Mathematics - Factoring Fractional Exponents

This is a discussion on Mathematics - Factoring Fractional Exponents within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; Me and another classmate are debating the true answer to the following equation. This is a college algebra question. x^(3/2) ...

  1. #1
    essence of digital xddxogm3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    589

    Mathematics - Factoring Fractional Exponents

    Me and another classmate are debating the true answer to the following equation. This is a college algebra question.

    x^(3/2) + 8x^(1/2) + 16x^(-1/2) = 0

    The book says no solution.
    My classmate says it has a solution.

    I feel the negative exponent will prevent it from being solved. Is this correct, or is there more to it?

    If it can be solved, can you show me the proof.

    <edit 1> sorry edited out his proof on accident. i will put it back in tomorrow. </edit 1>



    Last edited by xviddivxoggmp3; 02-05-2005 at 03:22 AM.
    "Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence;
    supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."
    Art of War Sun Tzu

  2. #2
    carry on JaWiB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,972
    >>x^(-1/2) * x^(2) = x^(3/2)

    Where did this come from? Yes, it's correct, but I don't see it relating to the original problem.

    if you graph it you find that there is no solution at 5 or at any other point. Just try:

    5^(3/2) + 8(5)^(1/2) + 16(5)^(-1/2) = 36.2243


    Edit: I think I see what he's trying to do. You are trying to solve for zero, though:

    x^(-1/2)x^2 = 0
    x=0

    But from the original problem you would put x=0 and find:

    16x^(-1/2) = 16/x(^1/2) = 16/0 = undefined
    Last edited by JaWiB; 02-04-2005 at 09:22 PM.
    "Think not but that I know these things; or think
    I know them not: not therefore am I short
    Of knowing what I ought."
    -John Milton, Paradise Regained (1671)

    "Work hard and it might happen."
    -XSquared

  3. #3
    .........
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    303
    Your book is wrong.

    x^(3/2) + 8x^(1/2) + 16x^(-1/2) = 0

    has a solution at x = -4


    Substituting -4 into the left side of equation we get

    (-4)^(3/2) + 8*(-4)^(1/2) + 16*(-4)^(-1/2)
    (2i)^3 + 8*2i + 16/(2i)
    8i + 16i + 8/i
    8i + -8i
    0


    note that 8/i = 1/i * 8 = -1 * 8 since 1/i = -1

  4. #4
    essence of digital xddxogm3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    589
    i didn't think of graphing the function until now.
    i graphed the original function
    x^(3/2)+8x^(1/2)+16x^(-1/2)
    and there is no zero that is formed when graphed.
    please someone else provide your input to resolve this.

    SourceCode
    note that 8/i = 1/i * 8 = -1 * 8 since 1/i = -1
    i saw what you were doing after a while. i'm assuming the -1 should be -i.
    i=sqrt(-1)
    i^2 = -1
    1/i != -1 //even with manipulation of the denominator i get 1/i*i/i=-i
    1/i = 1/sqrt(-1)
    I could be wrong, i'm not a mathematician, but last i checked
    sqrt(-1) = i
    i^2 = -1
    i^3 = -i
    i^4 = 1
    Last edited by xviddivxoggmp3; 02-05-2005 at 03:25 AM.
    "Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence;
    supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."
    Art of War Sun Tzu

  5. #5
    S Sang-drax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Göteborg, Sweden
    Posts
    2,072
    Every equation like this has solutions, but they might be complex.

    However, this is a simple 2nd degree equation.

    x^(3/2) + 8x^(1/2) + 16x^(-1/2) = 0

    multiply with x^(1/2)

    x^2 + 8x + 16 = 0

    Now it's a normal 2nd degree equation with only one root and it is:

    -4

    So there are real roots, but to be able to put -4 back in the original equation, you'll need complex numbers, like SourceCode showed (although he calculated wrong, he came up with the correct answer).



    EDIT:
    i didn't think of graphing the function until now.
    i graphed the original function
    x^(3/2)+8x^(1/2)+16x^(-1/2)
    and there is no zero that is formed when graphed.
    please someone else provide your input to resolve this
    Here's a plot of the function. When x<0 the function is complex-valued. The zero at x=-4 is clearly shown (Re y=Im y=0).
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by Sang-drax; 02-05-2005 at 03:52 AM.
    Last edited by Sang-drax : Tomorrow at 02:21 AM. Reason: Time travelling

  6. #6
    .........
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    303
    Quote Originally Posted by xviddivxoggmp3
    1/i != -1 //even with manipulation of the denominator i get 1/i*i/i=-i
    yea sorry typo, 1/i = -i

  7. #7
    .........
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    303
    And if you are confused why 1/i = -i, a simplified algebraic way of looking at it is

    Knowing i^2 = -1, divide by sides by i and then
    i^2/i = -1/i
    i= -1/i
    -i = 1/i


    What clued me in into trying -4 was the same thing that clued Sang-Drax in I think, because like he said if you notice that multiplying x^(1/2) by both sides you end up with x^2 + 8x + 16 = (x + 4)^2 which has a double root at x = -4. I guess the reasoning behind the thought process is that when you see something like that you just notice it. It's just one of those things that just comes from seeing it done a couple of times. I think this is way too tough for a college algebra course, most people don't see stuff like this until much later. I didn't feel really comfortable working with lots of fractional exponents till I studied differential equations, lots of nasty algebraic manipulations there hehe.

