Talk:Cubic function/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Tusi´s method

I´m removing the sentence that says Tusi developed an "early Cardan method". This claim is highly misleading, and it doesn´t matter if the source (a non exceptionally neutral one) says exactly that, if you do some research you´ll realise Tusi´s method was geometrical, unlike Cardano´s that was strictly algebraic. You can check thi source:

• Annals of science, Volume 46,page 197,British Society for the History of Science

--Knight1993 (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Simple formula for the roots

Inappropriate talk page chat per wp:TPG

I have entered the formula for finding the roots. This one can be used to solve the equations very easily. If any error is seen (either printing or typing), please let me know.Thanks.27.57.5.130 (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Without checking for typos, it's not simple, and it may require a source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC) You might not have seen that the formula given is not different than that which is mentioned in earlier sections. Actually it is put in different terms for easy remembering. Also it gave two methods, which are actually derived from inverse transformation and that can effectively be used at times to solve the problems easily. Thats why I gave it the title simple formula. Do you think cubic and higher order equations can be solved in a single line. Actually it appears simple to me because I have used it in college days and we could easily solve problems with this than going through lots of analysis which are right only for reference purpose. If it appears difficult to you I cant help. I have also indicated the source which you may have overlooked, and it is given in a book published by a university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.57.5.130 (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I have changed the section title. Also see that one can be derived by other by changing "b" <-> "c", "a" <-> "d" and taking inverse in "x". That is what inverse transformation is all about. If you are not convinced then go ahead and delete it, I wont revert this time. I have nothing to lose but its others who visit the page who have to wonder why there are no other methods so they can choose what they want.27.57.5.130 (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC) WP:NOT#HOWTO? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC) How is "Digital Communications" VTU a {{cite web}}? See Template:Cite_web#Required_parameters. You haven't provided the two required parameters. By the way, I tried this Google search but it doesn't give me much. DVdm (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Second formula differs from the general formula for the roots only by giving names to sub expressions, reducting of the whole formula over the same denominator and extracting a factor 4 from the square root. Thus it hardly can be named other formula. First formula is an immediate consequence of the general well known fact about root finding that reverting the order of the coefficients invert the roots. Thus it hardly can be named other formula. Thus I support the opinion of deleting this section. D.Lazard (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC) In the section "general formula of roots" you are using the condition in delta to validate the expression. How can then you call it a general formula? First quote the general formula and then put conditions and evaluate. This is the usual procedure not the other way round. Therefore the one mentioned in section "other formulas to find roots" appear general. Is it Not?27.61.43.227 (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC) No The condition on delta is not used to evaluate the expression, but to define when the expression is valid. This is the usual procedure: "Under this condition this formula holds" is correct, but "We have this formula. It is correct only under this condition" is not. Note that the section "general formula of roots" contains also a formula which is correct independently of the sign of delta D.Lazard (talk) 08:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC) But that does not answer how it becomes a general solution when subjected to such condition which can be called only as a specific case of more general solution. So are you saying that one who overlooks the condition ought to use it in a wrong way. Surely general solution must and should be given first if it is available otherwise it leads to confusion.27.61.150.167 (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC) For the URL you have asked it is already removed(So I did not include it) and may be linked with some other sections which I could not find. That link also gave a download to Pdf version. 