Without solving the equation show it has 2 rational roots

In summary, the conversation discusses a problem where the task is to show that the quadratic equation 3x^2-8x-3=0 has two distinct rational roots without actually solving the equation. Various approaches are suggested, such as using the discriminant or considering the variations of the function, to prove that the roots are indeed rational.
  • #1
Jaco Viljoen
160
9

Homework Statement


Without solving the equation 3x^2-8x-3=0 show it has 2 different rational roots.[/B]

Homework Equations


ax^2+bx+c=0

The Attempt at a Solution



I would appreciate if someone would check my work, and advise if I have done the right or wrong thing? Thank you, Jaco
[/B]
3x^2-8x-3=0
a=3 b=-8 c=-3

a*b=-9+1=-8

3x^2-9x+1x-3=0
3x(x-3)+1(x-3)
3x+1=0
x=1/3

x-3=0
x=3

so x=1/3 and x=3
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Jaco Viljoen said:

Homework Statement


Without solving the equation 3x^2-8x-3=0 show it has 2 different rational roots.[/B]

Homework Equations


ax^2+bx+c=0

The Attempt at a Solution



I would appreciate if someone would check my work, and advise if I have done the right or wrong thing? Thank you, Jaco
[/B]
3x^2-8x-3=0
a=3 b=-8 c=-3

a*b=-9+1=-8

3x^2-9x+1x-3=0
3x(x-3)+1(x-3)
3x+1=0
x=1/3

x-3=0
x=3

so x=1/3 and x=3
Well, you did exactly what the question explicitly told you not to do: solve the equation.

You were not to determine that two different solutions to this equation existed by solving for them, but you were supposed to use the various theorems about the roots of polynomials to determine that a.) both roots were real, and b.) both roots were distinct and rational.

Try a different approach.

I'm also moving this thread to the Pre-calculus HW forum, since no integrals or derivatives are required.
 
  • Like
Likes Jaco Viljoen
  • #3
Good afternoon Steam King,
Thank you for moving the thread, sorry for posting in the wrong place.

I will try again.
Thank you.
Jaco
 
  • #4
As SteamKing said, you solved the equation when the problem specifically said "without solving the equation".

What you can do is note that the discriminant for this equation is "[itex]b^2- 4ac= (-8)^2- 4(3)(-3)= 64+ 36= 100[/itex]. That is a "perfect square", [itex]10^2[/itex]. Do you see why that guarantees the roots of the equation are distinct and rational?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
@Hallsoflvy Thank you.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
Jaco Viljoen said:
@Hallsoflvy I see what you are doing but I don't see what it means for the problem? Sorry if I seem slow its been many years since I did math except the last while trying to get up to speed..
Do you know the quadratic formula ?

If not, do a web search, e.g. google it.
 
  • #7
SammyS said:
Do you know the quadratic formula ?

If not, do a web search, e.g. google it.

b2−4ac
yes, I do.
 
  • #8
Jaco Viljoen said:
b2−4ac
yes, I do.
In that green banner, above where you enter the text for your post, there is an X2 symbol which allows you to enter a superscript.

b2−4ac becomes b2 − 4ac .
 
  • Like
Likes Jaco Viljoen
  • #9
Study the variations of ##f(x) = 3x^2 - 8x - 3 ##, it will solve the part 'without solving the equation, show there are exactly two roots'
 
  • Like
Likes Jaco Viljoen
  • #10
What do you mean by "variations of f"?
 
  • Like
Likes Jaco Viljoen
  • #11
Hello,
There is a domain over which f is strictly increasing, and another one where f is strictly decreasing. When the change of variation occurs, f is strictly negative, which means it crosses the x-axis 2 times exactly.
 
