Solving A Quintic Without Using The Quintic Formula

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 31 дек 2024

Комментарии • 32

  • @manishkumargond697
    @manishkumargond697 3 дня назад +19

    7:17 it should be a(e-b) not a(e-a)

    • @NoonMemeWow
      @NoonMemeWow 2 дня назад +2

      I was looking for this comment. I was unable to concentrate on the rest of the video knowing that a mistake had been made, and it was not corrected. I am not sure if the final values for a,b,c,d,e have been computed correctly

    • @angelmatematico45
      @angelmatematico45 2 дня назад

      Me too 😂​@@NoonMemeWow

  • @NadiehFan
    @NadiehFan 2 дня назад +3

    The key to solving the equation
    x⁵ = 5x + 3
    is to note that for x = φ (golden ratio) and x = ψ = −1/φ and any positive integer n we have
    xⁿ = Fₙx + Fₙ₋₁
    where Fₙ is the n-th Fibonacci number. So, it is immediately obvious that the two roots φ and ψ of x² = x + 1 are roots of x⁵ = 5x + 3, meaning that x² − x − 1 is a factor of x⁵ − 5x − 3.
    @SyberMath: if you want a _really_ challenging (but algebraically solvable) quintic equation you should try
    x⁵ − 5x³ + 5x = 1
    or
    x⁵ + 5x³ + 5x = 1
    These equations look very similar, but the strategies for solving them are different. Can you do it?

  • @holyshit922
    @holyshit922 3 дня назад +4

    Golden ratio and number opposite to reciprocal of golden ratio are the roots
    This allows to reduce problem to solving cubic with integer coefficients

    • @rainerzufall42
      @rainerzufall42 3 дня назад +1

      You probably mean φ and - 1/φ.
      Alternatively φ and 1 - φ.

  • @MrGeorge1896
    @MrGeorge1896 День назад

    It is getting easier if we claim all coefficients are integers so we can start with four possible factorizations:
    x^5 - 5x - 3 = (x^3 + ax^2 + bx + 1) (x^2 - ax - 3)
    x^5 - 5x - 3 = (x^3 + ax^2 + bx - 1) (x^2 - ax + 3)
    x^5 - 5x - 3 = (x^3 + ax^2 + bx + 3) (x^2 - ax - 1)
    x^5 - 5x - 3 = (x^3 + ax^2 + bx - 3) (x^2 - ax + 1)
    Only the third one is solvable with a=1 and b=2.

  • @rainerzufall42
    @rainerzufall42 3 дня назад +3

    7:17 a (e - b) ... => c = a (b - e)

  • @stevenlitvintchouk3131
    @stevenlitvintchouk3131 3 дня назад

    With your equations and the ones folks post on X, it's gotten to the point that one of the first things I do is to guess that maybe the golden ratio is involved somewhere. And in this case, the given polynomial is indeed divisible by (x^2 - x - 1), which is how I cracked this problem.

  • @rainerzufall42
    @rainerzufall42 3 дня назад +4

    10:47 Weak! Those number don't even fit the last equation! With a = 1, e = -1, you get:
    a²e - ae² = -1 - 1*1 = -2, not -3! Okay, that's because the formula was wrong:
    -3/e = a (b - e) = a (a² - e - e) = a (a² - 2e) = a³ - 2ae => ae (a² - 2e) = a³e - 2ae² = -3 || 1³(-1) - 2*1*1 = -3 ✅

    • @rainerzufall42
      @rainerzufall42 3 дня назад +2

      We didn't even determine a, b, c, d, e, you just gave it to us. Not even speaking about solving the cubic equation...

  • @holyshit922
    @holyshit922 3 дня назад +1

    Problem
    Find condition which must be satisfied
    to be able to decompose quintic into
    (x^3+ax^2+bx+c)(x^2+dx+e)=x^5+a_{4}x^4+a_{3}x^3+a_{2}x^{2}+a_{1}x+a_{0}
    What codition coefficients of quintic must satisfy to make this decomposition possible
    Coefficients of this quintic satisfies that condition

  • @roberttelarket4934
    @roberttelarket4934 3 дня назад +1

    It’s excellent to show such type quintics to the uniniated!