    Great post btw Sang, great thread in general!
    Last edited by SourceCode; 02-05-2005 at 07:41 AM.

  8. #8
    essence of digital xddxogm3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    589
    JaWib, SourceCode, Sang-drax,
    Once again you have shown clearity to everybody thanks for the input.
    All you wonderful people at this forum have once again came through for me.
    You all kick major @$$


    Post # 420.
    hehehehehe
    "Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence;
    supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."
    Art of War Sun Tzu

  9. #9
    S Sang-drax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Göteborg, Sweden
    Posts
    2,072
    I think this is way too tough for a college algebra course
    Hmm, I don't know about that...
    The book says no solution.
    Why? It could be argued that there are no solutions if you're only working wíth real numbers, but it's a bad example if so.


    To change the subject:
    Here's a problem I'm currently trying to solve for a course I'm taking:

    Take a function f: R->R (C1) for which
    |f'(x)| <= C|f(x)| for all x€R and some positive constant C

    Show that if f(0)=0, f(x)=0 for every x€R.


    The special case |f'(x)|=C|f(x)| is quite easy to handle, but the general case is quite tricky. I've made some progress using integrals, but I'm having a feeling that there is an easier way.
    Last edited by Sang-drax; 02-05-2005 at 06:16 PM.
    Last edited by Sang-drax : Tomorrow at 02:21 AM. Reason: Time travelling

  10. #10
    essence of digital xddxogm3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    589
    Quote Originally Posted by Sang-drax
    Why? It could be argued that there are no solutions if you're only working wíth real numbers, but it's a bad example if so.
    The book says "no solution". This includes non-real solutions also. The reason why I know that, is that the book states the answer for a problem 2 problems later on the same page is listed as having "no real solutions". It is either a typo, or a full out error.
    "Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence;
    supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."
    Art of War Sun Tzu

  11. #11
    Toaster Zach L.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    2,686
    Depending on the scope of the book, it may equate "no solution" with "no real solution". If this is the case, it is more of a simplification, I'd say than an error.

    Sang-drax, I've only spent a couple minutes looking at your problem (and its late), but my idea would be to treat it as a differential equation. We know that f(0)=0, and so, f'(0)=0, hence no slope, and any approximation of f(x) (x > 0) based on this yields f(x)=0, and then work with the limiting case as x->0. I haven't thought through it much, so I haven't considered if the absolute values will add any complication to the problem (as opposed to restricting the ranges of the functions), but it seems to me that this would be a promising direction to take. What direction have you been taking with it?

    Cheers
    The word rap as it applies to music is the result of a peculiar phonological rule which has stripped the word of its initial voiceless velar stop.

  12. #12
    S Sang-drax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Göteborg, Sweden
    Posts
    2,072
    I've approached it as a differential equation and found out that it works well for the special case with an equality. I'm not been able to generalize it though. I'll probably think a lot about this during the day.
    Last edited by Sang-drax : Tomorrow at 02:21 AM. Reason: Time travelling

  13. #13
    Toaster Zach L.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    2,686
    Well, you know that the maximal case is when |f'| = c|f|, and that you are dealing with strictly non-negative values, so this seems sufficient to show that the general case of |f'| <= c|f| is "bounded" between f(x) = 0 and f(x) = 0.
    The word rap as it applies to music is the result of a peculiar phonological rule which has stripped the word of its initial voiceless velar stop.

  14. #14
    S Sang-drax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Göteborg, Sweden
    Posts
    2,072
    I think the inequality complicates things more than that.
    Almost every function != 0 satisfies
    |f'(x)|<=C|f(x)|
    not that many satisfies the equality though. f(x) = Ae^Cx
    Last edited by Sang-drax : Tomorrow at 02:21 AM. Reason: Time travelling

  15. #15
    Algebra n00b
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    2

    Thanks for the help

    I'm the guy that xvid was helping out by posting this - thanks for assuring me that I'm not crazy, guys!

    Personally, I'd think -4 should be listed as an answer on that equation. Last I checked, -4 was part of the real number set.
    Last edited by Psychlow; 02-08-2005 at 06:24 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-11-2006, 04:28 AM
  2. Mathematics (Factoring and Logarithms)
    By xddxogm3 in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 11-27-2004, 05:09 PM
  3. non-interger exponents
    By brane_sail in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-06-2003, 12:41 AM
  4. For loop and exponents
    By TrazPFloyd in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-15-2002, 05:19 AM
  5. Calculating a fractional value.
    By subdene in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-12-2002, 10:06 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21