27.61.43.227 (talk) 05:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC) By the way, has anyone been able to locate the url of the source? Without it we technically have no source. I have tagged the references. DVdm (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Check out the site shown below which gives similar results. [1].27.61.43.227 (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC) As explained in Wikipedia page, the formula in this site is not mathematically correct when $Q^{3}+R^{2}<0$, because it does not say which cubic roots of complex numbers are chosen. If you allow any choice, you get 9 different solutions for an equation which has only three! In my opinion, a wrong mathematical result may not be a valid reference for Wikipedia. D.Lazard (talk) 08:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC) But many mentioned in this article are subjected to conditions and then given. So how do you say that it is totally wrong in all cases.27.61.150.167 (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC) The problem seems to be that this section is not properly sourced, so it should not be here. The above phrase "substitute proper values for a,b,c,d to one in "other formulas to find roots" and then compare" clearly is not compatible with the letter and spirit of wp:CALC: This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources. The policy of wp:NOR has been put in place to avoid discussions like the above. I have removed the section. If this stuff is correct, then surely a proper wp:reliable source not needing further discussion (and if at all possible book-pubished), should be easy to find and the section can be restored. DVdm (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC) original research! Its a very well known result all around the world. So it has been removed! Well then its fine.27.57.175.19 (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Please take some time to read the policies on wp:reliable sources and wp:no original research. If it is indeed a very well known result all around the world, then we shoud have no probem finding a good source for it. DVdm (talk) 10:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Most suitable numeration of the unknowns (k = 0; 1; 2) isn’t respected at the “Cardano’s formula” and “General formula of roots” as well as the order of the subsections isn’t logical that causes misunderstanding disputed above. Numeration starting from zero is most suitable only when k appears inside the right hand side. For non mathematicians the most natural numeration starts from 1. Thus MOS:MATH suggests that numeration starts from 1 when there is no good reason to do otherwise. D.Lazard (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC) “The nature of the roots” should be moved below section 3 as a consequence of the previous ones. Most readers are more interested in the formula than in the way it is obtained. Thus MOS:MATH suggests to keep this ordering of the sections. D.Lazard (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC) “General formula of the roots” should be moved below “Computation of A and B” as a consequence of “Lagrange's method” since it is obviously obtained following the author’s suggestions: E_1;2;3 to be inserted into A and B, than last into s_0;1;2 etc. If so we can say that "Geeral formula of the roots" is ipso facto as properly sourced as Lagrange's method but still remains tremendously huge since it isn’t merged applying operators \ksi = e^(i*120°) and \ksi^2 = e^(i*240°) as has been expected by Master J. L. Lagrange who would, I hope, agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources as given at: ${\begin{aligned}x_{k}=&{\frac {1}{a}}\left(\cos {\frac {2k\pi }{3}}+i\sin {\frac {2k\pi }{3}}\right){\sqrt[{3}]{{\frac {9abc-2b^{3}-27a^{2}d}{54}}+{\sqrt {\left({\frac {9abc-2b^{3}-27a^{2}d}{54}}\right)^{2}+\left({\frac {3ac-b^{2}}{9}}\right)^{3}}}}}+\\&{\frac {1}{a}}\left(\cos {\frac {2k\pi }{3}}-i\sin {\frac {2k\pi }{3}}\right){\sqrt[{3}]{{\frac {9abc-2b^{3}-27a^{2}d}{54}}-{\sqrt {\left({\frac {9abc-2b^{3}-27a^{2}d}{54}}\right)^{2}+\left({\frac {3ac-b^{2}}{9}}\right)^{3}}}}}-{\frac {b}{3a}}{\text{ for }}k=0;1;2.\end{aligned}}$ Section general formula for the roots is intended to be understandable by very beginner (and young) mathematicians. Thus ${\frac {-1+i{\sqrt {3}}}{2}}$ should be preferred to $\cos {\frac {2k\pi }{3}}-i\sin {\frac {2k\pi }{3}}$. D.Lazard (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Have you ever met such a specimen of very beginner (and young) mathematician who is aware of complex algebra but incapable to recognize trigonometric functions of 120 and 240 degrees? I have not! Even in case that your logic is correct the formulas could (should) be merged as follows: ${\begin{aligned}x_{k}=&{\frac {1}{a}}\left({\frac {-1+i{\sqrt {3}}}{2}}\right)^{k}{\sqrt[{3}]{{\frac {9abc-2b^{3}-27a^{2}d}{54}}+{\sqrt {\left({\frac {9abc-2b^{3}-27a^{2}d}{54}}\right)^{2}+\left({\frac {3ac-b^{2}}{9}}\right)^{3}}}}}+\\&{\frac {1}{a}}\left({\frac {-1-i{\sqrt {3}}}{2}}\right)^{k}{\sqrt[{3}]{{\frac {9abc-2b^{3}-27a^{2}d}{54}}-{\sqrt {\left({\frac {9abc-2b^{3}-27a^{2}d}{54}}\right)^{2}+\left({\frac {3ac-b^{2}}{9}}\right)^{3}}}}}-{\frac {b}{3a}}{\text{ for }}k=0;1;2.