Advice on solving these simultaneous (quadratic/cubic) equations?
$begingroup$
I have the following simultaneous equations:
$$a x^2 + (b+2ay)x - c_1 = 0$$
$$ay^2 + (b+2ax)y - c_2 = 0$$
Where I'd like to solve for $x$ and $y$.
Obviously $a,b,c_1,c_2$ are known constants. They have the following restrictions:
$$a in [0,1]$$
$$b > 0$$
$$c_1, c_2 > 0$$
My thinking is that the above equations should give me a bunch of possible solutions, and then all but one can (hopefully) be eliminated according to restrictions that this particular problem imposes (eg. imaginary solutions are not permitted).
The only approach that I can see is to first use the quadratic formula to obtain solutions for $x$ in terms of $y$, and then substitute this into the second equation to then solve for $y$, or vise versa. But this quickly leads to an intractable (at least for me) expression. In particular, I end up with
$$x = frac{-(b+2ay)pm sqrt{(b+2ay)^2 + 4a c_1}}{2a}$$
along with the equation
$$- ay^2 pm sqrt{(b+2ay)^2+4ac_1}y - c_2 = 0$$
The hope is to then solve the above to obtain a solution for $y$, which can then be used to obtain the corresponding solution for $x$. But how on earth can we deal with the square root? Is this problem even solvable without resorting to a numerical solution?
systems-of-equations quadratics symmetric-polynomials
$endgroup$
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
I have the following simultaneous equations:
$$a x^2 + (b+2ay)x - c_1 = 0$$
$$ay^2 + (b+2ax)y - c_2 = 0$$
Where I'd like to solve for $x$ and $y$.
Obviously $a,b,c_1,c_2$ are known constants. They have the following restrictions:
$$a in [0,1]$$
$$b > 0$$
$$c_1, c_2 > 0$$
My thinking is that the above equations should give me a bunch of possible solutions, and then all but one can (hopefully) be eliminated according to restrictions that this particular problem imposes (eg. imaginary solutions are not permitted).
The only approach that I can see is to first use the quadratic formula to obtain solutions for $x$ in terms of $y$, and then substitute this into the second equation to then solve for $y$, or vise versa. But this quickly leads to an intractable (at least for me) expression. In particular, I end up with
$$x = frac{-(b+2ay)pm sqrt{(b+2ay)^2 + 4a c_1}}{2a}$$
along with the equation
$$- ay^2 pm sqrt{(b+2ay)^2+4ac_1}y - c_2 = 0$$
The hope is to then solve the above to obtain a solution for $y$, which can then be used to obtain the corresponding solution for $x$. But how on earth can we deal with the square root? Is this problem even solvable without resorting to a numerical solution?
systems-of-equations quadratics symmetric-polynomials
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I have $-ay^2 pm cdots$ in your last line.
$endgroup$
– Doug M
Jan 4 at 3:24
1
$begingroup$
Because if $$3ay^2 pmsqrt{text{blah}}=0$$ then $$9a^2y^4-text{blah}=0$$. This is just a quartic and can be solved albeit awkwardly.
$endgroup$
– Rhys Hughes
Jan 4 at 3:26
1
$begingroup$
@Xiaomi Rhys Hughes approach may be best, An alternative approach is to subtract the two eqn's to create a third equation: $a(x^2 - y^2) +b(x-y) - (c_1 - c_2) = 0.$ I would ignore the 2nd equation, apply the quadratic formula to the first equation, expressing $x$ in terms of $y$, and then try to combine that with the third equation. This will result in two equations in two unknowns, one of which (the 3rd) is non-linear. If you still can't solve the problem re Rhys Hughes answer or my comment, respond, and I will take another look at it.
$endgroup$
– user2661923
Jan 4 at 3:31
$begingroup$
And it sould be $+ 4ac_1$ under the radical.
$endgroup$
– Doug M
Jan 4 at 3:32
$begingroup$
@DougM thanks for catching that mistake. I'll try that first and check back here if I dont maake any progress
$endgroup$
– Xiaomi
Jan 4 at 4:16
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
I have the following simultaneous equations:
$$a x^2 + (b+2ay)x - c_1 = 0$$
$$ay^2 + (b+2ax)y - c_2 = 0$$
Where I'd like to solve for $x$ and $y$.
Obviously $a,b,c_1,c_2$ are known constants. They have the following restrictions:
$$a in [0,1]$$
$$b > 0$$
$$c_1, c_2 > 0$$
My thinking is that the above equations should give me a bunch of possible solutions, and then all but one can (hopefully) be eliminated according to restrictions that this particular problem imposes (eg. imaginary solutions are not permitted).
