For the discussion of math. Duh.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

Lyon
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 9:05 pm UTC

Ok...so last sunday I was really bored, and for absolutely no reason in particular I started to play around with the quadratic formula. I ended up coming up with 3 different equations...for a, for b, and c. Unfortunately, the equations every other variable; for example to find a, you need b, c, and x. Even worse, to find c, you need a, b, x, AND c...so if you have c, you can find it! I tested them out with some standard quadratic equations...so here you go. If anybody can find a practical use for this, please share it with me, because I NEED to find some way to justify it to myself!

A = ( ( (bx+2c)/-x)^2 - c^2)/-4c

C = square root of ((-2(bx+c)+bx)/x)^2+4ac (the whole thing is under the square root...I don't know a symbol for square root unfortunately

B = square root of (the whole thing is under the square root again) (2a^2x^2+2abx+2ac+b)^2 + 4ac

Dopefish
Posts: 854
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:46 am UTC
Location: The Well of Wishes

I take it you just rearranged the quadratic formula? I haven't looked too closely, but hopefully you dealt with the plus or minuis bits appropriately (although you probably squared that part so it'd be ok).

Anyhow... a, b, and c are typically known, so formulas for them strike me as unlikely to be useful. Espcially in the case of b and c, where you didn't actually isolate them.

skullturf
Posts: 556
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:37 pm UTC
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Wouldn't the formula for c be

c = - ax^2 - bx

?

mdyrud
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:34 pm UTC

Even though the result is a unwieldy and probably not terribly useful, good job. One of the best ways to get better at math is exposing yourself to it, and it sounds like this is a really good way to give some great practice with rearranging equations. So don't worry about justifying yourself. Embrace your inner geek. After you've gotten bored of doing that, move on to proofs. The Fibonacci Sequence has an even number every third term? Not exactly a useful fact to know, but it's something to prove, and it gives you practice that will be useful in other, more practical problems.

Mike_Bson
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:00 pm UTC

mdyrud wrote:Even though the result is a unwieldy and probably not terribly useful, good job. One of the best ways to get better at math is exposing yourself to it, and it sounds like this is a really good way to give some great practice with rearranging equations. So don't worry about justifying yourself. Embrace your inner geek. After you've gotten bored of doing that, move on to proofs. The Fibonacci Sequence has an even number every third term? Not exactly a useful fact to know, but it's something to prove, and it gives you practice that will be useful in other, more practical problems.

This. I always find myself messing with fun stuff like this.

thicknavyrain
ThinkGravyTrain
Posts: 913
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 12:41 pm UTC
Location: The Universe

mdyrud wrote:The Fibonacci Sequence has an even number every third term?

Sonofa...
RoadieRich wrote:Thicknavyrain is appointed Nex Artifex, Author of Death of the second FaiD Assassins' Guild.

undecim
Posts: 289
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 7:09 pm UTC
Contact:

If you start with ax^2 + bx + c = 0, it's pretty simple.

a = -(bx + c)/x^2
b = -(ax^2+c)/x
c = -(ax^2 + c)

Though I suppose starting with the quadratic formula is more fun.
Blue, blue, blue

Mike_Bson
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:00 pm UTC

thicknavyrain wrote:
mdyrud wrote:The Fibonacci Sequence has an even number every third term?

Sonofa...

Also, if a Fibonacci number is the nth number, n is prime. For example, 89 is prime, and the 11th Fibonacci number.

thicknavyrain
ThinkGravyTrain
Posts: 913
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 12:41 pm UTC
Location: The Universe

Mike_Bson wrote:
thicknavyrain wrote:
mdyrud wrote:The Fibonacci Sequence has an even number every third term?

Sonofa...

Also, if a Fibonacci number is the nth number, n is prime. For example, 89 is prime, and the 11th Fibonacci number.

I don't quite get this one. The nth number of what sequence?
RoadieRich wrote:Thicknavyrain is appointed Nex Artifex, Author of Death of the second FaiD Assassins' Guild.

Mike_Bson
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:00 pm UTC

thicknavyrain wrote:
Mike_Bson wrote:
thicknavyrain wrote:
mdyrud wrote:The Fibonacci Sequence has an even number every third term?

Sonofa...

Also, if a Fibonacci number is the nth number, n is prime. For example, 89 is prime, and the 11th Fibonacci number.