\end{aligned}}$ Stap188.127.120.154 (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC) The statements “if is there are two non real roots” as well as ´´However this formula is wrong if the operand of the square root is negative´´ should be removed as not true since there are two ways how to obtain the roots in such case: A formula involving the cube root of a complex number is meaningless if it is not explicitly said which cubic root is denoted by ${\sqrt {\;}}$. Moreover, if two cubic roots are involved, they have to be chosen coherently, which is not easy. Thus removing ´´However this formula is wrong if the operand of the square root is negative´´ implies to introduce mathematics which is of higher level of that in this section. Again MOS:MATH. D.Lazard (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC) You put a comment in the middle of my discussion disregarding that cube root can be released adding to and subtracting of real part a number divisible by 3, by one of its factors and by one of the factors (squared) of imaginary part and vv. In order to emphasize this method I moved it up and converted in PDF: Inserting a = 4, b = 18, c = –81, d = –220 and k = 0 in upper formula we get: $x_{0}={\frac {1}{4}}{\sqrt[{3}]{572+340{\sqrt {-23}}}}+{\frac {1}{4}}{\sqrt[{3}]{572-340{\sqrt {-23}}}}-{\frac {18}{3*4}}$ $572\pm 340{\sqrt {-23}}=1^{2}*2^{2}*11*13\pm 1^{2}*2^{2}*5*17*{\sqrt {-23}}=1331-3*11*23\pm \left(3*11^{2}-23\right){\sqrt {-23}}=$ $=11^{3}\pm 3*11^{2}{\sqrt {-23}}+3*11\left({\sqrt {-23}}\right)^{2}\pm \left({\sqrt {-23}}\right)^{3}=\left(11\pm {\sqrt {-23}}\right)^{3}{\text{ and finally }}$ $x_{0}={\frac {11+{\sqrt {-23}}}{4}}+{\frac {11-{\sqrt {-23}}}{4}}-{\frac {18}{3*4}}={\frac {11+11-6}{4}}=4{\text{ satisfying }}4x^{3}+18x^{2}-81x-220=0$ We see that square roots of negative number (–23) are anulled giving real number as well as after inserting k = 1; 2: $x_{1;2}={\frac {-17\pm {\sqrt {69}}}{4}}$ What are you doing if a=1, b=0, c=-6, d=2? In this case you have to extract the cube root of $1\pm {\sqrt {-7}}.$ If you try to express it as $\left(u\pm v{\sqrt {-7}}\right)^{3},$ you have to express u as a cubic root of a cubic equation. More precisely, u is a cubic root of an expression involving a cubic root of $181\pm {\sqrt {-7}}.$ By the way this talk page is not the place for this kind of discussion, and it is the last time that I answer to you, and the last time I look on your "musing". D.Lazard (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Similarly real items of binomial under cube root can be bisected in a sum of one number divisible by 3 and a cube of the other leading up to: 2 ± sqrt(2^2 + 1) = 2 ± sqrt5 = [16 ± 8sqrt5)/8 = (1 + 3*5 ± (3sqrt5 + 5sqrt5)]/2^3 = [(1 ± sqrt5)/2]^3 and finally: t_0 =(1+ sqrt5 + 1 – sqrt5)/2 =1 satisfying t^3 + 3t – 4 = 0 (see same example in my previous talk accomplished applying sinh formula). Although a sort of gassing accessible to gifted teenager students is required it always holds especially if a, b, c and d are rational numbers. I mentioned the last in order to oppose cited statements interceding to be removed but not proposing “my private musings” to be included in the article. (I believe that N. Tartaglia would never accept a challenge if being not aware of such possibility.) Second way follows: $9abc-2b^{3}-27a^{2}d=2{\sqrt {\left(b^{2}-3ac\right)^{3}}}\cos 3\theta$ is a substitution that after applying Euler formula for triple argument $\cos 3\theta \pm i\sin 3\theta =e^{\pm i*3\theta }=\left(e^{\pm i*\theta }\right)^{3}=(\cos \theta \pm i\sin \theta )^{3}$ gives trigonometric formula from next section but in terms of a, b, c and d. Lower part is confusing and saying almost nothing crucial. Its essence comes in fact under Nature of the roots section which can be renamed and extended emphasizing the significance of inflection (and symmetry) point S(s,a*q)since its coordinates and slope (tan\alpha_S = f´(–b/3a) = a*p) are three variables determining all formulas. 3.6 or 4 Nature of the characteristic points s = –b/3a = x_S due to f´´(–b/3a) = 0, y_S = f(–b/3a) = a*q and tan\alpha_S = f´(–b/3a) = a*p. 1.) –b/3a = x_0 = x_1 = x_2 if p = 0 and q = 0 than all zeros are equal coinciding with inflection point (trivial case). 2.) –b/3a ≠ x_0 ≠ x_1 ≠ x_2 if p = 0 and q ≠ 0 than 2 zeros and 2 of 3 critical points are conjugate (Primitive cubic). 3.) –b/3a ≠ x_0 ≠ x_1 ≠ x_2 if p < 0 and (p/3)^3 + (q/2)^2 < 0 than all zeros and 2 critical points are real and distinct. 4.) –b/3a = x_0 ≠ x_1 ≠ x_2 if p < 0 and q = 0 than as 3.) but inflection point coincides with one of the zeros (marginal case). 5.) –b/3a ≠ x_0 ≠ x_1 = x_2 if p < 0 and (p/3)^3 = (q/2)^2 than as 3.) but 2 zeros are equal (intermediate case). 6.) –b/3a ≠ x_0 ≠ x_1 ≠ x_2 if p < 0 and (⅓p/3)^3 + (q/2)^2 > 0 than 2 zeros and 2 critical points are conjugate. 7.) –b/3a ≠ x_0 ≠ x_1 ≠ x_2 if p > 0 and than (p/3)^3 + (q/2)^2 > 0 and 2 zeros and 2 critical points are conjugate 8.) –b/3a = x_0 ≠ x_1 ≠ x_2 if p > 0 and q = 0 than as 7.) but inflection point coincides with real zero (marginal case). Note: all of three zeros at marginal case 4.). are rational and distinct numbers only if q = 0 > p = –r^2 where r is rational number. Stap 188.127.120.154 (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC) The three roots of $(x-1)(x-2)(x+3)=x^{3}-7x+6$ are rational and distinct and $q=6\neq 0$. D.Lazard (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Ok with you if we collapse this section as closed, per wp:TPG and wp:NOR? I have put a 3rd-level warning at "Stap's" talk page about talk abuse. After this, I propose that we just revert any edits they make here that are not appropriate. DVdm (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I upload an excel?

