How to solve this quadratic equation? Is it "all real numbers" or "no solution"? Reddit r/maths

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 2 окт 2024
  • What is the answer to the quadratic equation 5-x^2=1-(x+2)(x-2)? This is not a usual quadratic equation because you will notice the terms will cancel out. Be sure we draw the correct conclusion. Subscribe to ‪@bprpmathbasics‬ for more algebra tutorials.
    Original post on Reddit r/maths: / tlaybcf6bj
    Shop my math t-shirts & hoodies on Amazon: 👉 amzn.to/3qBeuw6
    -----------------------------
    I help students master the basics of math. You can show your support and help me create even better content by becoming a patron on Patreon 👉 / blackpenredpen . Every bit of support means the world to me and motivates me to keep bringing you the best math lessons out there! Thank you!
    -----------------------------
    #math #algebra #mathbasics

Комментарии • 91

  • @tobybartels8426
    @tobybartels8426 4 месяца назад +94

    If you're sure that it's either always true or never true, then you can just try one number and see if it's true.

  • @edwardpacman7082
    @edwardpacman7082 4 месяца назад +136

    The first case: "No matter what x is, the equation is always true."
    The second case: "No matter what x is, the equation is never true."

    • @WilliamBeason
      @WilliamBeason 4 месяца назад +1

      The only way I can imagine the equation being false is if you're dealing with a non-distributive algebra. In which case, like, why, but also, like, why didn't you know this before starting the problem.

  • @rdspam
    @rdspam 4 месяца назад +40

    If the answer has to be one of the two, just set x=0, see that 5=5, then it can’t be “no solution”

  • @HD-fy2wu
    @HD-fy2wu 4 месяца назад +14

    When you have f(x)=f(x), it's true for all x, be it real number or complex number. As long as f is a well defined function, it should only have a unique output. Let f(x) = 5-x², then when you reach 5-x² = 5-x², you can already conclude all solutions for x.

    • @xwtek3505
      @xwtek3505 4 месяца назад +3

      You also have to make sure that all the previous steps are reverse implication, though. (i.e. if you have f(x) =g(x) -> h(x) =h(x), it's not true that f(x) =g(x) for all x)

  • @hafizusamabhutta
    @hafizusamabhutta 4 месяца назад +153

    Can't it be true for complex numbers also?

    • @taito404
      @taito404 4 месяца назад +21

      I'm just gonna reply here to get a notification for someone who has the answer

    • @chaoticoli09
      @chaoticoli09 4 месяца назад +91

      Yes, all identities for real numbers are also identities for complex numbers because everything vanishes when solving and you retain the primary properties of reals.

    • @cmdion
      @cmdion 4 месяца назад +15

      Yes, this extends to all complex numbers.

    • @xinpingdonohoe3978
      @xinpingdonohoe3978 4 месяца назад +20

      Complex numbers, like real numbers, are both commutative and associative. It is certainly true that things like this will also hold for complex numbers. So will things like sin²(z)+cos²(z)=1, even if -1≤sin(z)≤1 is no longer true.

    • @seanhunter111
      @seanhunter111 4 месяца назад +8

      Yes. Try it where x=sqrt(-1). LHS=5--1=6. RHS = 1-(-1-4)=6. So x = sqrt(-1) satisfies the equation. That isn't surprising because the lefthand side and righthand sides are literally identical. You might as well write "x=x" as write the equation given.

  • @BleuSquid
    @BleuSquid 4 месяца назад +22

    Why is it only "all real numbers"? This holds true for any complex number as well.

    • @andreasnesse04
      @andreasnesse04 4 месяца назад +24

      I guess he didn’t include it in his answer because complex numbers wouldn’t be introduced yet at this degree of math and It might confuse students at this level instead of making them understand the basics.

    • @MK-13337
      @MK-13337 4 месяца назад +4

      Since the equation is a tautology (the equation reads 5=5) it works for anything you put into x that follows the rules of arithmetic. So x could be a function if you wanted.

    • @jb7650
      @jb7650 4 месяца назад +2

      Why is it only "all complex numbers"? This holds true for quaternions as well.

    • @nordicexile7378
      @nordicexile7378 4 месяца назад +13

      @@jb7650 THIS one may, but given that some number systems lose commutativity under multiplication you have to be careful that none of the intermediate steps violate that condition. Same is true in regular algebra... for example if you have something like:
      (3x-3)/(x-1) = 3
      If you cross multiply, you end up with the tautology 3x - 3 = 3x - 3 which looks like "all solutions" when really x = 1 is NOT a solution of the original expression!

    • @devooko
      @devooko 4 месяца назад

      ​@@nordicexile7378wow amazing math

  • @aMartianSpy
    @aMartianSpy 4 месяца назад +9

    tautology

  • @ethanebang8902
    @ethanebang8902 4 месяца назад +3

    Ain’t this basically x=x?

