![]() |
|
|
#12 |
|
Dec 2005
22·72 Posts |
My avatar is a very grumpy cat called Heinz, definitely not a female cat.
As there is no Heinz smiley (well, probably copyright reasons) I had to use another one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 | |
|
Jun 2003
The Texas Hill Country
32·112 Posts |
Quote:
Your comments are uncalled for. Anyone who would like to see exactly how I hid his response need only "quote" the message in question and look at the resulting text in the edit window. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 | |
|
Bronze Medalist
Jan 2004
Mumbai,India
22·33·19 Posts |
Quote:
Not quite so Jacob. I'm afraid you are mixing up real and irrational numbers with rational numbers. The real numbers consist of both rational and irrational, and complex numbers. My quote is from the text book 'Higher Algebra' by Hall and Knight 2001 edition updated thru several editions and first published in 1887. That was about the time when these differences were rigorously defined and still stands good at the present time. Moreover most irrational numbers are transcendental, unlike the rationals, which like algebraic, are countable. However, thank you for bringing this up as its a good observation on your part. Not being content with my text book I had to get on the Net and this is what I found. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_number If you still disagree I am open to discussion as numbers have always fascinated me from childhood and I am willing to learn from you. Mally
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 | |
|
Bronze Medalist
Jan 2004
Mumbai,India
22·33·19 Posts |
Quote:
Well I often do that myself when Im in doubt. But a straight question deserves a straight answer not an anticipated revelation. It is only for the glory of God who has the right to hide things :not us mortals Mally
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
"William"
May 2003
New Haven
2×7×132 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Jun 2003
The Texas Hill Country
21018 Posts |
Where was there a question? In English, such queries customarily end with a particular punctuation.
I read Kees statement as an apology that he had felt that it was appropriate to obscure his response, but that he had failed to do so. As a moderator, I obliged him for the benefit of the other readers. When, at message #5, he made a request for details, the answer was directly given. Since both inquiry and answer occurred while I was asleep, I saw no reason to elaborate. Last fiddled with by Wacky on 2007-01-31 at 16:54 |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 | ||||
|
"Jacob"
Sep 2006
Brussels, Belgium
1,709 Posts |
Quote:
As pointed out by Wblipp x3=2 has no rational solution, but it has a irrational (no ratios) solution meaning the solution is part of the real numbers. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Jacob |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
"Phil"
Sep 2002
Tracktown, U.S.A.
3·373 Posts |
The discriminant will tell whether there are three real roots or one real and two complex roots. In this case, the fact that the arithmetic mean of three positive numbers (at least two of which are distinct) is greater than the geometric mean implies that the discriminant is negative and all three roots are real. Now using the fact that the three roots must add up to zero, we can show that two roots are negative and that therefore the desired solution is the positive root.
Now the problem is that even though all three roots are real, the cubic formula expresses them in terms of complex numbers. We can take a cube root of a complex number by writing it in polar form. This gives us the solution (I am having trouble getting the spoiler tags to work with tex markup): Or more generally: Can anyone see any particular significance to the angle that is being trisected in this formula? |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Dec 2005
22×72 Posts |
To answer Wacky, it was indeed an apology and I am grateful for the spoilertags placed over my solution.
I see no reason why trisection should come into play in this problem or the solution. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 | |
|
Bronze Medalist
Jan 2004
Mumbai,India
22·33·19 Posts |
Quote:
Well wblipp you've got me by a googly. I have to admit the roots are irrational so I can safely say that the roots are such that at least one is real as has been rightly pointed out by S485122. However Hall and Night have an answer for this as roots have to be taken by pairs yz so the result is a rational, so they say, but I'm not sure right now. I will quote them tomorrow as its too late now and the quote is quite lengthy. I understand that if you take them separately one should get 9 roots for a cubic but this is not the case and the roots have to be paired to get only 3 as per the theory of equations. But don't take my word for it and lets wait and see. Mally
Last fiddled with by mfgoode on 2007-02-01 at 18:46 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 | |
|
Bronze Medalist
Jan 2004
Mumbai,India
22×33×19 Posts |
Quote:
I presume that to get the roots of a cubic is as good as trisecting an angle.This is the argument and proof to the assertion by the Greeks of antiquity that an angle (not all but most) cannot be trisected by compass and unmarked ruler only. I have this proof in my library but will have to locate it to post it here. Well we can also get it form the Net. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AngleTrisection.html This partly answers Philmoore's question but I would like to know his reason and thanks to your post phil as it was very enlightening. Mally
Last fiddled with by mfgoode on 2007-02-01 at 18:58 |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| problem 2.4 | MattcAnderson | Puzzles | 4 | 2014-08-21 04:40 |
| problem I have | science_man_88 | Miscellaneous Math | 2 | 2010-10-10 16:36 |
| PSU problem? | ian209 | Hardware | 4 | 2006-02-18 19:52 |
| 51 problem | Neves | Miscellaneous Math | 5 | 2004-02-10 22:59 |
| 51 problem | Neves | Puzzles | 15 | 2004-02-05 23:11 |