Nice video. This was how they introduced complex numbers to us at uni. You can see that you only get real roots if the thing under the square root is positive...
@@saisiddeshmamidoju1728 nah its like viet's formula, let x1 and x2 be the solution of ax^2+bx+c=0 so we have a(x-x1)(x-x2)=0 , you expand that expression and u get those formula :)
There is another very similar proof I like very much. It goes like: (x+p)^2-q=0 => x= -p +-sqrt(q), which is very simple to prove. But it can be written as x^2+2px + p^2 - q =0, which is similar to the standard notation ax^2+bx+c=0 or x^2 + b'x+c' = 0 (with b'=b/a, c'=c/a, this is just to make writing it easier but can be removed) If you group like terms you get 2p=b' and p^2-q=c'. solving for p = b'/2 and q = p^2-c' = (b'/2)^2-c' substituting in p and q in the solution we get x= -b'/2 +- sqrt(b'^2/4-c') = -b\2a +- sqrt(b^2/4a^2 - c/a) = -b/2a +- sqrt({b^2-4ac)/4a^2) = -b/2a +- sqrt(b^2-4ac)/2a = (-b+-sqrt(b&2-4ac)/2a I like this proof because you start with a clear end goal. "This form is easy to solve, so lets try to see if we can manipulate it to look like the more general case." For every step it's clear why its done.
You said at 0:36 that the function intersects the line x = 0, rather than the function intersects the line f(x) = 0, which is the x-axis. The line x = 0 is the y-axis. You should have said the function intersects the x-axis at the two points where f(x) = 0.
Great video! Just some crutique I hope you'll appreciate: While the animations are great (and imo pretty), they're aittle too fast to follow. I personally wouldn't mind if you paused your talking a little while the animation goes, if that means I can follow each term or expression with my eyes as it moves around. I say this because every time you even just made algebraic manipulations, I had to pause the vid bc the original equation was gone and I didn't quite catch what you did
I agree 100%, would like to add that itˋs a little confusing that the terms *don´t* actually move around as the animation just morphs it completely, would be a lot clearer if the terms actually moved around
It might be interesting for you to know that the quadratic formula was actually invented by a Persian Muslim mathematician named al-Khwarizmi (in fact, the word algorithm also comes from the word al-Khwarizmi)
The reason the general was not used before is that it uses negative numbers. even after it was known, many mathematicians refused to use it because they rejected negative numbers.
Good and interesting video, but it would be easier to follow the algebra if you showed the previous steps as well instead of a morph animation to the solution. the morph it also tricks my brain by giving false flags, such as it moving around when nothing actually changed, or the animation showing terms «moving» one way while the algebra actually did something different
I think a nice way to see the complete the square idea is to compare x²+(b/a)x with a perfect square. For example (d+m)²=d²+2dm+m² so: x²+(b/a)x=d²+2dm+m² and it's easy to see that x=d because both are the second degree term . Now we see that (b/a)x=2dm but we know that x=d so b/a=2m therefore m=b/2a ❤.
When I was in middle school I derived the quadratic formula on my own because I was lazy and tired of completing the square and wanted something I could just put into desmos and give me the right answer. Then in the next chapter we covered it
I thought everyone was basically taught this way. I know I was and that was a long long time ago. And I spent 34 years teaching it basically this way. With minor variations of course. So what's happened in the last 15 years? Nice video though.
FINAKLY A EXPLANATION but i hate being low iq that i can't even come up with this itself let alone solve mechanical/application type of complex anything
Check out blackpenredpen's (Steve Chow) video on completing the square...not only does he show the algebra, he gives the geometric explanation that makes the process intuitive. ruclips.net/video/HJayHvPf1fo/видео.htmlsi=GgCoHnA5l210eLms
Tbh that didn't really explain much. Lots of equations and algebra but nothing tangible 🤷♂️. "Completing the square" sounds like a nice visual but alas. What's the curve for? What is it graphing? Why does the quadratic help anyone? Those are the questions that need answering, not showing how/why the equations works entirely within an algebraic context. Math is more than that.
