Solving Higher Order Polynomial: ax + x^3 - x^5 = 0

Peregrine
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
I haven't done this in ages, and I'm having trouble recalling how to factor a higher order polynomial. I almost always do this graphically, but for this case I'm interested in an algebraic solution. Specifically, I'm looking at ax + x^3 - x^5 = 0 (with a = an integer >0.)

Clearly 0 is one solution since x(a + x^2 - x^4) =0. Is there a way to solve for the 2 others? Thanks.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Peregrine said:
I haven't done this in ages, and I'm having trouble recalling how to factor a higher order polynomial. I almost always do this graphically, but for this case I'm interested in an algebraic solution. Specifically, I'm looking at ax + x^3 - x^5 = 0 (with a = an integer >0.)

Clearly 0 is one solution since x(a + x^2 - x^4) =0. Is there a way to solve for the 2 others? Thanks.

Generally i do not know how to find the roots of higher order polynomials myself, of an order n>=3. but in yor case it looks easy,because it is not of a complete form.
like you said one trivial answer is x=0, the others will be the solutions to the equation
a + x^2 - x^4=0, so u may want to take a substituton like this t=x^2, so you will end up with sth like this

a+t-4t^2=0, now you now how to solve this right?
and after that just go back and find solutions for x.
 
Clearly 0 is one solution since x(a + x^2 - x^4) =0. Is there a way to solve for the 2 others? Thanks.
The remaining polynomial is quadratic in x2. Therefore you can get x2=(1+-(1+4a)1/2)/2. I'm sure you can finish.
 
Thanks, I hadn't thought to substitute. I got it.
 
Note that it's a degree 5 polynomial, so you should have found 5 solutions.

sutupidmath said:
Generally i do not know how to find the roots of higher order polynomials myself, of an order n>=3.
There are formulas for cubic and quartic equations, but I don't think anyone knows them by heart (ok, maybe a few, but certainly very few people). For n \ge 5 general solutions do not even exist (I believe this can be proven using ring theory).
 
CompuChip said:
Note that it's a degree 5 polynomial, so you should have found 5 solutions.


There are formulas for cubic and quartic equations, but I don't think anyone knows them by heart (ok, maybe a few, but certainly very few people). For n \ge 5 general solutions do not even exist (I believe this can be proven using ring theory).

That's a bit of relief, i started feeling stupid for not being able to find general solutions for these higher order polynomials. For those of a degree of 3 i have seen some formulas, but haven't actually tried to look closely what is going on. I am going to have to have a look upon these things, because they come up sometimes in calculus one as well! And thnx, for enlightening me for polynomials of a degree of 5 or higher!
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
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...
Back
Top