  • @Bodyknock
    @Bodyknock 4 месяца назад +3

    I’m still wondering why the person who posted that question thought there might not be any solutions? 🤷‍♂️

    • @wobaguk
      @wobaguk 4 месяца назад +8

      I think on the grounds that the x's cancel out, so on the face of it there isnt an 'x' left to be equal to anything?

  • @davidlloyd1526
    @davidlloyd1526 4 месяца назад +35

    "This equation says nothing about the value of X"

    • @justsaadunoyeah1234
      @justsaadunoyeah1234 4 месяца назад +2

      This equation does say something about the value of x

    • @The_Commandblock
      @The_Commandblock 4 месяца назад +3

      ​@@justsaadunoyeah1234No, ist just like saying x=x

    • @justsaadunoyeah1234
      @justsaadunoyeah1234 4 месяца назад

      @@The_Commandblock yeah that says something about x

    • @The_Commandblock
      @The_Commandblock 4 месяца назад +1

      @@justsaadunoyeah1234 It tells you that x is =x, wow. Thats litterally true for any number, x=x is useless in a system of equations. Its more of an identity just like e^ix = cos(x) + isin(x), we know that thats true for any amount of x but it doesnt Tell us anything about the value of x

    • @justsaadunoyeah1234
      @justsaadunoyeah1234 4 месяца назад +2

      @@The_Commandblock bruh x=x tells us something about x. It tells us that x belongs to the set of... well... things

  • @goseigentwitch3105
    @goseigentwitch3105 3 месяца назад

    there's no need to stop at only real solutions either
    you could use quaternions if you like

  • @neverg0nnag1vey0uup
    @neverg0nnag1vey0uup 4 месяца назад

    Y'all didn't learn this in high school?

  • @bentpc
    @bentpc 4 месяца назад

    Much ado about nothing!Just sketch the graphs to observe.

  • @qtpi0
    @qtpi0 4 месяца назад +2

    im sorry but is this doable?
    integral((sqrt(1-(lnx)²))/(lnx))dx

    • @random22453
      @random22453 4 месяца назад

      Nope, this cannot be integrated using elementary functions

    • @xinpingdonohoe3978
      @xinpingdonohoe3978 4 месяца назад

      Not only is it not elementary, I'm pretty sure the standard special integral functions, like erf(x), li(x), Ei(x), etc., won't be able to deal with it.

    • @qtpi0
      @qtpi0 4 месяца назад

      @@xinpingdonohoe3978 what about hypergeometric? any idea?
      i tried with it for a bit and reached integral((e^x)/(xsqrt(1-x²)))dx

    • @random22453
      @random22453 4 месяца назад

      @@qtpi0 nah im pretty sure its not possible with known mathematical functions

    • @random22453
      @random22453 4 месяца назад

      @@qtpi0 yep wolframalpha also says that no standard functions exist for this

  • @JakubS
    @JakubS 4 месяца назад

    True for all X part of the real numbers

  • @inyomansetiasa
    @inyomansetiasa 4 месяца назад +1

    Hello

  • @ytsimontng
    @ytsimontng 4 месяца назад +2

    You could write it as 0×x^2=0 for intuition

  • @DARKi701
    @DARKi701 4 месяца назад

    for the second case, you could also have it explained by geometry

  • @memebaltan
    @memebaltan 7 месяцев назад +4

    first

    • @AwesomeCamera87_HD
      @AwesomeCamera87_HD 4 месяца назад +15

      dude the video itself came out only 2 minutes ago how you commented 3 months ago 💀💀💀

    • @bigbrewer3375
      @bigbrewer3375 4 месяца назад

      @@AwesomeCamera87_HD maybe he had early access to the video

    • @lumina_
      @lumina_ 4 месяца назад

      wtf

    • @AizenSosukesama
      @AizenSosukesama 4 месяца назад +2

      Actually first undesputedly

    • @random22453
      @random22453 4 месяца назад +3

      Blud time travelling

  • @GabriTell
    @GabriTell 4 месяца назад

    This is basic pedicate logic tbh 💀

  • @Sinsults
    @Sinsults 4 месяца назад

    Not gonna watch the video. X=0

    • @Sinsults
      @Sinsults 4 месяца назад +1

      @@a_man80 Nah, I already closed the video without watching. It's illegal for me to click on the video again.

    • @adamkarolak3544
      @adamkarolak3544 4 месяца назад +1

      Bad trolling is good!
      P.s just to be sure that someone read this comment will not take this seriously. X=0 would be actual solution, but in case of this video it's only one of infinitely many solutions.

    • @hallrules
      @hallrules 4 месяца назад +1

      Technically ur right