I stumbled upon simply looking but no to simple solvable system of equations {y2+1=(4−x)2x=(4−x)/yI get to the point x4−8x3+14x2+8x−16=0x2(x2−8x+14)+8x−16=0But from this point I have no idea how to proceed to obtain all possible solutions.
Thanks for help!
I stumbled upon simply looking but no to simple solvable system of equations {y2+1=(4−x)2x=(4−x)/yI get to the point x4−8x3+14x2+8x−16=0x2(x2−8x+14)+8x−16=0But from this point I have no idea how to proceed to obtain all possible solutions.
Thanks for help!
I stumbled upon simply looking but no to simple solvable system of equations {y2+1=(4−x)2x=(4−x)/yI get to the point x4−8x3+14x2+8x−16=0x2(x2−8x+14)+8x−16=0But from this point I have no idea how to proceed to obtain all possible solutions.
Thanks for help!
Interestingly, when I follow SK's good suggestion, I get the same quartic equation! That implies symmetry about x = 2. So the next thing to try is the substitution z = 2 - x; this produces a quartic that can be easily solved.
heh, the origin is nothing special - I just wrote two equations describing simple geometric relationship between two similar triangles to find unknown side.
Now do another substitution, if you need to: let v=u2. Then expand and refactor. (The form you have it in isn't helpful.)
I'll tell you a secret: I didn't immediately see the symmetry. I just got the same quartic equation, figured I'd done something wrong, and moved on to something else. Then later I tried graphing the equations and saw visually that the quartic looked symmetrical, and only then realized that fact had been visible in the equation. You see, the substitution u = 4 - x is a reflection about the line x = 2, because it moves x=0 to x=4 and vice versa. So if it produces an identical equation, then the graph is symmetrical.
The reason for doing the new substitution is to turn the equation into an even function, with only even powers of the variable. Then we know it can be factored in powers of the square, i.e. v=u2.
heh, the origin is nothing special - I just wrote two equations describing simple geometric relationship between two similar triangles to find unknown side.
I'd like to see the original geometric problem; it probably has some features as interesting as the equations, and perhaps could be solved more easily by a different method.
I did like this z=2−xy2+1=(2+z)2y=2−z2+z which leads me to u2(u2−10)+8=0 which again I have trouble to solve.
heh, the origin is nothing special - I just wrote two equations describing simple geometric relationship between two similar triangles to find unknown side.
What tool do you use to obtain the graphical representation of an equation?
The reason for doing the new substitution is to turn the equation into an even function, with only even powers of the variable. Then we know it can be factored in powers of the square, i.e. v=u2v=u2.
Hmm I am not sure if got it. Yes I was able to solve the equation using your suggestion of substitution y=2−xy2+1=(2+u)2 but can you elaborate how did you came up with the idea of substitution u=2−x?
I'd like to see the original geometric problem; it probably has some features as interesting as the equations, and perhaps could be solved more easily by a different method.
l = 4, c = 1, y = ? (yes the figure inside is a square of side c)
So my solution relies on Pythagoras formula + simple relation between sides of two similar triangles. Would you solve it differently?
Now that I think about it, it would have made more sense to suggest shifting the graph left 2 units by replacing x with u+2 so that u = x-2 rather than 2-x, which involves a reflection along with the shift; but either substitution results in this:
Green is the original quartic, which is symmetrical about x=2, and red is the new one, which is symmetrical about the y-axis. I think I let my thinking be affected by the suggestion of 4-x.
l = 4, c = 1, y = ? (yes the figure inside is a square of side c)
So my solution relies on Pythagoras formula + simple relation between sides of two similar triangles. Would you solve it differently?
I would do something similar. My first thought, using just the variable y you show, is to write the proportion 4y+1=y2+11, which leads directly to the quartic (y+1)2(y2+1)=16y2; that doesn't turn out to be symmetrical.
Looking at your equations, it appears that you took x to be the lower part of the hypotenuse l; if I used just that x, I'd have 14−x=x2−1x, which leads directly to the quartic (4−x)2(x2−1)=x2, which is yours.
So I'm just skipping the two-variable step. The symmetry of the problem makes it clear that there will be at least two solutions, because putting x for the upper part of the hypotenuse leads to the same equation. This also suggests (though I don't promise I'd notice it) that the solutions would be symmetrical about x=2. (That's not true of y.)
I know problems that look very similar that result in quadric equations, so I don't expect that there is a nice way to avoid that.
Thanks for desmos recomendation - nice tool. Funny we can read out the solution right from the graph. Only one out of 5 solutions makes sense in regards to the problem these equations describe
Thanks for desmos recomendation - nice tool. Funny we can read out the solution right from the graph. Only one out of 5 solutions makes sense in regards to the problem these equations describe
What five solutions do you see? There are only four! And of those, two are in the first quadrant, and correspond to two solutions that are related in an obvious way:
Also, of course, Desmos can't give exact answers; for that, I used Wolfram Alpha (in addition to solving the way we've discussed).
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.