Why are there only two roots of this cubic polynomial?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding the roots of a cubic polynomial, specifically why there are only two distinct roots when three are typically expected. The original poster expresses confusion regarding the nature of the roots, particularly questioning the multiplicity of one of the roots.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the concept of root multiplicity and its graphical implications. Questions arise about the nature of roots and the reasoning behind the observed behavior of the polynomial at specific points.

Discussion Status

Some participants provide insights into visualizing double roots through graph behavior, while others suggest examining the polynomial's factored form. The discussion reflects a mix of interpretations regarding the polynomial's roots and their characteristics.

Contextual Notes

There is an emphasis on the graphical representation of the polynomial and its roots, with references to how the graph behaves at critical points. The original poster's assumptions about root behavior are questioned, and the discussion hints at the need for deeper exploration of polynomial properties.

PainterGuy
Messages
938
Reaction score
73
Homework Statement
I'm not able to understand why I'm only getting two roots of cubic polynomial.
Relevant Equations
Please check my posting.
Hi,

I was trying to find roots of the following cubic polynomial and there are only two roots. I believe there should be three roots. Could you please guide me why there are only two roots?

If you say that the "1" repeats itself as a root then I'd say the same could be said of "0.9". Thank you!
1618828164834.png


Source:
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=find+roots+x³-2.9x²%2B2.8x-0.9
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why do you think the same could be said of the 0.9 root?
 
Try factorizing your cubic: x^3 - 2.9x^2 + 2.8x - 0.9 = (x - 1)(x - 0.9)(x - a). What is a?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PainterGuy
Thank you!

a=1
 
If you look at the graph, at x=1 the graph bounces off the x-axis. This is how you can find double roots visually, if the graph bounces off the axis and doesn't pass through it it's a double root (or a root of multiplicity 4,6,8 etc.The two ways you can prove this to yourself:
One is the sign of the function doesn't change as you pass through a double root but it does as you pass through a single root (you should try to prove this to yourself)

The other more graphical way is that a double root should look a lot like two single roots right next to each other. If you graphed (x-0.9)(x-1.00001)(x-0.99999) you would not visually be able to distinguish those two roots, the graph would go under the x-axis and pop back up over it in a span too small for the naked eye. A double root should look visually the same as that.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: FactChecker and PainterGuy
Office_Shredder said:
If you look at the graph, at x=1 the graph bounces off the x-axis. This is how you can find double roots visually, if the graph bounces off the axis and doesn't pass through it it's a double root (or a root of multiplicity 4,6,8 etc.
I second what Office Shredder has said. Another way to think about this is that near x = 1, the cubic polynomial is acting like a quadratic polynomial; i.e. one whose graph is a parabola.

In factored form, the equation is ##y = (x - .9)(x - 1)^2##. If x is very close to 1, and hence relatively far from .9, the graph of the equation is ##y \approx .1(x - 1)^2##. This graph is a parabola, with vertex at (1, 0) and opening upward. For x values farther away from 1, the x - .9 factor exerts more of an influence.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PainterGuy
If you examined the graph under a microscope, the double root at x=1 looks and behaves like ##c_1(x-1)^2##, so it touches the y=0 axis and goes back up. Under the same microscope, at the root x=0.9, the graph looks like ##c_2(x-0.9)##, so it goes through the y=0 axis like a straight line. The two situations are not the same at all.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PainterGuy

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K