How to prove this without using Cardano's formula?

In summary, the article discusses alternative methods to prove the roots of a cubic equation without relying on Cardano's formula. It emphasizes the use of algebraic techniques and geometric interpretations to derive solutions. The approach includes manipulating the equation to simplify it, exploring relationships between its coefficients, and applying substitution methods to express the roots in a more manageable form. This method aims to provide a deeper understanding of the cubic equation's properties while avoiding the complexities associated with Cardano's formula.
  • #1
Math100
797
221
Homework Statement
Prove without using Cardano's formula that ## \sqrt[3]{18+\sqrt{325}}+\sqrt[3]{18-\sqrt{325}}=3 ##.
Relevant Equations
None.
Proof:

Let ## x=\sqrt[3]{18+\sqrt{325}}+\sqrt[3]{18-\sqrt{325}} ##.
Then ## x^3=(\sqrt[3]{18+\sqrt{325}}+\sqrt[3]{18-\sqrt{325}})^3 ##.
Note that ## (a+b)^3=a^3+3ab(a+b)+b^3 ## where ## a=\sqrt[3]{18+\sqrt{325}} ## and ## b=\sqrt[3]{18-\sqrt{325}} ##.
This gives ## x^3=(\sqrt[3]{18+\sqrt{325}})^3+3\sqrt[3]{(18+\sqrt{325})(18-\sqrt{325})}\cdot (\sqrt[3]{18+\sqrt{325}}+\sqrt[3]{18-\sqrt{325}})+(\sqrt[3]{18-\sqrt{325}})^3\implies x^3=18+\sqrt{325}+3\sqrt[3]{(18+\sqrt{325})(18-\sqrt{325})}\cdot x+18-\sqrt{325}\implies ##.
Now we have ## x^3=36+3\sqrt[3]{(18+\sqrt{325})(18-\sqrt{325})}\cdot x\implies x^3=36+3\sqrt[3]{-1}\cdot x\implies x^3=36-3x ##,
so ## x^3+3x=36 ##.

From here, it's clear and obvious that ## x=3 ## is a solution since ## 3^3+3(3)=36 ## by direct substitution. But how to solve this cubic equation ## x^3+3x=36 ## so that I can get ## x=3 ## to finish this proof?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I'm not a mathematician, but I think you have finished it. If the original problem statement includes specific numbers, I don't see why you can't use those in your proof.

There are procedures to find the roots of cubic equations (ask google), but it's a lot more work than substituting a good guess into the equation.
 
  • Like
Likes Gavran
  • #3
$$
x^3+3x=x(x^2+3)=2^2\cdot 3^2=36
$$
We can rule out that ##x\in \{-1,+1\},## and that one or both factors are negative because of the square. So ##x\geq 2.## But ##x\geq 4## is also impossible since ##4^3=64>36.## That leaves ##x=2,3## as the only possible integer solutions and ##3^3+3\cdot 3=36.##

To solve ##x^3+3x=35## you would probably have to use Cardano or https://www.wolframalpha.com/ or use complex numbers, but that wasn't asked for.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Math100 and DaveE
  • #4
fresh_42 said:
$$
x^3+3x=x(x^2+3)=2^2\cdot 3^2=36
$$
We can rule out that ##x\in \{-1,+1\},## and that one or both factors are negative because of the square. So ##x\geq 2.## But ##x\geq 4## is also impossible since ##4^3=64>36.## That leaves ##x=2,3## as the only possible integer solutions and ##3^3+3\cdot 3=36.##

To solve ##x^3+3x=35## you would probably have to use Cardano or https://www.wolframalpha.com/ or use complex numbers, but that wasn't asked for.
But how does ## x^3+3x=x(x^2+3)=2^2\cdot 3^2=36 ##? Especially where ## x(x^2+3)=2^2\cdot 3^2 ##? Also for cubic equations of the form like ## x^3+ax=b ##, we always tend to use the Cardano's formula? There's no other formula?
 
  • #5
Math100 said:
But how does ## x^3+3x=x(x^2+3)=2^2\cdot 3^2=36 ##? Especially where ## x(x^2+3)=2^2\cdot 3^2 ##? Also for cubic equations of the form like ## x^3+ax=b ##, we always tend to use the Cardano's formula? There's no other formula?
Assuming we are looking for an integer solution.

I first thought that the prime factors would lead to a good answer. A prime number ##p## is a number that isn't invertible, i.e. that isn't ##\pm 1## in the case of integers, and for which holds that ##p\,|\,a\cdot b## implies ##p\,|\,a ## or ##p\,|\,b.##

My idea was: ##36=x^3+3x=x\cdot(x^2+3)## means that ##3\,|\,x\cdot(x^2+3)## and so that ##3\,|\,x## or ##3\,|\,(x^2+3).## If ## 3\,|\,x, ## i.e. ##x=3k## then ##x^2+3=9k^2+3 \,|\,36 ## only if ##k=1## meaning ##x=3.## Since ##x=3## is a solution we are done.