I disagree on the "why does the quadratic help anyone" point. Math does not have to be immediately applied to be useful or fun. There is an entire degree dedicated to pure mathematics for this very reason. The only critique I'd give on this video, is that I think he should have explained the completing the square step even though he said it was beyond the scope of the video. If you're going to do an algebraic derivation, then you should at least present a baseline walk-through of all the steps involved. Everything was fine to me.
@@williamhorn363 yes but the quadratic IS immensely applicable and useful, and is taught in schools for that very reason. Those who wish to pursue more abstract mathematics can do so, but many people will never succeed in school because basic concepts such as this are not taught well.
@johnm5928 And I agree with that, but that doesn't bolster the topic of his video, which is how the equation itself is derived. To be honest, the applicability of quadratics is oversaturated as-is, so anyone shouldn't have any difficulty finding that resource online with one search if that's what they wanted to learn. It would have only fluffed this video past its relevancy to the title. This is all my opinion, of course. I respect whatever position you take on this.
Imagine questioning the quadratic formula. It works because it is the general quadratic equation equal to zero solved by completing the sqaure. If you clicked this video you probably are young and underaged.
Wow thanks. We absolutely did not want to know how the x could be isolated on one side. We absolutely only watch videos on topics we doubt and question.
![The most beautiful equation in math, explained visually [Euler’s Formula]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/f8CXG7dS-D0/mqdefault.jpg)
Our teacher taught us this wayy before even getting started with solving them, Im really grateful of that.
quick fix: 0:30 line in red intersects the line *Y=0*
Being pedantic, in this case, as the vertical axis is labelled f(x) it would be f(x) = O
@@striker8380 Being correct*, intersecting at x=0 is way different
@@IgnitionPI think they meant that they were being pedantic by correcting y to f(x)
@@montykemsley9479 ah ok that makes sense, thank you
@@striker8380 I feel like being pedantic in a math context is quite understandable
I dont know anything about the program you use to do these videos but i think that using it is the best way to explain maths. Thank you very much.
its called manim!
Nice video. This was how they introduced complex numbers to us at uni. You can see that you only get real roots if the thing under the square root is positive...
More than 40 years after high school and never having to use it in real life I still remember it. That's crazy.
Any more channels like this 😢😢. This is a goldmine of information.
3Blue1Brown
Yup.. 3blue1brown, the literal legend
My teachers didn't teach me this but now i know how it is derived. Thankyou
this video is so clean in its format and i love the illustrations on screen. underrated
This is how math should be learnt instead of repetitive textbook problems. Amazing video
Both. Both conceptual understanding and practice are imperative to understanding math
@@dosomestuff1949true
@@dosomestuff1949ur right
Thats literaly how i was taught the quadratic formula.
You sound very uneducated
Another proof can be
Sum of roots= -b/2a
Difference= √D/4a
Solve to get roots
did we not get these formulas from the main quadratic formula?
@@saisiddeshmamidoju1728 nah its like viet's formula, let x1 and x2 be the solution of ax^2+bx+c=0 so we have a(x-x1)(x-x2)=0 , you expand that expression and u get those formula :)
love this video, just wanted to let you know that the zeroes are where the function intersects y = 0, not x = 0 like you stated at 0:34
Thank you, and yes that's a good correction! I've put it in the description of the video.
There is another very similar proof I like very much. It goes like:
(x+p)^2-q=0 => x= -p +-sqrt(q), which is very simple to prove.
But it can be written as x^2+2px + p^2 - q =0, which is similar to the standard notation ax^2+bx+c=0 or x^2 + b'x+c' = 0 (with b'=b/a, c'=c/a, this is just to make writing it easier but can be removed)
If you group like terms you get 2p=b' and p^2-q=c'.
solving for p = b'/2 and q = p^2-c' = (b'/2)^2-c'
substituting in p and q in the solution we get x= -b'/2 +- sqrt(b'^2/4-c') = -b\2a +- sqrt(b^2/4a^2 - c/a) = -b/2a +- sqrt({b^2-4ac)/4a^2) = -b/2a +- sqrt(b^2-4ac)/2a = (-b+-sqrt(b&2-4ac)/2a
I like this proof because you start with a clear end goal. "This form is easy to solve, so lets try to see if we can manipulate it to look like the more general case." For every step it's clear why its done.
