Solving an equation involving surds

  • Thread starter chwala
  • Start date
In summary: Already your easier problem ##x^{1/3}+x^{1/9}=512## had no rational solution, so certainly no integer solution.So the trick doesn't always work. Closed formulas for ##u^n+ a_1u^{n-1} + \ldots + a_{n-1}u +a_n=0## can only be given up to ##n=4##. Hence there is a natural limit anyway. Your first two examples used the special shape of the original equation in order to get rid of the radicals which had a common divisor. This is not always possible.
  • #1
chwala
Gold Member
2,571
343
Homework Statement
Find ##x##,
if ##x^{0.5}+x^{1/3}=12##
Relevant Equations
surds
##x^{1/6}=12x^{1/3}-1##
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
is there a way of solving this algebraically or one has to use numerical methods?Newtons finite methods or something like that. i know that ##x=64##.
 
  • #3
Your second equation is wrong.
Anyway. What do you get if you substitute ##u=x^\frac{1}{6}\,?##
 
  • #4
fresh how are you...yeah the equation is supposed to be;

##x^{1/6}##=##12x^{-1/3}-1##. i thought of that substitution,
i thought of,
##x^{({1/2})({1/3})}=12x^{-1/3}-1##
 
  • #5
You have ##x^{1/2}+x^{1/3}=12## which is not the same as ##x^{1/6}=12x^{1/3}-1##.

Again, what do you get from ##x^{1/2}+x^{1/3}=12## if ##u=x^{1/6}##?
 
  • Like
Likes chwala
  • #6
fresh_42 said:
You have ##x^{1/2}+x^{1/3}=12## which is not the same as ##x^{1/6}=12x^{1/3}-1##.

Again, what do you get from ##x^{1/2}+x^{1/3}=12## if ##u=x^{1/6}##?

i divided each term by ##x^{1/3}##...
i wanted to simplify in a way, and have some common term...
 
  • #7
if ##u = x^{1/6}##
then, we shall have, ##u^3+u^2=12##
##u^2(u+1)=12##
 
  • #8
There is a general solution formula for cubics.
 
  • Like
Likes chwala
  • #9
WWGD said:
There is a general solution formula for cubics.

i am getting ##u= [{-3±i√(15)}]/2 ##
 
  • #10
Sorry, I am on my phone, no paper, hard to check. Can you try Wolfram? But notice you must end up with 3 roots up to multiplicity. Where is the third?
 
  • #11
WWGD said:
Sorry, I am on my phone, no paper, hard to check. Can you try Wolfram? But notice you must end up with 3 roots up to multiplicity. Where is the third?
sorry, i was not keen, ##u=2## is another solution,
now, ##x^{1/6}=2 →x= 2^6 = 64##

Bingo! WWGD and Fresh!:smile:o0):cool:
 
  • Like
Likes WWGD
  • #12
chwala said:
if ##u = x^{1/6}##
then, we shall have, ##u^3+u^2=12##
##u^2(u+1)=12##
Yes, and ##12=12\cdot 1 = 6 \cdot 2 = 4 \cdot 3##. Which one do we get for ##u##?
 
  • Like
Likes chwala
  • #13
so the general idea or thinking in similar kind of equations is to think of the lcm of the exponents and come up with another variable...
 
  • #14
chwala said:
so the general idea or thinking in similar kind of equations is to think of the lcm of the exponents and come up with another variable...
Yes, but it depends on the case. I would say: "The general idea is to get rid of what disturbs!" And since ##1/2## and ##1/3## disturbs in this case, we need ##1/6## to get rid of both at the same time.
 
  • #15
just going on with my thoughts on similar kind of problems, consider,

##x^{1/10} + x^{1/5}=1056##
the lcm is ##10##
therefore, letting ##u^{10}= x## we shall have,
##u+u^2=1056##
is my thinking correct? i earlier indicated that establishing the lcm may be key in solving such kind of problems.
regards,
 
  • #16
chwala said:
just going on with my thoughts on similar kind of problems, consider,

##x^{1/10} + x^{1/5}=1056##
the lcm is ##10##
therefore, letting ##u^{10}= x## we shall have,
##u+u^2=1056##
is my thinking correct? i earlier indicated that establishing the lcm may be key in solving such kind of problems.
regards,
Yes, that's the right idea. The equation you ended with above can be factored without too much difficulty. Keep in mind, though, that you need to verify that any solutions you get must satisfy the original equation, so it's possible that some solutions of the equation in u don't work in the original equation.
 
