Want to solve a quadratic equation

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around solving the cubic equation m^3 - m^2 + 2 = 0. Participants are exploring methods to find solutions and clarifying the nature of the equation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants question whether a single equation can be solved without additional information, with some suggesting the use of the Factor Theorem or testing specific values for potential roots.

Discussion Status

There is ongoing exploration of various methods to approach the problem, including suggestions to test specific values and use polynomial division. Some participants express confusion about the nature of cubic equations compared to quadratic ones.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention constraints regarding their understanding of cubic equations and express a need for foundational knowledge. There are also references to online resources and methods that have not been fully grasped by some members.

whyonlyme
Messages
30
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Actually, it is told by one of my friend. He asked for the answer of this quadratic equation.

m^3-m^2+2=0


Homework Equations



m^3-m^2+2=0

The Attempt at a Solution



But, I think we need one more equation to solve it. Is there any way to solve it by only one equation? If yes, please describe it or if not, then tell me the proper reason..
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That is not a quadratic equation; it's a cubic equation.
 
Okay.. Sorry then. But, is there any possible solution?
 
whyonlyme said:
Okay.. Sorry then. But, is there any possible solution?

sub in 0, 1, -1 etc and see if you can find a factor
 
Well, I don't know how to solve it. Can anyone explain me??
 
There's also a formula (rather involved).
 
whyonlyme said:
Well, I don't know how to solve it. Can anyone explain me??

Phospho has already given you some valuable suggestions. Have you tried them?
 
I said that I didn't understand it. I know how to solve quadratic equation, but don't know how to solve cubic equation. That is what I am saying, can anyone explain it.
 
While the formula for finding the roots of a cubic function would do the trick, I'd suggest you do it using the Factor Theorem/The Remainder Theorem, and use any method of division to reduce the polynomial.
 
  • #10
whyonlyme said:
I said that I didn't understand it. I know how to solve quadratic equation, but don't know how to solve cubic equation. That is what I am saying, can anyone explain it.

If you can find one root, say r, of the equation then m-r is a factor of the polynomial. You should be able to then write it as (m-r)*(quadratic)=0. Then solve the quadratic. But you have to find the one root r, first. There is one. Guess it.
 
  • #11
whyonlyme said:
I said that I didn't understand it. I know how to solve quadratic equation, but don't know how to solve cubic equation. That is what I am saying, can anyone explain it.

That is not what he said and not what he meant. Why can't you just substitute m = 0, m = 1 or m = -1 into the equation to see if the equation is satisfied?

Nobody is asking you to solve a cubic equation---although people have pointed out to you that there are formulas to do it (just Google 'cubic equation'). What people are asking you to do is to test some m-values to see if they work.
 
  • #12
whyonlyme said:
I said that I didn't understand it. I know how to solve quadratic equation, but don't know how to solve cubic equation. That is what I am saying, can anyone explain it.

The easiest way is to look for a potential linear of the form x - a, where a is a specific number. If you can find a linear factor, the other factor of your cubic will be a quadratic, and you can use the quadratic formula to find its roots.

Here's a link to a web page on polynomial long division - http://www.purplemath.com/modules/polydiv3.htm

For your problem, if there are any linear factors with rational coefficients, they must be of the form (x - 1), (x + 1), (x - 2), or (x + 2).
 
  • #13
This is not a calculus problem, so I'm moving it to the precalc section.
 
  • #14
I searched for the cubic equation solver online. I found results like this

m1= 2.73205080756888
m2= -0.73205080756888
m3= 1

I saw the method but didn't get it. I have to study it from the basic. btw, thnx for the help..
 
  • #15
whyonlyme said:
I searched for the cubic equation solver online. I found results like this

m1= 2.73205080756888
m2= -0.73205080756888
m3= 1

I saw the method but didn't get it. I have to study it from the basic. btw, thnx for the help..

Have you checked to see if these work? All three are WRONG!

On several occasions you have been asked to try some simple values such as m = -1, m = 1, etc., to see if they solve the equation. You have refused to do this, claiming you do not know how to solve cubic equations. As I said already, just checking if a given value "works" is not solving---it is just "checking".

What people were trying to do is to *teach*you how to solve cubic equations, but you have not been cooperative.
 
  • #16
OKay... I tried to put m= -1, 1 and 0..

It does not satisfy the equation.
 
  • #17
whyonlyme said:
OKay... I tried to put m= -1, 1 and 0..

It does not satisfy the equation.

Try m = -1 again.

Show the steps, please.
 
  • #18
whyonlyme said:
OKay... I tried to put m= -1, 1 and 0..

It does not satisfy the equation.

That is not true. Try again. Perhaps you are looking at a different equation? Are you sure your equation is ##m^3 - m^2 + 2 = 0?##
 
Last edited:
  • #19
whyonlyme said:
OKay... I tried to put m= -1, 1 and 0..

It does not satisfy the equation.

Oh come on, m=(-1) does.
 
  • #20
whyonlyme said:
OKay... I tried to put m= -1, 1 and 0..
It does not satisfy the equation.
Don't try to use all three numbers as the three roots to the equation, just try the -1 as one of the roots.
 
  • #21
The equation m3-m2+2=0 can be written also as (m3+1)+(1-m2)=0

You can factorise both terms inside the parentheses, and there is a common factor.

ehild
 
  • #22
Try synthetic division.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K