Great video!!!! Really interesting, and well explained... btw 0:34 it's y=0
One could mention that this formula also holds if one or all the values a,b,c are complex numbers.
That was ENLIGHTENING!! Thanks for this video with such good quality.
Videos like these really deepens my understanding on the topic. Hope we will keep seeing more videos like this. I subscribed!
3:50 wow thats such a nice moment when you realize the formula for the top of the function also comes from the quadratic formula
Great explanation! Had me focused and ready to learn
Because it is Derived as a solution to the Quadratic Equation, could this possibly why it works?
0:34 - That line is the x-axis, or also known rather as the line *y* = 0.
Well made video, hopefully your chanel grows, maybe add music
@pi_squared2 no need brother, your content is great and free from music, which makes no sense, and is kind of distracting
Music would add nothing useful to the content and learning outcome. On the contrary, it may even be disturbing. It's great the way it is.
nah, keep the music out. Unconscious pandering.
You said at 0:36 that the function intersects the line x = 0, rather than the function intersects the line f(x) = 0, which is the x-axis. The line x = 0 is the y-axis. You should have said the function intersects the x-axis at the two points where f(x) = 0.
my teacher always hates on me for using it instead of factoring... but it always works and is super simple to use without a calculator(often)
I can't wait to see more from you
Thank you!
Great video!
Just some crutique I hope you'll appreciate: While the animations are great (and imo pretty), they're aittle too fast to follow. I personally wouldn't mind if you paused your talking a little while the animation goes, if that means I can follow each term or expression with my eyes as it moves around.
I say this because every time you even just made algebraic manipulations, I had to pause the vid bc the original equation was gone and I didn't quite catch what you did
I agree 100%, would like to add that itˋs a little confusing that the terms *don´t* actually move around as the animation just morphs it completely, would be a lot clearer if the terms actually moved around
@@ThomasEdits Yeah, I noticed that after writing my comment but didn't bother to edit it
I love the video extremely well made but your voice reminds me a lot like Iman ghadzhi lol it’s a good thing!! Keep it up :)
When you say, that the function intersects the graph at any point "where x equals zero," don't you mean, where "y" equals zero?
@@chrishelbling3879 "The graph" u then mean the horizontal or vertical part.
Ahm *Bhaskara casually spits out qudratic formula
It might be interesting for you to know that the quadratic formula was actually invented by a Persian Muslim mathematician named al-Khwarizmi (in fact, the word algorithm also comes from the word al-Khwarizmi)
❤❤❤
Tysm fun fact
He copied the work of indian mathematicians who discovered the quadratic formula in the 9th century
sridharacharya🤫🧏
Proof?@@arushjais
Nice video! I liked the part about the symmetry, never thought about that.
"e" as a variable is diabolical
The reason the general was not used before is that it uses negative numbers. even after it was known, many mathematicians refused to use it because they rejected negative numbers.
Good and interesting video, but it would be easier to follow the algebra if you showed the previous steps as well instead of a morph animation to the solution. the morph it also tricks my brain by giving false flags, such as it moving around when nothing actually changed, or the animation showing terms «moving» one way while the algebra actually did something different
Parabolas that don't intersect x axis have complex roots. But parabola cannot be drawn in the complex plane.
Your channel is a great work thank you
Nice video❤ quality content, u gained a new sub 😀
respect for acharya shreedharacharya for giving the quadratic formula❤🙇♂️
It is shreedharacharya formula
Pajit formula
It would've been nice if you explained completing the square
Honestly amazing
I think a nice way to see the complete the square idea is to compare x²+(b/a)x with a perfect square.
For example (d+m)²=d²+2dm+m² so:
x²+(b/a)x=d²+2dm+m² and it's easy to see that x=d because both are the second degree term .
Now we see that (b/a)x=2dm but we know that x=d so b/a=2m therefore m=b/2a ❤.
that is how maths should be taught … the origin should be understood first and visualised then practicing till mastering it
Well explained 👍
Why shouldn't it work?