  • Like
Likes chwala
  • #17
Mark44 said:
Yes, that's the right idea. The equation you ended with above can be factored without too much difficulty. Keep in mind, though, that you need to verify that any solutions you get must satisfy the original equation, so it's possible that some solutions of the equation in u don't work in the original equation.

now in this equation, i get ##u=32## and ##u=-33## how do we solve for ##x##
i am getting ##x= 32^{0.1}## which does not satisfy the original equation, maybe i am tired ..i can't seem to see

aaaaahhhhhhh seen it

if ##x=32^{0.1}## then substituting in the original we will have;

##32+ [(1.125899907⊗10^{15})]^{0.2}=1056## Bingo
 
Last edited:
  • #18
I may need to further explore this kind of questions, and see how lcm works in simplifying them, let's pick another question,
##x^{1/3}+x^{1/9}=512##
 
  • #19
chwala said:
now in this equation, i get ##u=32## and ##u=-33## how do we solve for ##x##
i am getting ##x= 32^{0.1}## which does not satisfy the original equation, maybe i am tired ..i can't seem to see

aaaaahhhhhhh seen it

if ##x=32^{0.1}## then substituting in the original we will have;

##32+ [(1.125899907⊗10^{15})]^{0.2}=1056## Bingo
Or more simply, without resorting to tenth root approximations,
##(32^{10})^{1/10} + (32^{10})^{1/5} = 32^{10/10} + 32^{10/5} = 32 + 32^2 = 1056##
 
  • Like
Likes chwala
  • #20
chwala said:
I may need to further explore this kind of questions, and see how lcm works in simplifying them, let's pick another question,
##x^{1/3}+x^{1/9}=512##
This one is harder, since the likely substitution will turn it into a cubic equation. There is a formula for solving cubic equations, but it is much harder to apply than the quadratic formula.
 
  • #21
chwala said:
now in this equation, i get ##u=32## and ##u=-33## how do we solve for ##x##
i am getting ##x= 32^{0.1}## which does not satisfy the original equation, maybe i am tired ..i can't seem to see

aaaaahhhhhhh seen it

if ##x=32^{0.1}## then substituting in the original we will have;

##32+ [(1.125899907⊗10^{15})]^{0.2}=1056## Bingo
What do you mean? You have ##u^{10}=x=32^{10}## which results in
$$
x^{1/10}+x^{1/5}=x^{1/10}+\left(x^{1/10}\right)^2=(32^{10})^{1/10}+\left((32^{10})^{1/10}\right)^2=32+32^2=1056
$$
For the next problem use ##x^{1/3}=\left(x^{1/9}\right)^3##.
Are you sure that ##512## and the plus sign are correct?
 
  • #22
fresh_42 said:
What do you mean? You have ##u^{10}=x=32^{10}## which results in
$$
x^{1/10}+x^{1/5}=x^{1/10}+\left(x^{1/10}\right)^2=(32^{10})^{1/10}+\left((32^{10})^{1/10}\right)^2=32+32^2=1056
$$
For the next problem use ##x^{1/3}=\left(x^{1/9}\right)^3##.
Are you sure that ##512## and the plus sign are correct?

i just came up with that problem, just trying to see if i can come up with a general method of solving 'such like' surd equations,
like for instance,
find ##x## given,
##x^{1/3}+x^{1/4}+x^{1/5}=20##
my approach,
let ##u^{60}=x##
→##u^{20}=x^{1/3}##
→##u^{15}=x^{1/4}##
→##u^{12}=x^{1/5}##
therefore,
##u^{20}+u^{15}+u^{12}=20##
##u^{12}(u^8+u^3+1)=20##
##u^{12}[u^3(u^5+1)+1]=20##
does this make sense? can i move from here? i know that the solution will be an approximate value and that i will need to make use of a 'numerical method' in finding ##x##.
 
