MHB Squaring each side of the equation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yankel
  • Start date Start date
Yankel
Messages
390
Reaction score
0
Hello all,

I am working on a calculus problem, of finding a local min and max of a function with 2 variables. During my solution, I have encountered an algebraic issue, maybe you could assist.

I am trying to solve the equation:

\[7x-1=\sqrt{56x^{2}-16x-31}\]

If I let MAPLE solve it, I get one solution: x=16/7, which is identical to the solution in the book (one critical point in the calculus view).

What I did from here, is:

\[(7x-1)^{2}=56x^{2}-16x-31\]The solution I got to that, which is what MAPLE gives to that, is two points: x=16/7 and x=-2.

I don't see what I did wrong here, I used the power on both sides, on the entire side, and not on elements, like you should do. Can you help ?

If you are curious, the function is:

\[f(x,y)=\sqrt{56x^{2}-8y^{2}-16x-31}+1-8x\]Many thanks !
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Yankel said:
Hello all,

I am working on a calculus problem, of finding a local min and max of a function with 2 variables. During my solution, I have encountered an algebraic issue, maybe you could assist.

I am trying to solve the equation:

\[7x-1=\sqrt{56x^{2}-16x-31}\]

If I let MAPLE solve it, I get one solution: x=16/7, which is identical to the solution in the book (one critical point in the calculus view).

What I did from here, is:

\[(7x-1)^{2}=56x^{2}-16x-31\]The solution I got to that, which is what MAPLE gives to that, is two points: x=16/7 and x=-2.

I don't see what I did wrong here, I used the power on both sides, on the entire side, and not on elements, like you should do. Can you help ?

If you are curious, the function is:

\[f(x,y)=\sqrt{56x^{2}-8y^{2}-16x-31}+1-8x\]Many thanks !

because you squared both the sides you got one erroneous root x = -2 gives the LHS -ve but RHS is positive and so this is not solution

note that $2^2 = (-2)^2 = 4$ but $\sqrt{4} = 2$
 
I am not sure I get it, why not:

\[\sqrt{4}=\pm 2\]

?

I understand that if I put x=-2 before squaring, there is no solution.

But how can you know when to square and not to square ?

From solving inequalities with roots, I know that you can square as long as you do it on the entire LHS and the entire RHS.

How would you solve it ?
 
Yankel said:
I am not sure I get it, why not:

\[\sqrt{4}=\pm 2\]

?

I understand that if I put x=-2 before squaring, there is no solution.

But how can you know when to square and not to square ?

From solving inequalities with roots, I know that you can square as long as you do it on the entire LHS and the entire RHS.

How would you solve it ?

For real solution, \(\sqrt{y}\geq 0\). When x =-2, \(7x - 1 = -15 < 0\). So then you have \(-15 = \sqrt{y}\) but how can this be when the sqrt is greater than or equal to 0?
 
By convention, $\sqrt{a}$ always means the non-negative root.

The reason why we do this is so that we can talk about the function $f$, where:

$f(x) = \sqrt{x}$.

Now the squaring function (the parabola $g(x) = x^2$) is not one-to-one, it obviously takes $-a$ and $a$ to the same image ($a^2$). So when we square, we get two possible ways to "unsquare", so we ALWAYS have to check if the two possibilities we get when we solve by "taking squares" fit the original problem.

One sees this a lot in mathematical modelling of physical problems, where often the "answer" is meant to be some dimensional entity, like length or area. If we get a negative answer, after squaring somewhere, it is typically discarded as "extraneous" (saying something is -5 cm long doesn't make too much sense).

With "abstract problems" involving functions, it is not often clear WHICH solution is "the right one", and both may be viable candidates. This is often true in situations involving angles, where a negative angle might mean "reflection from below" instead of "reflection from above".

With REAL numbers, we have a way of distinguishing one square root as "bigger" (since the real numbers are ORDERED), which gives a clear way of picking a "preferred" square root: the bigger one (the positive one). This turns out to be fantastically UNTRUE in the complex numbers, leading to such amusing things as:

$1 = \sqrt{1} = \sqrt{(-1)(-1)} = \sqrt{-1}\sqrt{-1} = i^2 = -1$

(the problem here is two-fold: first $\sqrt{(-1)} = \pm i$ so the next to last statement is suspect, and also $\sqrt{1} = \pm 1$ so the first statement is suspect, we deliberately choose "the wrong square root" at the start to make it seem as if the impossible $1 = -1$ might plausibly be true. Because of this, the "rule":$\sqrt{ab} = \sqrt{a}\sqrt{b}$

is not allowed for complex numbers, except in certain very special circumstances (typically $a,b \in \Bbb R^+_0$), there's too many ways in which it can be abused).

Put another way:

if $A = B$, then certainly $A^2 = B^2$, but if we START with:

$A^2 = B^2$, we do not know if $A = B$, or $A = -B$.
 
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...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top