Theory of quadratic equations

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around proving the equation √(p/q) + √(q/p) + √(n/l) = 0 for a quadratic equation of the form lx^2 + nx + n, where the roots are in the ratio p:q. A method involving a proportionality constant k was introduced, leading to the conclusion that n/l = ((p+q)^2)/pq. However, the participants identified an error in the original proof, suggesting that the correct form should be -√(n/l) instead. They emphasized using Vieta's theorem to derive n/l and noted that the roots found were actually pk and qk, not p and q. The conversation highlights the need for clarity in solving quadratic equations and the importance of verifying the conditions under which the proofs hold.
Vishalrox
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
theory of quadratic equations...

theres 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 -\sqrt{n/l}, 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,

\sqrt{\frac{p}{q}} + \sqrt{\frac{q}{p}} - \sqrt{\frac{n}{l}}

Is equal to,

\frac{p+q}{\sqrt{pq}} - \sqrt{\frac{n}{l}}

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...
 
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...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
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
4
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top