  • #23
Already your easier problem ##x^{1/3}+x^{1/9}=512## had no rational solution, so certainly no integer solution.
So the trick doesn't always work. Closed formulas for ##u^n+ a_1u^{n-1} + \ldots + a_{n-1}u +a_n=0## can only be given up to ##n=4##. Hence there is a natural limit anyway. Your first two examples used the special shape of the equations.
 
  • Like
Likes chwala
  • #24
fresh_42 said:
Already your easier problem ##x^{1/3}+x^{1/9}=512## had no rational solution, so certainly no integer solution.
So the trick doesn't always work. Closed formulas for ##u^n+ a_1u^{n-1} + \ldots + a_{n-1}u +a_n=0## can only be given up to ##n=4##. Hence there is a natural limit anyway. Your first two examples used the special shape of the equations.
so when ##n## is greater than ##4##, you are indicating that finding a solution is not possible? i indicated that the solution may not be exact rather may take approximate values...
 
  • #25
chwala said:
so when ##n## is greater than ##4##, you are indicating that finding a solution is not possible? i indicated that the solution may not be exact rather may take approximate values...

I will try come up with a problem where ##n## is greater than 5 and also have the solution as an integer value...then explore on methods of solution...
 
  • #26
chwala said:
so when ##n## is greater than ##4##, you are indicating that finding a solution is not possible? i indicated that the solution may not be exact rather may take approximate values...
For ##n=2## we can write ##x^2+px+q=\left(x+\dfrac{p}{2}+\sqrt{\left(\dfrac{p}{2}\right)^2-q}\right)\left(x+\dfrac{p}{2}-\sqrt{\left(\dfrac{p}{2}\right)^2-q}\right)## and for ##n=3## and ##n=4## there are formulas, too, but much more complicated and depending on the coefficients.

For ##n\geq 5## it has been proven, that no general formula exists. Of course we can still solve special cases, e.g. ##x^5-2x^3+x=0## can easily be solved. But there is cannot be any formula fits all.

Solutions (so they exist) can always be found numerically, which are generally approximations.
 
  • #27
chwala said:
I will try come up with a problem where ##n## is greater than 5 and also have the solution as an integer value...then explore on methods of solution...
You can always calculate ##p(x)=(x-a_1)\cdot \ldots \cdot (x-a_n)## and know beforehand which values satisfy ##p(a)=0##. But not the other way around.
 
  • Like
Likes chwala
  • #28
fresh_42 said:
For ##n=2## we can write ##x^2+px+q=\left(x+\dfrac{p}{2}+\sqrt{\left(\dfrac{p}{2}\right)^2-q}\right)\left(x+\dfrac{p}{2}-\sqrt{\left(\dfrac{p}{2}\right)^2-q}\right)## and for ##n=3## and ##n=4## there are formulas, too, but much more complicated and depending on the coefficients.

For ##n\geq 5## it has been proven, that no general formula exists. Of course we can still solve special cases, e.g. ##x^5-2x^3+x=0## can easily be solved. But there is cannot be any formula fits all.

Solutions (so they exist) can always be found numerically, which are generally approximations.

i bet this would be a good area to research on, who knows maybe in the near future, mathematicians will find general ways of solving this...atleast i thought of the possibility of solving such like problems where n is greater than 4.., i am sure in the near future there might be a general way in solving this kind of problems.
 
  • #29
chwala said:
i bet this would be a good area to research on, who knows maybe in the near future, mathematicians will find general ways of solving this...
We know for more than 100 years that it cannot be done by basic arithmetic operations and roots. It is a property of certain groups.
 
  • #30
fresh_42 said:
We know for more than 100 years that it cannot be done by basic arithmetic operations and roots. It is a property of certain groups.
:biggrin: maybe in future it might be possible, which groups are you reffering to ...group theory?
 
