Talk:Quadratic equation/Advanced: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Barry R. Smith No edit summary |
imported>Barry R. Smith No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
: I'm not sure what your objection is -- is it "fortunate", "simple", "closed formula", or the whole bit? If "closed formula" isn't the relative point, what is? When you say "it seems to be much the same as solving a cubic equation", what is "it"?[[User:Barry R. Smith|Barry R. Smith]] 18:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC) | : I'm not sure what your objection is -- is it "fortunate", "simple", "closed formula", or the whole bit? If "closed formula" isn't the relative point, what is? When you say "it seems to be much the same as solving a cubic equation", what is "it"?[[User:Barry R. Smith|Barry R. Smith]] 18:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
:: "It" is taking the cube root of a complex number. You can solve the general quadratic with real coefficients by "simple" arithmetic operations, including taking square roots of real numbers. There is no such solution for the general cubic with real coefficients. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 18:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
::: I see what your main concern is. It seems to me that my addition of the word "simple" might suggest that no complicated operations are necessary, but perhaps you want this made more explicit than with a one word adjective? It's fine with me if you want to expand this point.[[User:Barry R. Smith|Barry R. Smith]] 18:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
== Snap == | |||
Funnily enough I was also working on an Advanced pageat the same time! I hope the join isn't too obvious. [[User:Richard Pinch|Richard Pinch]] 18:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 12:40, 4 December 2008
"Fortunately, there exists a simple closed formula ..." Well, yes, but there exists a complicated closed formula for cubic equations, but that's not all that fortunate as in the general case it requires finding the cube root of a complex number, which is not a straightforward operation like the square root. In fact it seems to be much the same as solving a cubic equation. I think the closed form isn't the relevant point. Peter Jackson 18:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- The words "there exists a closed formula" already were there, and I added the words "Fortunately" and "simple". I put the word fortunate, because once it was known that 5th and higher degree equations were not generally solvable by radicals, it does seem lucky that the most common cases can be solved such, and in fact there is one formula that works for all equations. I put simple because it is much simpler than the cubic (although not much simpler than the reduced cubic) formula, and much much much much simpler than the quartic formula.
- I'm not sure what your objection is -- is it "fortunate", "simple", "closed formula", or the whole bit? If "closed formula" isn't the relative point, what is? When you say "it seems to be much the same as solving a cubic equation", what is "it"?Barry R. Smith 18:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- "It" is taking the cube root of a complex number. You can solve the general quadratic with real coefficients by "simple" arithmetic operations, including taking square roots of real numbers. There is no such solution for the general cubic with real coefficients. Peter Jackson 18:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I see what your main concern is. It seems to me that my addition of the word "simple" might suggest that no complicated operations are necessary, but perhaps you want this made more explicit than with a one word adjective? It's fine with me if you want to expand this point.Barry R. Smith 18:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Snap
Funnily enough I was also working on an Advanced pageat the same time! I hope the join isn't too obvious. Richard Pinch 18:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)