Solving Quartic Equation using Derivative

  • Thread starter Thread starter asd1249jf
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivative
Click For Summary
To solve the quartic equation x^4 + 3x^3 - 7x^2 - 15x + 18 = 0, the discussion emphasizes using derivatives to analyze the function's critical points and concavity, although they do not directly provide x-intercepts. Participants suggest factoring the polynomial and applying the rational roots theorem, which states that any rational root must be an integer divisor of 18. While some express frustration with Ferrari's method for solving quartics, others advocate for manipulating the equation into a depressed quartic for easier handling. Overall, the conversation highlights the challenges of solving quartic equations and the importance of exploring various methods.
asd1249jf

Homework Statement


<br /> x^4 + 3x^3 - 7x^2 - 15x + 18 = 0<br />

Find x

Homework Equations



First Derivative?
Second Derivative?

The Attempt at a Solution



Normally, I'd use Ferrari's method to tackle this problem but I am required to use derivation to find the answer...

Where do I go from here? Do I use first derivative to find critical points? second derivative for concavity? I'm not sure what those will be helpful for though..
 
Physics news on Phys.org
l46kok said:

Homework Statement


<br /> x^4 + 3x^3 - 7x^2 - 15x + 18 = 0<br />

Find x


Homework Equations



First Derivative?
Second Derivative?
Neither. The derivatives give you information about the shape of the curve, but not about x intercepts. Try factoring. I found one root using synthetic division immediately.
l46kok said:

The Attempt at a Solution



Normally, I'd use Ferrari's method to tackle this problem but I am required to use derivation to find the answer...

Where do I go from here? Do I use first derivative to find critical points? second derivative for concavity? I'm not sure what those will be helpful for though..
 
Mark44 is right, of course. The trick is to try and factor it. To help with that guessing game you should look at the rational roots theorem. Any rational root must be an integer divisor of 18.
 
And if you have no luck with the rational root theorem...

http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/QuarticFormula.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gb7nash said:
And if you have no luck with the rational root theorem...

http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/QuarticFormula.html

That's the Ferrari formula i46kok was talking about in the first post. Have you EVER tried to use it in a practical problem? It's absolutely horrid. :) It may as well not even exist. And the cubic isn't much better. You were joking, right?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dick said:
That's the Ferrari formula i46kok was talking about in the first post. Have you EVER tried to use it in a practical problem? It's absolutely horrid. :) It may as well not even exist. And the cubic isn't much better. You were joking, right?

Yeah, it's a last ditch effort :smile: When I was taking algebra, my professor made us turn it into a depressed/reduced quartic, and manipulate it and solve it as shown on this page:

http://www.sosmath.com/algebra/factor/fac12/fac12.html

Now that's horrid. But yeah, both methods are atrocious. One little arithmetic mistake and you're screwed.
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K