The only approach that I can see is to first use the quadratic formula to obtain solutions for $x$ in terms of $y$, and then substitute this into the second equation to then solve for $y$, or vise versa. But this quickly leads to an intractable (at least for me) expression. In particular, I end up with
$$x = frac{-(b+2ay)pm sqrt{(b+2ay)^2 + 4a c_1}}{2a}$$
along with the equation
$$- ay^2 pm sqrt{(b+2ay)^2+4ac_1}y - c_2 = 0$$
The hope is to then solve the above to obtain a solution for $y$, which can then be used to obtain the corresponding solution for $x$. But how on earth can we deal with the square root? Is this problem even solvable without resorting to a numerical solution?
systems-of-equations quadratics symmetric-polynomials
$endgroup$
I have the following simultaneous equations:
$$a x^2 + (b+2ay)x - c_1 = 0$$
$$ay^2 + (b+2ax)y - c_2 = 0$$
Where I'd like to solve for $x$ and $y$.
Obviously $a,b,c_1,c_2$ are known constants. They have the following restrictions:
$$a in [0,1]$$
$$b > 0$$
$$c_1, c_2 > 0$$
My thinking is that the above equations should give me a bunch of possible solutions, and then all but one can (hopefully) be eliminated according to restrictions that this particular problem imposes (eg. imaginary solutions are not permitted).
The only approach that I can see is to first use the quadratic formula to obtain solutions for $x$ in terms of $y$, and then substitute this into the second equation to then solve for $y$, or vise versa. But this quickly leads to an intractable (at least for me) expression. In particular, I end up with
$$x = frac{-(b+2ay)pm sqrt{(b+2ay)^2 + 4a c_1}}{2a}$$
along with the equation
$$- ay^2 pm sqrt{(b+2ay)^2+4ac_1}y - c_2 = 0$$
The hope is to then solve the above to obtain a solution for $y$, which can then be used to obtain the corresponding solution for $x$. But how on earth can we deal with the square root? Is this problem even solvable without resorting to a numerical solution?
systems-of-equations quadratics symmetric-polynomials
systems-of-equations quadratics symmetric-polynomials
edited Jan 7 at 11:02
Harry Peter
5,48911439
5,48911439
asked Jan 4 at 3:15
XiaomiXiaomi
1,066115
1,066115
$begingroup$
I have $-ay^2 pm cdots$ in your last line.
$endgroup$
– Doug M
Jan 4 at 3:24
1
$begingroup$
Because if $$3ay^2 pmsqrt{text{blah}}=0$$ then $$9a^2y^4-text{blah}=0$$. This is just a quartic and can be solved albeit awkwardly.
$endgroup$
– Rhys Hughes
Jan 4 at 3:26
1
$begingroup$
@Xiaomi Rhys Hughes approach may be best, An alternative approach is to subtract the two eqn's to create a third equation: $a(x^2 - y^2) +b(x-y) - (c_1 - c_2) = 0.$ I would ignore the 2nd equation, apply the quadratic formula to the first equation, expressing $x$ in terms of $y$, and then try to combine that with the third equation. This will result in two equations in two unknowns, one of which (the 3rd) is non-linear. If you still can't solve the problem re Rhys Hughes answer or my comment, respond, and I will take another look at it.
$endgroup$
– user2661923
Jan 4 at 3:31
$begingroup$
And it sould be $+ 4ac_1$ under the radical.
$endgroup$
– Doug M
Jan 4 at 3:32
$begingroup$
@DougM thanks for catching that mistake. I'll try that first and check back here if I dont maake any progress
$endgroup$
– Xiaomi
Jan 4 at 4:16
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
I have $-ay^2 pm cdots$ in your last line.
$endgroup$
– Doug M
Jan 4 at 3:24
1
$begingroup$
Because if $$3ay^2 pmsqrt{text{blah}}=0$$ then $$9a^2y^4-text{blah}=0$$. This is just a quartic and can be solved albeit awkwardly.
$endgroup$
– Rhys Hughes
Jan 4 at 3:26
1
$begingroup$
@Xiaomi Rhys Hughes approach may be best, An alternative approach is to subtract the two eqn's to create a third equation: $a(x^2 - y^2) +b(x-y) - (c_1 - c_2) = 0.$ I would ignore the 2nd equation, apply the quadratic formula to the first equation, expressing $x$ in terms of $y$, and then try to combine that with the third equation. This will result in two equations in two unknowns, one of which (the 3rd) is non-linear. If you still can't solve the problem re Rhys Hughes answer or my comment, respond, and I will take another look at it.