Can I upload an excel with the mathematical solution? Gmanos007 (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No. See the policy no original research, and as far as I know, you can only upload images and media - see Wikipedia:Upload. DVdm (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Gmanos007 (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Surely it's possible to include convert the formula to MS Excel usable format and include the text of the formula. This would begin A1 contains a, B1 contains b, C1 contains c, & D1 contains d. The solution for x_1 then becomes "= -B1/(3*A1) -1/(3*A1)...". Anybody desiring it can then copy and paste it into Excel.

From the page defining original research- "The term 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists. That includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." This Excel formula would be a synthesis of material, which does advance a position SUPPORTED by the sources. A correct formula will certainly be verifiable. It is OR only if the formula advances a position NOT supported by the source. MS Excel 2003 does NOT appear to have a function for finding solutions of polynomials. Searching the desktop based help and online help turns up nothing relevant.Nickalh50 (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

An Excel program is off topic: the article is not about using Excel or programming in Excel. WP is also not a place for tutorials; it is about encyclopedic content. See WP:NOTHOWTO. Glrx (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If there's enough interest I can put up a barebones wikihow on the subject. Are links to wikihow acceptable? Also, how do I communicate directly with other users or invite other users to communicate directly with me? I don't want notifications every time this page is edited, but everytime this section is edited would be good.Nickalh50 (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Generally, original research/development is not a reliable source (WP:RS) and would not be suitable for citation in a WP article. Links to blogs, for example, are usually discouraged.

You can communicate with specific users on their talk page.

The notifications are per article; there is not a finer division.

Glrx (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)