    • @SyberMath
      @SyberMath  3 дня назад +1

      I'm glad you found it helpful!

    • @roberttelarket4934
      @roberttelarket4934 3 дня назад

      @@SyberMath: Uninitiated was incorrectly spelled and if I edited now I would lose the ❤️.
      Also I made the statement for others. I'm aware of the difficulty with quintics.

  • @giuseppemalaguti435
    @giuseppemalaguti435 3 дня назад +1

    La funzione f(x)=x^5-5x-3 è negativa per x=0,positiva per x=-1...quindi uno zero sarà compreso tra )-1,0( e,casualmente, può essere x=(1-√5)/2...

  • @pmccarthy001
    @pmccarthy001 3 дня назад

    You mean it's impossible to resolve the complex relationships between the roots and coefficients of all (most) polynomial equations of one variable where the degree of the polynomial is 5, or above... with the operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and radicals. We do know of operations, like theta functions, that can resolve the relationships between the roots and coefficients of some of this class of polynomial equations which cannot be solved by simple arithmetic operations and the taking of roots. However, I've never seen any evidence that anyone's discovered, or invented, operations that can resolve the relationships between the roots and coefficients of any polynomial equation of one variable of any degree. But I don't believe anyone's ever proven that such operations that might be able to do this can not exist. I believe it also might be possible to reconceptionalize the problem to see polynomials of one variable in some light that might suggest how to resolve these relationships. Perhaps different number systems, some new conceptionalization of what a univariate polynomial is? But with the tools and conceptonalizations we've come up with so far, no one's been able to come up with such operations. I don't know, but where mathematics often seems to deal with abstractions upon abstractions it's difficult to predict what someone might one day conceive of.

  • @yuryp6975
    @yuryp6975 3 дня назад

    Fibinacci dequence gives the 2 roots (golden ratio snd the reciprocal)

  • @RayMyName
    @RayMyName 3 дня назад +1

    i actually guessed the solution by seeing that one must be between 1 and 2 so the golden ratio was the first thing to come to mind after trying some ratios of 5

    • @philipfoy7117
      @philipfoy7117 3 дня назад +2

      I did the same

    • @pwmiles56
      @pwmiles56 3 дня назад +2

      @@philipfoy7117 Me too. You can verify by plugging in x^2=x+1 and doing repeated substitutions. As a bonus, the negative root i.e. (1-sqrt(5))/2 must also be a solution.

    • @stephenshefsky5201
      @stephenshefsky5201 3 дня назад +1

      When you see coefficients that are Fibonacci numbers, as are 3 and 5, think about the Golden Ratio!

  • @Thewerwolf
    @Thewerwolf 2 дня назад +1

    There is no quintic formula this was established in the 19th century using Galois theorem for quintic Abel-Ruffini theorem

  • @Christopher-e7o
    @Christopher-e7o 2 дня назад

    X,2×+5=8

  • @SweetSorrow777
    @SweetSorrow777 3 дня назад

    How did you know that the factors were a quadratic and cubic instead of a quartic and linear? Guessing?

    • @SyberMath
      @SyberMath  3 дня назад +1

      That's how the problem was made up but I think this is easier in general. If you had a quartic that would be factored into two quadratics and one of them could be multiplied by the linear factor to produce a cubic. I could be wrong, though since I haven't checked it

    • @user-dq6jf9ru9e
      @user-dq6jf9ru9e День назад

      In this case there would be no nice coefficients since no linear term here contains integers (1:18). So it was reasonble to try another factorization.

  • @arekkrolak6320
    @arekkrolak6320 3 дня назад

    Solving equation by guessing solution :)

  • @sjn7220
    @sjn7220 3 дня назад

    This is why we have Newton-Raphson 😀

  • @scottleung9587
    @scottleung9587 3 дня назад

    Nice job!

  • @promixinc.8434
    @promixinc.8434 2 дня назад

    Finally, I have a one good reason to learn newton-raphson. Great video