I don't quite get this one. The nth number of what sequence?

Sorry, I meant to say:

Also, if a Fibonacci prime is the nth Fibonacci number, n is prime. For example, 89 is prime, and the 11th Fibonacci number.

skullturf
Posts: 556
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:37 pm UTC
Location: Chicago
Contact:

mdyrud wrote:Even though the result is a unwieldy and probably not terribly useful, good job. One of the best ways to get better at math is exposing yourself to it, and it sounds like this is a really good way to give some great practice with rearranging equations. So don't worry about justifying yourself. Embrace your inner geek. After you've gotten bored of doing that, move on to proofs. The Fibonacci Sequence has an even number every third term? Not exactly a useful fact to know, but it's something to prove, and it gives you practice that will be useful in other, more practical problems.

I agree with this advice, and I apologize if my earlier remark seemed a little snotty. It's true that one of the best ways to get good at mathematics is simply to play around with stuff, and not to worry too much about whether what you come up with is already known or can be done more efficiently.

Lyon
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 9:05 pm UTC

Dopefish wrote:I take it you just rearranged the quadratic formula?

Sort of. I knew that the quadratic formula is equal to x, so I took ax^2+bx+c=0, solved for x, and then substituted for x, and then I solved for each of the variables.

Nitrodon
Posts: 497
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 5:11 pm UTC

Mike_Bson wrote:Also, if a Fibonacci prime is the nth Fibonacci number, n is prime. For example, 89 is prime, and the 11th Fibonacci number.

There is exactly one number for which this statement does not hold.

Talith
Proved the Goldbach Conjecture
Posts: 848
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 1:28 am UTC
Location: Manchester - UK

Lyon wrote:
Dopefish wrote:I take it you just rearranged the quadratic formula?

Sort of. I knew that the quadratic formula is equal to x, so I took ax^2+bx+c=0, solved for x, and then substituted for x, and then I solved for each of the variables.

You realise that solving for x means finding the quadratic formula yes? Just so we're clear, what definition are you using for 'solve for x'?

mr-mitch
Posts: 477
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 6:56 pm UTC

Nitrodon wrote:
Mike_Bson wrote:Also, if a Fibonacci prime is the nth Fibonacci number, n is prime. For example, 89 is prime, and the 11th Fibonacci number.

There is exactly one number for which this statement does not hold.

n != 4

Mike_Bson
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:00 pm UTC

Nitrodon wrote:
Mike_Bson wrote:Also, if a Fibonacci prime is the nth Fibonacci number, n is prime. For example, 89 is prime, and the 11th Fibonacci number.

There is exactly one number for which this statement does not hold.

Ah yes, F(4) = 3.

Lyon
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 9:05 pm UTC

Talith wrote:
Lyon wrote:
Dopefish wrote:I take it you just rearranged the quadratic formula?

Sort of. I knew that the quadratic formula is equal to x, so I took ax^2+bx+c=0, solved for x, and then substituted for x, and then I solved for each of the variables.

You realise that solving for x means finding the quadratic formula yes? Just so we're clear, what definition are you using for 'solve for x'?

I mean that I took the equation ax^2+bx+c=0, I solved it for x, and set it equal to the quadratic formula, so it looked like this.

Then I just started playing around with it

Dopefish
Posts: 854
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:46 am UTC
Location: The Well of Wishes

Typically "solving for x" means isolating x, which is why many of us are/were perhaps a little confused when the quadratic formula didn't fall out when you solved for x. Perhaps as an excersise (if you haven't already) you should try to derive the quadratic formula from the the original ax^2+bx+c=0?

Also it may be worth pointing out that, your method of derivation has issues in the event that one of the roots happens to occur when x=0, not to mention theres a number of conditions you've imposed on the various constants that need not be true (for example that c=/=0, which isn't always true of a quadratic).

thicknavyrain
ThinkGravyTrain
Posts: 913
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 12:41 pm UTC
Location: The Universe

Dopefish wrote:Typically "solving for x" means isolating x, which is why many of us are/were perhaps a little confused when the quadratic formula didn't fall out when you solved for x. Perhaps as an excersise (if you haven't already) you should try to derive the quadratic formula from the the original ax^2+bx+c=0?

