The Quadratic Equation Process, is this wrong?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the process of deriving the quadratic equation from the standard form of a second-degree polynomial. Initial confusion arises regarding the placement of terms when completing the square, particularly whether the entire expression should be squared. Participants clarify that the method presented on MathWorld is correct, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the perfect square on one side of the equation. After some back-and-forth, the original poster realizes their misunderstanding and acknowledges that the process works as outlined on the site. The conversation concludes with a consensus on trusting the accuracy of MathWorld's resources for mathematical processes.
mathzeroh
Messages
98
Reaction score
0
Hellooooo everybody. i have a very distinct feeling that there's something very wrong here...

OK, what I'm trying to do is to get to the quadratic equation through the standard form of a polynomial equation in the second degree. :smile:

watch this, and go to this website. it lists the process very briefly http://mathworld.wolfram.com/QuadraticEquation.html...in this picture http://mathworld.wolfram.com/qimg558.gif isn't it wrong to put the x+b/2a inside the parenthesis with the WHOLE thing raised to the second power?? i mean doesn't that mean that the WHOLE THING INCLUDING the 'x' gets squared?? that's wrong! aha! that's wrong! i knew it! i knew it! :biggrin: :biggrin: Nah I'm just kidding there but i really do want to know if that's a typo or not. I think that when completing the square, you should only raise the "b" term in (the standard form) to the second power. like this:

ax^2+bx+c=0

(\frac{b}{2})^2

subtract the 'c' and bring it over to the other side, then complete the square:
ax^2+bx+(\frac{b}{2})^2=-c+(\frac{b}{2})^2

is this right, as opposed to the ones shown on that website? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
The site is right, but I'm not sure what you're trying to do. What is your next step?
 
I'm sure what's on that site is not wrong.How about u finish your calculations...?

Daniel.
 
dextercioby said:
I'm sure what's on that site is not wrong.How about u finish your calculations...?

Daniel.

Hey, how's it going? :smile: I'm going to go do that, i'll get back at you all. :biggrin:
 
okay guys I am in a pot-hole. :confused: :confused:

here's my work:

ax^2+bx+c=0

ax^2+bx+(\frac{b}{2})^2=-c+(\frac{b}{2})^2

ax^2+bx+(\frac{b^2}{4})=-c+(\frac{b^2}{4})

\left(x-\frac{b}{2a}\right)^2=\left(\frac{-c+\frac{b^2}{4}}{a}\right)

Then i took the square root of both sides and got this:

(x-(b/2a))=\sqrt(-c+(b^2/4)/ \sqrt(a)

then i did that thing where you can't have a square root on the bottom (forgot what its called), and to do that, i multiplied the top and bottom of the right side of the equation with the square root of a over the square root of a (1 in essence).


then it wasn't looking like it was going in the right direction...help. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :frown:
 
After you implicity divided by a between the last two (latex) steps, you no longer had a perfect square on the left. You need that last term to be b^2/4a^2. That's why they divided by a first. Once you correct that, your method becomes identical to theirs.
 
Do you agree that the RHS of your last equation (written in tex) can be written
\frac{b^{2}-4ac}{4a}

Now extract square root...

Daniel.

P.S.Yes,an "a" is missing in the numerator...
 
StatusX said:
After you implicity divided by a between the last two (latex) steps, you no longer had a perfect square on the left. You need that last term to be b^2/4a^2. That's why they divided by a first. Once you correct that, your method becomes identical to theirs.
i looked and looked and looked at it, but it didn't click.

how on Earth did they go from here:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/qimg557.gif

to here:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/qimg558.gif

what happened to the x in the left in the second step?? i mean, it was, (b/a)x :confused: :confused: :confused:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
expand the squared term and you'll see
 
  • #10
mathzeroh said:
i looked and looked and looked at it, but it didn't click.

how on Earth did they go from here:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/qimg557.gif

to here:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/qimg558.gif

what happened to the x in the left in the second step?? i mean, it was, (b/a)x :confused: :confused: :confused:

NEVERMIND, i see what they did
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
StatusX said:
expand the squared term and you'll see

hahah yeah, thanks man, i just saw that. :wink: :rolleyes:
 
  • #12
As an advice for future "events",ALWAYS TRUST MATHWORLD from WOLFRAM.COM.

I haven't seen one single mistake on their site.

Daniel.
 
  • #13
HOLY MOLY!

its like it all just revealed itself right before my eyes! IT WORKS! BY GOD ALMIGHTY IT WORKS! thanks for ur help! :) :smile: :smile: :biggrin:

thanks for the tip Daniel. i'll keep that in mind. mathworld rules. :cool: :cool: :wink:
 
Back
Top