Solving these quadratic equations

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around solving quadratic equations, exploring various methods and approaches to understand their roots and coefficients. Participants share their thoughts on traditional versus new techniques for solving these equations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Some participants express a desire for alternative methods to solve quadratics, while others reference a new method reported in the news. There is a discussion about the merits of traditional methods versus newer approaches. Additionally, one participant delves into the relationships between roots and coefficients, presenting algebraic relationships without focusing on specific quadratic equations.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants sharing various perspectives on solving quadratics. Some express skepticism about new methods while appreciating their innovative nature. There is a focus on algebraic relationships that could lead to a more general understanding of the problem.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating between traditional methods and new approaches, questioning the assumptions underlying different techniques. There is an emphasis on the relationships between roots and coefficients, which may lead to broader applications beyond specific quadratic equations.

chwala
Gold Member
Messages
2,840
Reaction score
427
Homework Statement
if the roots of the equation ##x^2+bx+c=0## are ##∝, β## and the roots of the equation ##x^2+λbx+λ^2c=0## are ##δ, ϒ##show that the equation whose roots are ##∝ϒ+βδ## and ##∝δ+βϒ## is ##x^2-λb^2x+2λ^2c(b^2-2c)=0##
Relevant Equations
quadratic equations; sum and roots
1594177309176.png

my original working, i would appreciate alternative methods...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
If [itex](x - \alpha)(x - \beta) = x^2 + bx + c[/itex] then [itex](x - \lambda\alpha)(x - \lambda\beta) = x^2 + \lambda b + \lambda^2 c[/itex]. So [itex]\{\gamma, \delta\} = \{\lambda\alpha, \lambda\beta\}[/itex].

Now substituting [itex]\gamma = \lambda \alpha[/itex] and [itex]\delta = \lambda \beta[/itex] we find that the roots of the new quadratic are then [tex] r_1 = \alpha \gamma + \beta \delta = \lambda (\alpha^2 + \beta^2) = \lambda((\alpha + \beta)^2 - 2\alpha\beta) = \lambda(b^2 - 2c)[/tex] and [tex] r_2 = \alpha \delta + \beta\gamma = 2\lambda \alpha \beta = 2 \lambda c[/tex] yielding [tex] r_1 + r_2 = \lambda b^2, \qquad r_1r_2 = 2\lambda^2 c (b^2 - 2c)[/tex] as required. Swapping the definitions of [itex]\gamma[/itex] and [itex]\delta[/itex] swaps [itex]r_1[/itex] and [itex]r_2[/itex], leaving [itex]r_1 + r_2[/itex] and [itex]r_1r_2[/itex] unchanged.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK and chwala
chwala said:
i just had a look at his method...i don't really like it...i respect his approach nevertheless...though i prefer old school way of solving quadratics :cool:
The thing to notice here is that it is better to focus on the equations relating roots and coefficents and leave the quadratic equations themselves behind.

1) You have an equation with coefficients ##b, c## and roots ##\alpha, \beta##. This gives:
$$\alpha + \beta = -b, \ \ \alpha \beta = c$$
2) You then have a second equation with coefficents ##b_2, c_2##, say, and roots ##\gamma, \delta##. Hence:
$$\gamma + \delta = -b_2, \ \ \gamma \delta = c_2$$
3) We want a third equation with coefficients ##B, C##, say, and roots ##\alpha \gamma + \beta \delta, \ \alpha \delta + \beta \gamma##, hence:
$$-B = (\alpha \gamma + \beta \delta) + (\alpha \delta + \beta \gamma) = (\alpha + \beta)(\gamma + \delta) = (-b)(-b_2) = bb_2$$ $$C = (\alpha \gamma + \beta \delta)(\alpha \delta + \beta \gamma) = (\alpha^2 + \beta^2)\gamma \delta + (\gamma^2 + \delta^2)\alpha \beta = (\alpha^2 + \beta^2)c_2 + (\gamma^2 + \delta^2)c$$
4) Now you use the simplification:
$$\alpha^2 + \beta^2 = (\alpha + \beta)^2 - 2\alpha\beta = b^2 - 2c \ \ \text{and} \ \ \gamma^2 + \delta^2 = b_2^2 - 2c_2$$
5) This gives us a more general solution to a more general problem:
$$B = - bb_2, \ \ C = (b^2 - 2c)c_2 + (b_2^2 - 2c_2)c$$
6) In this particular case, we have ##b_2 = \lambda b## and ##c_2 = \lambda^2 c##. You can plug those in and get the solution in this case. But, if you specify any other coefficients for the second equation, we already for the solution for that as well.

You see how it was in many ways simpler to break free of the quadratic equations themselves and focus on the algebraic relationships between coefficients and roots. This allows us to solve problems even more generally.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: chwala

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K