Solving for x, but only getting half

  • Thread starter Thread starter Calpalned
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The equation x^2 - 2x = 0 can be solved by factoring, yielding solutions x = 0 and x = 2. Dividing by x to simplify the equation can lead to missing solutions, particularly when x = 0. It's crucial to consider cases separately: if x = 0, the equation holds true, while if x ≠ 0, you can derive x = 2. Verifying both solutions ensures completeness in solving such equations. Always avoid dividing by a variable unless it is confirmed to be non-zero.
Calpalned
Messages
297
Reaction score
6

Homework Statement


Solve for x. x^2 - 2x = 0

Homework Equations


n/a

The Attempt at a Solution


If I solve this equation by factoring out the x first, as in x(x-2) = 0, I get that x = 2 or x =0

However, if I add 2x, as in x^2 = 2x, then I divide by x, leaving x = 2
My second method only has one answer. What happened to x = 0?
When I solve equations like this, what should I do to guarantee that I get all of the solutions without using a graphing calculator?

Thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Calpalned said:
However, if I add 2x, as in x^2 = 2x, then I divide by x, leaving x = 2
My second method only has one answer. What happened to x = 0?
You cannot divide by x if it is zero. So your method assumes that x is not zero already, and obviously then you can't get it as a solution! In solving such problems, never divide by a quantity unless (1) you are sure it is nonzero or (2) you split out a separate case for when it is zero.
 
Maybe ##x^2-2x = x(x-2)## will help you? There are other ways as well. Such as ##x^2=2x##. Note that for the 2nd equation 0 is a solution (##0^2 = 2*0##). Then we can proceed to find non-zero solutions.
 
Thanks everyone!
 
Shinaolord said:
Maybe ##x^2-2x = x(x-2)## will help you? There are other ways as well. Such as ##x^2=2x##.
Writing the equation as x2 = 2x is pretty much a step backward, as it isn't any help. The only two ways I can think of to solve x2 - 2x = 0 are 1) factoring, and 2) quadratic formula. (In case someone suggests completing the square, that's already done for you in the quadratic formula.)

For this equation, it is much simpler to just factor the terms on the left side.

As already mentioned, any temptation to divide through by x should be resisted, due to the possibility of losing solutions.
Shinaolord said:
Note that for the 2nd equation 0 is a solution (##0^2 = 2*0##). Then we can proceed to find non-zero solutions.
 
##x^2=2x## implies that either ##x=0## or ##x=2## (because if ##x\neq 0##, we can divide by ##x## to get ##x=2##).

The above doesn't prove that the solutions are 0 and 2. It just proves that no number other than 0 or 2 can be a solution. It is however easy to verify that both 0 and 2 are solutions: Since ##0^2=0=2\cdot 0##, we know that ##0## is a solution. Since ##2^2=2\cdot 2##, we know that ##2## is a solution.

This is how I think when I solve these problems. I like this method better than both factorization and the formula for solutions.

An alternative to explicitly verifying that 2 is a solution is to note that if ##x\neq 0##, the statements ##x^2-2x=0##, ##x^2=2x## and ##x=2## are all equivalent.

In case it's not perfectly clear what's going on in the first step: We already knew without looking at the equation that either ##x=0## or ##x\neq 0##. So we consider these two possibilities separately. If ##x=0##, the equation tells us nothing. (OK, it tells us that ##0=0##, but we already knew that). If ##x\neq 0##, then the equation tells us that ##x=2##. We have now ruled out all non-zero solutions other than ##2##.
 
Last edited:
I picked up this problem from the Schaum's series book titled "College Mathematics" by Ayres/Schmidt. It is a solved problem in the book. But what surprised me was that the solution to this problem was given in one line without any explanation. I could, therefore, not understand how the given one-line solution was reached. The one-line solution in the book says: The equation is ##x \cos{\omega} +y \sin{\omega} - 5 = 0##, ##\omega## being the parameter. From my side, the only thing I could...
Essentially I just have this problem that I'm stuck on, on a sheet about complex numbers: Show that, for ##|r|<1,## $$1+r\cos(x)+r^2\cos(2x)+r^3\cos(3x)...=\frac{1-r\cos(x)}{1-2r\cos(x)+r^2}$$ My first thought was to express it as a geometric series, where the real part of the sum of the series would be the series you see above: $$1+re^{ix}+r^2e^{2ix}+r^3e^{3ix}...$$ The sum of this series is just: $$\frac{(re^{ix})^n-1}{re^{ix} - 1}$$ I'm having some trouble trying to figure out what to...
Back
Top