  • Like
Likes Jaco Viljoen
  • #12
Jaco Viljoen said:
b2−4ac
yes, I do.
Strictly speaking that is NOT "the quadratic formula". The quadratic formula, for solutions of the quadratic equation "[itex]ax^2+ bx+ c= 0[/itex]" is "[itex]\frac{-b\pm\sqrt{b^2- 4ac}}{2a}[/itex]". The discriminant of that, which is what I referred to, is [itex]b^2- 4ac[/itex], the quantity inside the square root. If that is positive, then it has two real values, if 0, a single value, if negative, two complex roots.
 
  • Like
Likes Jaco Viljoen
  • #13
Oh, I see- that would involve "completing the square" which I would consider awfully close to "solving the equation! But, yes, that would work.
 
  • #14
showing the rationality of the solution is more complicated if you don't have the right to use the discriminant.
You can show that ##f(\frac{p}{q}) = 0 \Rightarrow 3|pq \text{ and } 8|(p-q)(p+q) ##. By trial and error, you find that ##(p,q)\in\{(-1,3),(3,1)\}## satisfy that condition, and they solve your equation while being distinct. So your two roots are rational.
 
  • Like
Likes Jaco Viljoen
  • #15
Thank you every one.
 
  • #16
geoffrey159 said:
showing the rationality of the solution is more complicated if you don't have the right to use the discriminant.
You can show that ##f(\frac{p}{q}) = 0 \Rightarrow 3|pq \text{ and } 8|(p-q)(p+q) ##. By trial and error, you find that ##(p,q)\in\{(-1,3),(3,1)\}## satisfy that condition, and they solve your equation while being distinct. So your two roots are rational.
I'm not sure that the OP will understand your explanation. The problem can be done solely by the use of the discriminant of the quadratic formula. If the discriminant turns out to be a perfect square or the square of a rational number, that is almost enough to say that the two roots are rational.
 
  • Like
Likes Jaco Viljoen
  • #17
Mark44 said:
I'm not sure that the OP will understand your explanation. The problem can be done solely by the use of the discriminant of the quadratic formula. If the discriminant turns out to be a perfect square or the square of a rational number, that is almost enough to say that the two roots are rational.

Hello,
I agree that the discriminant proof is the best one, but I understood "how would you prove that without any knowledge about second degree equations ?"
What is an OP ?
 
  • Like
Likes Jaco Viljoen
  • #18
geoffrey159 said:
Hello,
I agree that the discriminant proof is the best one, but I understood "how would you prove that without any knowledge about second degree equations ?"
What is an OP ?
Original Post or Original Poster .
 
  • #19
geoffrey159 said:
Hello,
I agree that the discriminant proof is the best one, but I understood "how would you prove that without any knowledge about second degree equations ?"
What is an OP ?
The problem statement didn't say anything about having no knowledge of 2nd degree equations. My read of what Jaco wrote (quoted below) was that there is an implicit assumption that the poster knows how to solve quadratic equations (either by the use of the Quadratic Formula or factorization), but is supposed to answer the question without using these techniques.
Jaco Viljoen said:
Without solving the equation 3x^2-8x-3=0 show it has 2 different rational roots.
 
  • Like
Likes Jaco Viljoen
  • #20
We have [itex]x^2 - \frac83 x - 1 = 0[/itex]. That the constant term is -1 tells us that the product of the roots is -1. These consequences follow:

Firstly, the roots are not complex conjugates (the product of complex conjugates is real and nonnegative) so the roots are real.

Secondly, the roots must be distinct (if [itex]x^2 = -1[/itex] then [itex]x[/itex] is not real).

Thirdly, neither root is zero and either both roots are rational or both are irrational ([itex]x \neq 0[/itex] is rational if and only if [itex]-1/x[/itex] is rational).

Setting [itex]y = \frac x3[/itex] yields [itex]9y^2 - 8y - 1 = 0[/itex] to which [itex]y = 1[/itex] is a solution by inspection. Thus 3 is a root of the original quadratic and is rational, and hence so is the other.

