**Question Corner and Discussion Area**

I put in a test the following question.Your student's answer is perfectly correct, except that there's a step missing: the discriminant of the quadratic is , which is 4(sinProve that the following equation has no roots: .(I had in mind a graphical solution.)A student gave me the following solution:

. has to be to have solutions. sinHe is "sort of right" but I am "afraid" of allowing students to solve forxcannot be >1, so the equation has no solutions.xwith respect tox. What do you think?

The answer is correct because, if *x*, *a*, *b*, and *c* are any
four real numbers which satisfy the relationship (*),
then the discriminant must be non-negative. If there were
a solution *x* to your original equation, then the four numbers
*x*, *a*=1, *b*=-4, and *c *= 6 - sin *x* would satisfy the quadratic
relationship (*), so the discriminant would have to be non-negative. However,
the student has shown that in fact the discriminant is negative.

Here's another way to think about the student's answer. Suppose your
original equation had a solution *x*=*r*. That would mean
. Now, think of the quadratic
where *r* is just a fixed constant
and *x* is a variable not necessarily related to *r*. Now you have
a true quadratic function of *x* being set equal to zero.
The student has shown that this quadratic has no real roots
(no matter what value the constant *r* has, the discriminant will
always be negative). Since it has no roots at all, that proves that in
particular *x*=*r* is not a root, and hence it cannot be the case that
, no matter what *r* is.

As for the question of "solving for *x* in terms of *x*": if you carry
out the derivation of the quadratic formula, it shows that if *x*, *a*,
*b*, and *c* are any four numbers related by the equation
, then they are also related by the equation

This is just a re-writing of the original equation by a process of completing the square.

Now, if the numbers *a*, *b*, and *c* happen to depend on *x*, as they do
in your example, it is still legitimate to rewrite the equation as

And, in the case of your example (where *a*=1, *b*=-4, and 6 - sin *x*),
one can note that the
term inside the
square root is always negative, so the rewritten equation has no real
solutions,
so the original equation has no real solutions either.

The only difference between this case and the case where *a*, *b*, and
*c* are constants is that here the rewritten form of the equation is
not a *solution* for *x*, merely a different equation involving *x*.
It is therefore of no use, except in theoretical arguments like this. However,
in the case where *a*, *b*, and *c* are constants, the rewritten form of
the equation is actually a solution for *x* in terms of *a*, *b*, and *c*.

Therefore, although the rewritten form of the equation is always valid,
it is only a solution for *x* in the case in which *a*, *b*, and *c* are
constants independent of *x*. It is usually only in this case that it is
useful. Typically, students trying to apply it in other cases will do
so incorrectly, but the student who answered your test question is
a welcome exception!

This is just a follow up on a question I asked earlier about a "non-standard" solution to a quadratic equation problem. Thank you for your answer. I gave my student a printout of your argument and full marks for his solutions. However, just for the sake of playing "devil's advocate" here's another simmilar hypothetical problem and solution.The flaw in this second argument is the following. The fact that Delta > 0 means that the quadratic has solutions

Defineon the domain{x:x>3}. Show that f(x) = 0has real solutions.Rewrite . Delta = 4 - 4(6 - 2

x)=8x- 20 > 0 sincex> 3. Since Delta > 0, the quadratic has solutions.Since there is nothing wrong with

c= 6 - sinx, there should be nothing wrong withc= 6 - 2x.Thank you again for answering my question.

However, the first argument was correct because it showed that there
was no solution *y* at all to the equation ,
and since there is no solution at all, in particular *y*=*x* cannot be a
solution.

Perhaps it might be useful to rephrase this in terms of the quadratic formula. The original quadratic equation can be rewritten as

This rewriting is always valid.

Now, if *a*, *b*, and *c* are constants, this gives a *solution* for
*x* in terms of *a*, *b*, and *c* (or rather, two solutions); these solutions
are real numbers if and only if . Therefore, in the
case when *a*, *b*, and *c* are constants, the quadratic has real solutions
if and only if .

However, if *a*, *b*, or *c* is a function of *x*, then the rewritten
equation is simply a new, more complicated equation involving *x*.
If then clearly the equation can have no real solutions
because negative numbers do not have real-valued square roots. The
reverse implication, though, does not hold:
if , that does
not necessarily mean there *is* a solution, only that a solution can
no longer be ruled out on such basic grounds.

To put it yet another way: if , then you can
certainly define a real number *y* by the formula

but there's no guarantee that this number *y* can be made to be the same
number as the number *x* that occurs in the coefficients.

When the coefficients are constants there is no such requirement; so in the constant coefficient case you always get solutions when .

In the non-constant-coefficient case, you know there cannot be solutions if , but in the case there is nothing about the rewritten equation that allows you to easily tell if it has solutions or not.

I hope this helps clear things up and I hope this makes for some useful discussions with your students.

This part of the site maintained by (No Current Maintainers)

Last updated: April 19, 1999

Original Web Site Creator / Mathematical Content Developer: Philip Spencer

Current Network Coordinator and Contact Person: Joel Chan - mathnet@math.toronto.edu

Go backward to Limit of the Sequence a(n) = cos(a(n-1))

Go up to Question Corner Index

Go forward to Solution to a Functional Equation

Switch to text-only version (no graphics)

Access printed version in PostScript format (requires PostScript printer)

Go to University of Toronto Mathematics Network
Home Page