quadratic equation

- mathmath333

quadratic equation

- Stacey Warren - Expert brainly.com

Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)

- schrodinger

I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!

- mathmath333

\(\large \color{black}{\begin{align}& \normalsize \text{If}\ p\ \text{and}\ q\ \text{are the roots of the equation} \hspace{.33em}\\~\\
& x^2+px+q=0,\normalsize \text{then find the value of}\ p.\ \hspace{.33em}\\~\\
\end{align}}\)

- mathmath333

\(\large \color{black}{\begin{align}& p+q=-p\hspace{.33em}\\~\\
& pq=p \hspace{.33em}\\~\\
\end{align}}\)
from the sum and product of roots i got this , is this correct.

- anonymous

yes surely...

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

## More answers

- anonymous

For equation : \(ax + by + c = 0\),
Sum of Roots = \(\frac{-b}{a}\)
Product of Roots = \(\frac{c}{a}\)

- anonymous

Are you sure p = 1??

- mathmath333

\(p=-1/2\)

- anonymous

If p = 1 then from equation 2, q = 1.. But from equation 1, 2p = -q does not get satisfied.

- anonymous

This looks good.. :)

- mathmath333

lol but the answer given is wrong by book it says the answer is
\(\large \color{black}{\begin{align}p=\{0,1,-\dfrac{-1}{2}\} \hspace{.33em}\\~\\
\end{align}}\)

- anonymous

0 and -1/2 are all right, but how p = 1 is possible?

- mathmath333

how did u find \(0\) as a solution.

- anonymous

Wait, there is a slight mistake that you have done..

- anonymous

And I also being mad, I did not check that.. What you got for Product of Roots?

- anonymous

\[pq = q\]
This must be the product no??

- mathmath333

?

- anonymous

See, the formulae I gave above, product of roots = c/a.. in your question c = q and a = 1..

- Empty

The only way \(pq=p\) can be true is if:
\(q=1\) OR \(p=0\)

- mathmath333

ok how about \(p=1\)

- anonymous

@Empty that should be q on right side, not p..

- mathmath333

oh ur right .

- Empty

?
\(pq=p\) is the same thing as \(p=qp\)

- anonymous

Just solve these equations:
\[p + q = -p \\ pq = q\]

- anonymous

How they are same?

- Empty

Ohh I see, I switched out my p's and q's. Oh well haha, same idea really since they're completely symmetric. XD

- anonymous

@mathmath333 if you use pq = p (the original one you did above), p = 1 as solution is not possible in any case..

- mathmath333

ok i got \(p=0,1\) how about \(p=-1/2\) now ?

- anonymous

That should be pq = q...

- Empty

\(\large \color{black}{\begin{align}& p+q=-p\hspace{.33em}\\~\\
& pq=p \hspace{.33em}\\~\\
\end{align}}\)
What mathmath wrote is wrong here, I went off this, but really the last equation is what @waterineyes is trying to tell us!

- mathmath333

lol big drama

- mathmath333

why \(p=1\) is not possible ?

- Empty

p=1 is possible only when q=0. So you have to work out the consequence of that in the other equation.

- mathmath333

its so confusin

- anonymous

Hey @mathmath333 listen to me, what is product of roots you get?

- mathmath333

\(pq=q\)

- anonymous

yea that is great..

- anonymous

Now, you get the cases of 0 and 1 ??

- mathmath333

yes i do

- anonymous

So, we left with how p = -/12 right?

- mathmath333

yes

- anonymous

*-1/2..

- anonymous

Put p = -1/2 in first equation and find q...

- mathmath333

\(q=1\)

- anonymous

Good...

- anonymous

But it is not satisfying the other equation.. :P

- mathmath333

how ?

- anonymous

What you get when you do p times q ?? -1/2 times 1 = -1/2 but on other side you have q which is 1 and -1/2 not equal to 1..

- anonymous

\[pq = q \\ \frac{-1}{2} \times 1 = 1 \\ \frac{-1}{2} \ne 1\]

- anonymous

@Empty if you have something to correct or say, then you can proceed, I have tried my bit. :)

- mathmath333

wait

- anonymous

Yeah waiting, ordering coffee or tea something? :P

- mathmath333

is \(0\) and \(1\) both correct

- anonymous

@SolomonZelman your help is needed here..