I don't know if there's a way to rule out the possibility of irrational roots without finding one of the roots (or calculating the discriminant, which comes very close to actually solving the equation).
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK
  • #21
We have [itex]x^2 - \frac83 x - 1 = 0[/itex]. That the constant term is -1 tells us that the product of the roots is -1. These consequences follow:

Firstly, the roots are not complex conjugates (the product of complex conjugates is real and nonnegative) so the roots are real.

Secondly, the roots must be distinct (if [itex]x^2 = -1[/itex] then [itex]x[/itex] is not real).

Thirdly, neither root is zero and either both roots are rational or both are irrational ([itex]x \neq 0[/itex] is rational if and only if [itex]-1/x[/itex] is rational).

Setting [itex]y = \frac x3[/itex] yields [itex]9y^2 - 8y - 1 = 0[/itex] to which [itex]y = 1[/itex] is a solution by inspection. Thus 3 is a root of the original quadratic and is rational, and hence so is the other.

I don't know if there's a way to rule out the possibility of irrational roots without finding one of the roots (or calculating the discriminant, which comes very close to actually solving the equation).
 
  • Like
Likes geoffrey159
  • #22
"I don't know if there's a way to rule out the possibility of irrational roots without finding one of the roots"

All of the coefficients are integers. What can you conclude about the roots if [itex] b^2 - 4ac [/itex] is zero or a perfect square?
 
  • #23
You can prove the solutions are rational just with arithmetics## f(\frac{p}{q}) = 0 \iff p(3p-8q) = 3q^2 ##
## \text{gcd}(p,q) = 1 \iff \text{gcd}(p,q^2) = 1 ##
##\text{gcd}(p,q^2) = 1 \text{ and } p | 3 q^2 \Rightarrow p | 3 \Rightarrow p\in\{\pm 1, \pm 3\} ##.

Case p = 1:

## \text{gcd}(p,3) = 1 \Rightarrow 3 | (3p - 8q) \Rightarrow 3 | 8q \Rightarrow 3 |q ##
Also ## q (3q + 8 ) = 3 \Rightarrow q | 3 ##
##3 | q ## and ## q | 3 ## implies ## q = \pm 3 ##. But ## 3q + 8 | 3 ## so ## q = -3 ##

Case p = -1: same idea

Case p = 3:
## 9 = q (q+8) \Rightarrow q | 9 \Rightarrow q \in \{ \pm 1,\pm 3,\pm 9\} ##. Since ## q + 8 | 9 ##, then ## q = 1 ## or ## q = - 9 ##. But p and q are relatively prime so ## q = 1 ##

Case p = -3: same idea

(3,1) and (1,-3) are distinct solutions, there are 2 real solutions, so they are rational
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Jaco Viljoen

Related to Without solving the equation show it has 2 rational roots

1. How do you know if an equation has two rational roots?

An equation has two rational roots if it can be factored into two distinct linear factors, where the coefficients of the terms are all rational numbers.

2. Can an equation have more than two rational roots?

Yes, an equation can have more than two rational roots. For example, the equation x^2 - 4x + 4 = 0 has three rational roots, x = 2, x = 2, and x = 2.

3. What is the difference between rational and irrational roots?

Rational roots are numbers that can be expressed as a ratio of two integers, while irrational roots cannot be expressed as a ratio of two integers. Irrational roots are often expressed as decimal numbers that do not terminate or repeat.

4. How can you determine if an equation has rational roots without solving it?

An equation has rational roots if the discriminant, b^2 - 4ac, is a perfect square. If the discriminant is not a perfect square, then the equation has irrational roots.

5. Why is it important to know the number of rational roots an equation has?

Knowing the number of rational roots can help determine the complexity of solving the equation and can also provide insight into the behavior of the equation's graph. Additionally, it can help determine the number of solutions to real-world problems modeled by the equation.

Similar threads

  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
727
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
12
Views
936
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
887
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
960
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
750
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
12
Views
3K
Back
Top