Of course, there are always two additional complex solutions:
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=x^3+3x=36

These considerations used properties of the integer numbers. So if there was only a non-integer real solution, things would have been different.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Math100
  • #6
Here is another idea:
$$
x^3+3x=36
$$
We can find or guess the solution ##x=3.## If ##x^3+3x=36## has an integer solution, then it has to be a divisor of ##36.## ##x\geq 4## are too big, ##x\leq 2## are too small. So ##x=3## is the only remaining. Now,
$$
(x^3+3x-36)\, : \,(x-3)\, = \,x^2 +3x +12
$$
We get the remaining roots by ##0=x^2 +3x +12 \Longrightarrow x\in \left\{-\dfrac{3}{2}+\dfrac{\sqrt{-39}}{2}\, , \,-\dfrac{3}{2}-\dfrac{\sqrt{-39}}{2}\right\}.##
 
  • Like
Likes DaveE and Math100
  • #7
Math100 said:
Homework Statement: Prove without using Cardano's formula that ## \sqrt[3]{18+\sqrt{325}}+\sqrt[3]{18-\sqrt{325}}=3 ##.
Relevant Equations: None.

Proof:

Let ## x=\sqrt[3]{18+\sqrt{325}}+\sqrt[3]{18-\sqrt{325}} ##.

[...]

so ## x^3+3x=36 ##.

From here, it's clear and obvious that ## x=3 ## is a solution since ## 3^3+3(3)=36 ## by direct substitution. But how to solve this cubic equation ## x^3+3x=36 ## so that I can get ## x=3 ## to finish this proof?

You have shown that [itex]x = 3[/itex] is a real solution. All that remains is to show that is it the only real solution. To that end, you can write [tex]x^3 + 3x - 36 = (x- 3)\left((x - a)^2 + b\right).[/tex] Expanding the right hand side and comparing coefficients of powers of [itex]x[/itex] will give you [itex]a[/itex] and [itex]b[/itex].

Alternatively, it should be fairly obvious that the derivative of [itex]f(x) = x^3 + 3x - 36[/itex] is strictly positive; hence [itex]f[/itex] has at most one real root. If you don't want to use calculus, you can still show that it is strictly increasing by factorizing [tex]
\begin{split}
f(x) - f(y) &= x^3 + 3x - y^3 - 3y \\
&= (x - y)(x^2 + xy + y^2 + 3)\end{split}[/tex] and showing that the second factor is strictly positive, which reduces to the first method on setting [itex]y = 3[/itex].
 
Last edited:
  • #8
I am assuming since this is posted in precal section, it safe to assume we are working with a field., ie., R?

If so, once op arrives at the polynomial. If we plug in 3 into the polynomial we get a zero.

Therefor x-3 is a linear factor.

Then we use divide the polynomial by the linear factor, and find out what the quadratic is [post 6 by fresh].

If we are assuming a field, then we can use Eisenstein's Criterion with p=3. Then it would follow that the quadratic is irreducible which implies that the quadratic has no linear factors.

Therefore x = 3 is the only real root.

I may be wrong [its been a while since I did ring theory], and naturally, I would proceed with the Calculus approach as mentioned above.
 
  • #9
MidgetDwarf said:
I am assuming since this is posted in precal section, it safe to assume we are working with a field., ie., R?
I learned about complex numbers and polynomial roots a few years before I knew any calculus. I don't even really see much connection between the two subjects.
 

FAQ: How to prove this without using Cardano's formula?

What is Cardano's formula?

Cardano's formula is a mathematical solution for finding the roots of cubic equations. It provides a way to express the roots in terms of the coefficients of the polynomial, allowing for exact solutions without numerical methods.

Why would someone want to prove a cubic equation's roots without using Cardano's formula?

Some may prefer alternative methods to gain a deeper understanding of the properties of cubic equations, explore different mathematical techniques, or avoid the complexity of Cardano's formula. Additionally, certain methods may be more intuitive or applicable in specific contexts.

What are some alternative methods to solve cubic equations?

Alternative methods include factoring the cubic equation (if possible), using synthetic division, applying the Rational Root Theorem, or employing numerical methods like Newton's method for approximating roots. Graphical methods can also provide insights into the roots of the equation.

Can numerical methods be used to find roots without Cardano's formula?

Yes, numerical methods such as the bisection method, Newton's method, or the secant method can be employed to approximate the roots of cubic equations. These methods are particularly useful when an exact solution is not necessary or when the equation is difficult to factor.

What is the significance of understanding cubic equations without relying on specific formulas?

Understanding cubic equations through various methods enhances mathematical flexibility and problem-solving skills. It allows students and researchers to appreciate the underlying concepts, explore the geometry of curves, and apply different strategies to tackle complex equations in various fields of science and engineering.

Back
Top