- mathmath333

he came first but left

- anonymous

Yes 0 and 1 both are satisfying but -1/2 is not..

- mathmath333

seee this wolfram link
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve+2p%5E2%2Bq%3D0%2Cq%5E2%2Bpq%2Bq%3D0+over+reals

- mathmath333

@waterineyes

- anonymous

Now wolfram will tell the secrets of us that we don't know anything. :P

- mathmath333

my head hurts

- mathmath333

@ganeshie8

- anonymous

And I call the first master : Please save us : @mukushla ..

- freckles

\[p+q=-p \\ pq=q \]
these are the equations agreed?

- mathmath333

yes

- freckles

\[\text{ the second equation we have } \\ pq=q \\ pq-q=0 \\ q(p-1) =0 \implies q=0 \text{ or } p=1 \\ \text{ going back to first equation } \\ \text{ if } q=0 \text{ we have } p=-p \text{ which forces } p=0 \\ \text{ if } p=1 \text{ then } 1+q=-1 \implies q=-2 \\ \text{ so far we have the following pairs of solutions } \\ (p,q) \\ (0,0) \\ (1,-2)\]

- freckles

I think though you say we have another solution

- freckles

so let's see if we can play with the equations more to find it

- mathmath333

i thhink that is same as of frekles

- freckles

\[p=\frac{-1}{2} \text{ trying first } \\ \frac{-1}{2}+q=-(\frac{-1}{2}) \\ \frac{-1}{2}+q=\frac{1}{2} \\ q=1 \\\text{ so if } p=\frac{-1}{2} \text{ is a solution } \\ \text{ then we should get } q=1 \text{ for the second equation too} \\ \frac{-1}{2}q=q \\ \frac{-1}{2}q-q=0 \\ q=0 \\ \text{ so } p=\frac{-1}{2} \text{ doesn't seem to work out }\]

- freckles

the only solutions I think there to be is (0,0) and (1,-2)
where those ordered pairs are in the form (p,q)

- mathmath333

but wolfram and my book does say \(p=-1/2\) also.

- freckles

can i see the link to wolfram

- freckles

because my wolfram checks my solutions just fine

- freckles

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=p%2Bq%3D-p+%2C+pq%3Dq

- mathmath333

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve+2p%5E2%2Bq%3D0%2Cq%5E2%2Bpq%2Bq%3D0+over+reals

- freckles

ok I see what you did:
you pluggged p and q into the quadratic
and didn't use veita's formula to find p,q for the -1/2,-1/2 solution
hmm... so let's see
you have p=-1/2 and q=-1/2
let's see if I can solve that other system by hand ..

- anonymous

If you use both p and q values, then also I think both equations will not get satisfied..

- mathmath333

but vieta's formula shouls work too, something is missing

- freckles

\[2p^2+q=0 \\ q^2+pq+q=0 \\ 2p^2=-q \\ -2p^2=q \\ (-2p^2)^2+p(-2p^2)+(-2p^2)=0 \\ 4p^4-2p^3-2p^2=0 \\ 2p^2(2p^2-p-1)=0 \\ p=0 \text{ or } 2p^2-p-1=0 \\ p=0 \text{ or } (2p+1)(p-1)=0 \\ p=0 \text{ or } p=\frac{-1}{2} \text{ or } p=1 \]
hmm... I don't know why vieta's formula isn't working for that one p

- mathmath333

:D

- freckles

but I would like to know why it isn't working for veita's formula :(

- mathmath333

thats a sign of good mathmatician.

- freckles

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=x%5E2-1%2F2x-1%2F2%3D0
since p=-1/2 then q=-2p^2=-2(-1/2)^2=-2(-1/4)=-1/2
so we have p=-1/2 and q=-1/2
but that wolfram link doesn't give the roots -1/2 and -1/2
if gives the roots -1/2 and 1

- freckles

so I think p=-1/2 shouldn't be a solution

- mathmath333

:(

- freckles

so veita's formula I think does work
and the other way gave too many solutions (solutions that needed to be checked)

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.