What app do you make your videos on?
This was all animated using Python using 3b1b's library called Manim. The actual editing on this video was made on iMovie.
Not a great way of explaining it for beginners. I know if I didn't already understand the math that this would have only confused me even more :/
Yeah, you need to understand completing the square before understanding this.
This is pretty elementary math though, the assumption here is that you've already learned this and are looking to expand your knowledge
Because it's the solution when you complete the square of the general quadratic formula.
It intersects at the line y=0, not x=0.
I did enjoy this video, and liked it.
We were never taught this.
Thank you.
I have a new found fascination with substitution.
When I was in middle school I derived the quadratic formula on my own because I was lazy and tired of completing the square and wanted something I could just put into desmos and give me the right answer. Then in the next chapter we covered it
You can solve with powers of 5 and more, but you need numeric methods.
what the hell is this minecraft enchantment table looking formula 😭
ok this is way better
Good lecatcher❤
4 more seconds and this video could've been roughly 2π long
I don't get it 😢
I thought everyone was basically taught this way. I know I was and that was a long long time ago. And I spent 34 years teaching it basically this way. With minor variations of course. So what's happened in the last 15 years? Nice video though.
0:35 y=0 not x
You mean f(x) =O
@@striker8380 same thing
@@pianomaster30003 not when the axis is labelled f(x)!
Shridhar Acharya formula🙏🏻
FINAKLY A EXPLANATION but i hate being low iq that i can't even come up with this itself let alone solve mechanical/application type of complex anything
Check out blackpenredpen's (Steve Chow) video on completing the square...not only does he show the algebra, he gives the geometric explanation that makes the process intuitive.
ruclips.net/video/HJayHvPf1fo/видео.htmlsi=GgCoHnA5l210eLms
Indian always great
runge
you cant explain the quadratic formula without explaining completing the square
Tbh that didn't really explain much. Lots of equations and algebra but nothing tangible 🤷♂️. "Completing the square" sounds like a nice visual but alas. What's the curve for? What is it graphing? Why does the quadratic help anyone? Those are the questions that need answering, not showing how/why the equations works entirely within an algebraic context. Math is more than that.
Then search that up this is proofing of the quadratic euation
I disagree on the "why does the quadratic help anyone" point. Math does not have to be immediately applied to be useful or fun. There is an entire degree dedicated to pure mathematics for this very reason. The only critique I'd give on this video, is that I think he should have explained the completing the square step even though he said it was beyond the scope of the video. If you're going to do an algebraic derivation, then you should at least present a baseline walk-through of all the steps involved. Everything was fine to me.
@@williamhorn363 yes but the quadratic IS immensely applicable and useful, and is taught in schools for that very reason. Those who wish to pursue more abstract mathematics can do so, but many people will never succeed in school because basic concepts such as this are not taught well.
@johnm5928 And I agree with that, but that doesn't bolster the topic of his video, which is how the equation itself is derived. To be honest, the applicability of quadratics is oversaturated as-is, so anyone shouldn't have any difficulty finding that resource online with one search if that's what they wanted to learn. It would have only fluffed this video past its relevancy to the title. This is all my opinion, of course. I respect whatever position you take on this.
It is shridharacharya 's rule derived by INDIAN mathematician
If you teach math like this to your students you must have extremely confused students. That video is a perfect example on how NOT to teach math.
Imagine questioning the quadratic formula. It works because it is the general quadratic equation equal to zero solved by completing the sqaure. If you clicked this video you probably are young and underaged.
Wow thanks. We absolutely did not want to know how the x could be isolated on one side. We absolutely only watch videos on topics we doubt and question.
No one's watching this video because aren't sure _if_ the quadratic formula holds, they're watching because they want to know _why_
@@_Heb_ pretty sure you would have seen the proof when learning but okay
@@coolcat-nq4mjno, 9th graders aren‘t taught poofs like this
Ok retard
very nice, make sure to submit this to #SoMEpi
This formula is right cause if you put it into the equation it will be automatically solved