$endgroup$
– user2661923
Jan 4 at 3:31
$begingroup$
And it sould be $+ 4ac_1$ under the radical.
$endgroup$
– Doug M
Jan 4 at 3:32
$begingroup$
@DougM thanks for catching that mistake. I'll try that first and check back here if I dont maake any progress
$endgroup$
– Xiaomi
Jan 4 at 4:16
$begingroup$
I have $-ay^2 pm cdots$ in your last line.
$endgroup$
– Doug M
Jan 4 at 3:24
$begingroup$
I have $-ay^2 pm cdots$ in your last line.
$endgroup$
– Doug M
Jan 4 at 3:24
1
1
$begingroup$
Because if $$3ay^2 pmsqrt{text{blah}}=0$$ then $$9a^2y^4-text{blah}=0$$. This is just a quartic and can be solved albeit awkwardly.
$endgroup$
– Rhys Hughes
Jan 4 at 3:26
$begingroup$
Because if $$3ay^2 pmsqrt{text{blah}}=0$$ then $$9a^2y^4-text{blah}=0$$. This is just a quartic and can be solved albeit awkwardly.
$endgroup$
– Rhys Hughes
Jan 4 at 3:26
1
1
$begingroup$
@Xiaomi Rhys Hughes approach may be best, An alternative approach is to subtract the two eqn's to create a third equation: $a(x^2 - y^2) +b(x-y) - (c_1 - c_2) = 0.$ I would ignore the 2nd equation, apply the quadratic formula to the first equation, expressing $x$ in terms of $y$, and then try to combine that with the third equation. This will result in two equations in two unknowns, one of which (the 3rd) is non-linear. If you still can't solve the problem re Rhys Hughes answer or my comment, respond, and I will take another look at it.
$endgroup$
– user2661923
Jan 4 at 3:31
$begingroup$
@Xiaomi Rhys Hughes approach may be best, An alternative approach is to subtract the two eqn's to create a third equation: $a(x^2 - y^2) +b(x-y) - (c_1 - c_2) = 0.$ I would ignore the 2nd equation, apply the quadratic formula to the first equation, expressing $x$ in terms of $y$, and then try to combine that with the third equation. This will result in two equations in two unknowns, one of which (the 3rd) is non-linear. If you still can't solve the problem re Rhys Hughes answer or my comment, respond, and I will take another look at it.
$endgroup$
– user2661923
Jan 4 at 3:31
$begingroup$
And it sould be $+ 4ac_1$ under the radical.
$endgroup$
– Doug M
Jan 4 at 3:32
$begingroup$
And it sould be $+ 4ac_1$ under the radical.
$endgroup$
– Doug M
Jan 4 at 3:32
$begingroup$
@DougM thanks for catching that mistake. I'll try that first and check back here if I dont maake any progress
$endgroup$
– Xiaomi
Jan 4 at 4:16
$begingroup$
@DougM thanks for catching that mistake. I'll try that first and check back here if I dont maake any progress
$endgroup$
– Xiaomi
Jan 4 at 4:16
|
show 1 more comment
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You can make life simpler avoiding radicals but you will still arrive to a nasty quartic equation.
Considering $$a x^2 + (b+2ay)x - c_1 = 0 tag 1$$
$$ay^2 + (b+2ax)y - c_2 = 0 tag 2$$
eliminate $y$ from $(1)$to get (assuming $aneq 0$ and $xneq 0$)
$$y=frac{-a x^2-b x+c_1}{2 a x}tag 3$$
Plug this result in $(2)$, simplify as much as you can to get by the end
$$3 a^2 x^4+4a bx^3+(b^2+4 a c_2-2 a c_1 ) x^2 -c_1^2=0 tag 4$$
Now, have fun !
I think that considering some numerical method (such as Newton) could be a good idea looking for the zero's of function
$$f(x)=3 a^2 x^4+4a bx^3+(b^2+4 a c_2-2 a c_1 ) x^2 -c_1^2$$
Since $f(0)=-c_1^2 <0$, you could catch a first root (so you know that there is at least a second real root); deflate to a cubic equation (using long division) and this would be easier to handle.
