe you were supposed to subtract the 2 rather than move it to the other side (in this case it makes no difference because we end up squaring, anyway), like so: \sqrt{x^2+ 3x+ 7}= \sqrt{x^2- 3x+ 9}-2
 
SigmaS said:
Hey, can you explain why I can rewrite the first equation as (1- n^2)x^2- 2mx+ m^2= 0?
x^2 + m^2 - 2mx = n^2 x^2

x^2 - n^2 x^2 + m^2 - 2mx = 0

x^2(1 - n^2) + m^2 - 2mx = 0

Hokay?
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Is it possible to arrange six pencils such that each one touches the other five? If so, how? This is an adaption of a Martin Gardner puzzle only I changed it from cigarettes to pencils and left out the clues because PF folks don’t need clues. From the book “My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles”. Dover, 1994.
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Back
Top