  • #31
I also came up with this problem,
##x^{1/3}+x^{1/6}+x^{1/12}=22##
i know that ##x=4096##
now using ##u^{12}=x##
we shall have ##u^4+u^2+u^{12}=22## of course, here the degree of polynomial is greater than 4.
it follows that,
##u^2(u^{10}+u^2+1)=22##
##u^2[u^2(u^8+1)+1]=22##

most of these equations are ending up in the above form, now its a matter of exploring 'numerical methods' that may solve this. my thinkin am crazy at times :biggrin:
if i let ##(u^8+1) =m## then we shall have,
##u^2[u^2m+1]=22##
dividing both ##u^2##
##u^2m+1=22u^{-2}##
 
  • #32
chwala said:
:biggrin: maybe in future it might be possible, which groups are you reffering to ...group theory?
Yes. The alternating groups ##A_n## are not solvable for ##n>4##, they are simple. This is a provable fact which is responsible that it is impossible to find formulas for ##n>4##. It is a consequence of Galois' theory.
 
  • Like
Likes chwala
  • #33
chwala said:
I also came up with this problem,
##x^{1/3}+x^{1/6}+x^{1/12}=22##
i know that ##x=4096##
now using ##u^{12}=x##
we shall have ##u^4+u^2+u^{12}=22## of course, here the degree of polynomial is greater than 4.
No, it is ##u^4+u^2+u=u(u^3+u+1)=22## with ##u=2##.
it follows that,
##u^2(u^{10}+u^2+1)=22##
##u^2[u^2(u^8+1)+1]=22##

most of these equations are ending up in the above form, now its a matter of exploring 'numerical methods' that may solve this. my thinkin am crazy at times :biggrin:
if i let ##(u^8+1) =m## then we shall have,
##u^2[u^2m+1]=22##
dividing both ##u^2##
##u^2m+1=22u^{-2}##
 
  • Like
Likes chwala
  • #34
lol, i made some mathematical error, i appreciate your comments...i will still look at this once i am free and see what else come up. Thanks Fresh...
 
  • #35
I thought of a problem,
find ##x##
if ##x^{1/3}+x^{1/18}=66##
i know that ##x = 262144##
it follows that, if i let ##u^{18}=x##
then we shall have,
##u^6+u=66## so here we have a polynomial of degree 6,...
 
<h2>1. What are surds?</h2><p>Surds are numbers that cannot be expressed as a ratio of two integers and involve an irrational root, such as √2 or √3.</p><h2>2. How do I solve an equation involving surds?</h2><p>To solve an equation involving surds, you need to isolate the surd term on one side of the equation and square both sides to eliminate the surd. Then, solve the resulting equation for the variable.</p><h2>3. Can I simplify surds?</h2><p>Yes, surds can be simplified by finding the largest perfect square that is a factor of the surd and taking its square root. For example, √32 can be simplified to 4√2.</p><h2>4. What are some common mistakes when solving equations involving surds?</h2><p>Some common mistakes when solving equations involving surds include forgetting to square both sides to eliminate the surd, incorrectly simplifying the surd, and not checking for extraneous solutions.</p><h2>5. Can equations involving surds have multiple solutions?</h2><p>Yes, equations involving surds can have multiple solutions. This is because when we square both sides to eliminate the surd, we may introduce extraneous solutions that do not satisfy the original equation.</p>

1. What are surds?

Surds are numbers that cannot be expressed as a ratio of two integers and involve an irrational root, such as √2 or √3.

2. How do I solve an equation involving surds?

To solve an equation involving surds, you need to isolate the surd term on one side of the equation and square both sides to eliminate the surd. Then, solve the resulting equation for the variable.

3. Can I simplify surds?

Yes, surds can be simplified by finding the largest perfect square that is a factor of the surd and taking its square root. For example, √32 can be simplified to 4√2.

4. What are some common mistakes when solving equations involving surds?

Some common mistakes when solving equations involving surds include forgetting to square both sides to eliminate the surd, incorrectly simplifying the surd, and not checking for extraneous solutions.

5. Can equations involving surds have multiple solutions?

Yes, equations involving surds can have multiple solutions. This is because when we square both sides to eliminate the surd, we may introduce extraneous solutions that do not satisfy the original equation.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
815
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
14
Views
159
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
447
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
17
Views
808
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
202
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
455
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
723
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
16
Views
962
Back
Top