Also it may be worth pointing out that, your method of derivation has issues in the event that one of the roots happens to occur when x=0, not to mention theres a number of conditions you've imposed on the various constants that need not be true (for example that c=/=0, which isn't always true of a quadratic).

just to give a little hint in the derivation, complete the square
RoadieRich wrote:Thicknavyrain is appointed Nex Artifex, Author of Death of the second FaiD Assassins' Guild.

xepher
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 1:42 am UTC

Something interesting I found when I was messing with it as well. With some really simple manipulation, you get
2ax+b=sqrt(b^2-4ac)
And what's more is that 2ax+b is the derivative of ax^2+bx+c.

gorcee
Posts: 1501
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 3:14 am UTC

As an aside, some people may not know that there is an alternate form of the quadratic equation:

$x = \frac{2c}{-b \mp \sqrt{b^2-4ac}}$

In numerical applications, sometimes the standard quadratic equation will have cancellation in the computation of one of the roots caused by underflow in the calculation of [imath]b^2[/imath] or [imath]4ac[/imath], so using this formula will avoid that issue (of course, accuracy is almost always taken on credit; using the alternate formula will usually calculate the OTHER root correctly, but not the first. You must always pay the piper).

Ended
Posts: 1459
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:27 pm UTC
Location: The Tower of Flints. (Also known as: England.)

xepher wrote:Something interesting I found when I was messing with it as well. With some really simple manipulation, you get
2ax+b=sqrt(b^2-4ac)
And what's more is that 2ax+b is the derivative of ax^2+bx+c.

This is an example of one of the properties of the discriminant. If a polynomial p(x) has a discriminant which is zero, then p has a multiple root, say at x0, and so the derivative p'(x0) is also zero. Quadratics only have two roots, so in this case the derivative at a root being zero is equivalent to the discriminant being zero.
Generally I try to make myself do things I instinctively avoid, in case they are awesome.
-dubsola

thicknavyrain
ThinkGravyTrain
Posts: 913
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 12:41 pm UTC
Location: The Universe

In a mock university interview, I was asked some kind of question on the complex root of any quadratic in terms of the formula and there was something very interesting about it because one of the coefficients entirely disappeared but for the life of me I can't remember it now.
RoadieRich wrote:Thicknavyrain is appointed Nex Artifex, Author of Death of the second FaiD Assassins' Guild.

Talith
Proved the Goldbach Conjecture
Posts: 848
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 1:28 am UTC
Location: Manchester - UK

thicknavyrain wrote:In a mock university interview, I was asked some kind of question on the complex root of any quadratic in terms of the formula and there was something very interesting about it because one of the coefficients entirely disappeared but for the life of me I can't remember it now.

Do you mean that if a+bi is a root of a quadratic then so is a-bi? Put another way, if z is a complex number and solves the equation ax^2 + bx + c, then so does z*. It follows that the sum of the roots of any quadratic is always real (and the product).

thicknavyrain
ThinkGravyTrain
Posts: 913
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 12:41 pm UTC
Location: The Universe

Talith wrote:
thicknavyrain wrote:In a mock university interview, I was asked some kind of question on the complex root of any quadratic in terms of the formula and there was something very interesting about it because one of the coefficients entirely disappeared but for the life of me I can't remember it now.

Do you mean that if a+bi is a root of a quadratic then so is a-bi? Put another way, if z is a complex number and solves the equation ax^2 + bx + c, then so does z*. It follows that the sum of the roots of any quadratic is always real (and the product).

No, I know about imaginary roots of a quadratic always coming in complex conjugate pairs, this was showing how the coefficients (such as the a, b and c in ax^2+bx+c=0) affect what the imaginary root will be and it turned out that either the c or the b didn't matter.
RoadieRich wrote:Thicknavyrain is appointed Nex Artifex, Author of Death of the second FaiD Assassins' Guild.

Lothar
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 11:37 am UTC
Location: Berlin, Germany
Contact:

thicknavyrain wrote:No, I know about imaginary roots of a quadratic always coming in complex conjugate pairs, this was showing how the coefficients (such as the a, b and c in ax^2+bx+c=0) affect what the imaginary root will be and it turned out that either the c or the b didn't matter.

It's pretty clear from the quadratic formula that if the roots of a quadratic with real coefficents are not real, then the real part of the roots is -b/2a, and hence is independent of c. The imaginary part is dependent on all three coefficients, however.
Always program as if the person who will be maintaining your program is a violent psychopath that knows where you live.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

1+1=3 for large values of 1.