Theory of quadratic equations

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a specific quadratic equation of the form lx² + nx + n, where the roots are in the ratio p:q. Participants are attempting to prove a relationship involving the roots and coefficients, specifically the expression √(p/q) + √(q/p) + √(n/l) = 0. The scope includes theoretical exploration and mathematical reasoning related to quadratic equations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant introduces a proportionality constant k to derive relationships between the roots and coefficients, leading to a conclusion that suggests n/l must equal 0, which they find unsatisfactory.
  • Another participant questions the validity of the original expression to be proven, suggesting it should be -√(n/l) instead, and proposes a reduction of the expression using Vieta's theorem.
  • A later reply emphasizes that the roots p and q are not the actual roots of the quadratic equation but rather pk and qk, which adds to the complexity of the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correctness of the original expression to be proven and the implications of their findings. There is no consensus on the approach or the validity of the problem as stated.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the nature of the roots and the conditions under which the proposed relationships hold. The discussion also reflects a potential misunderstanding of the problem's requirements.

Vishalrox
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
theory of quadratic equations...

there's a quadratic equation lx^2 + nx + n where its roots are in the ratio p:q .we need to prove that
√(p/q) + √(q/p) + √(n/l) = 0

what i did was..i introduced a proportionality constant k... so pk + qk = -(n/l)
while pq(k^2) = n/l ...solved these two equations and got the value of k as -(p+q)/pq...
and i substituted..i got the roots of the equation in terms of p and q...i got the value of n/l = ((p+q)^2)/pq...coming to the equation which we need to prove...i squared the whole Left Hand Side...expanded it...and substituting whatever i got...i got..4((p+q)^2)/pq...i.e.,i got 4(n/l)...so now we got to prove that 4(n\l) is 0...but if 4(n\l) = 0 then n/l will be 0...which in turn accounts for n = 0...which lands us into a trivial case...all roots and all other coefficients other than leading coefficient (l) to be 0...but i don't think that would be the right way to solve this problem...can anyone help me on this on a different method...?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org


Did you ever try actually solving the equation for its roots p and q?
 


There is something wrong in what you are trying to prove. It should be [itex]-\sqrt{n/l}[/itex], because if all positive, it means all the square root terms should be individually zero, which isn't possible.

Simply reduce the expression you are trying to prove,

[tex]\sqrt{\frac{p}{q}} + \sqrt{\frac{q}{p}} - \sqrt{\frac{n}{l}}[/tex]

Is equal to,

[tex]\frac{p+q}{\sqrt{pq}} - \sqrt{\frac{n}{l}}[/tex]

Use n/l from the Vieta formula and that should give you your result.
 


The question was from Hall & Knight...i know the problem is wrong...so we have to prove the trivial case...so i did it...everything i did...i did using Vieta's theorem...
 


Millennial said:
Did you ever try actually solving the equation for its roots p and q?

I found the values of p and q...as i found the value k...and by the way p and q are not the roots...only pk and qk are the roots which i found...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K