Edit
Because of $f(0)=-c_1^2 <0$, we can think about applying Newton method twice first. Taking advantage of $f'(0)=0$, the estimates of two roots can be obtaines using a series expansion around $x=0$. This will give as estimates
$$x_pm=pm sqrt{frac{c_1^2}{b^2+4 a c_2-2 a c_1 }}$$
Let us try using $a=3$, $b=7$, $c_1=31$, $c_2=50$. This would give $x_pm=pm frac{31}{sqrt{463}}approx pm 1.44$. Let us start Newton method for the zero's of function
$$f(x)=27 x^4+84 x^3+463 x^2-961$$
For the positive root, the iterates would be
$$left(
begin{array}{cc}
n & x_n \
0 & 1.440692178 \
1 & 1.272119191 \
2 & 1.254474954 \
3 & 1.254291856 \
4 & 1.254291837
end{array}
right)$$
For the negative root, the iterates would be
$$left(
begin{array}{cc}
n & x_n \
0 & -1.440692178 \
1 & -1.559623512 \
2 & -1.554550306 \
3 & -1.554540654
end{array}
right)$$ Now, making the division
$$frac{27 x^4+84 x^3+463 x^2-961 }{(x-1.254291837)(x+1.554540654)}=27 x^2+75.8933 x+492.859$$ which does not show any real root. So, we have our solutions for $x$ and back to $(3)$ the corresponding $y$'s.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Qualitatively, Bézout’s Theorem on plane curves says that there will be four intersection points, including (pairs of conjugate) complex points and points at infinity.
A glance at the quadratic terms ($ax^2+2ayx$ in the first equation, $ay^2+2ayx$ in the second) shows that there will be no intersection points at infinity. In fact, the curves are both hyperbolas, with entirely different asymptotes. Thus you expect two pairs of complex points (no real intersection), one such pair and two real points (two visible points of intersection), or four visible intersection points, always taking account of multiplicity of course.
In the event, thanks to Desmos, it looks as if there are always at least two visible points of intersection; certainly when you take $a=1$, $b=4$, $c_1=1$ and $c_2=frac16$, you get four honest real points of intersection.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3061281%2fadvice-on-solving-these-simultaneous-quadratic-cubic-equations%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You can make life simpler avoiding radicals but you will still arrive to a nasty quartic equation.
Considering $$a x^2 + (b+2ay)x - c_1 = 0 tag 1$$
$$ay^2 + (b+2ax)y - c_2 = 0 tag 2$$
eliminate $y$ from $(1)$to get (assuming $aneq 0$ and $xneq 0$)
$$y=frac{-a x^2-b x+c_1}{2 a x}tag 3$$
Plug this result in $(2)$, simplify as much as you can to get by the end
$$3 a^2 x^4+4a bx^3+(b^2+4 a c_2-2 a c_1 ) x^2 -c_1^2=0 tag 4$$
Now, have fun !
I think that considering some numerical method (such as Newton) could be a good idea looking for the zero's of function
$$f(x)=3 a^2 x^4+4a bx^3+(b^2+4 a c_2-2 a c_1 ) x^2 -c_1^2$$
Since $f(0)=-c_1^2 <0$, you could catch a first root (so you know that there is at least a second real root); deflate to a cubic equation (using long division) and this would be easier to handle.
Edit
Because of $f(0)=-c_1^2 <0$, we can think about applying Newton method twice first. Taking advantage of $f'(0)=0$, the estimates of two roots can be obtaines using a series expansion around $x=0$. This will give as estimates
$$x_pm=pm sqrt{frac{c_1^2}{b^2+4 a c_2-2 a c_1 }}$$
Let us try using $a=3$, $b=7$, $c_1=31$, $c_2=50$. This would give $x_pm=pm frac{31}{sqrt{463}}approx pm 1.44$. Let us start Newton method for the zero's of function
$$f(x)=27 x^4+84 x^3+463 x^2-961$$
For the positive root, the iterates would be
$$left(
begin{array}{cc}
n & x_n \
0 & 1.440692178 \
1 & 1.272119191 \
2 & 1.254474954 \
3 & 1.254291856 \
4 & 1.254291837
end{array}
right)$$
For the negative root, the iterates would be
$$left(
begin{array}{cc}
n & x_n \
0 & -1.440692178 \
1 & -1.559623512 \
2 & -1.554550306 \
3 & -1.554540654
end{array}
right)$$ Now, making the division
$$frac{27 x^4+84 x^3+463 x^2-961 }{(x-1.254291837)(x+1.554540654)}=27 x^2+75.8933 x+492.859$$ which does not show any real root. So, we have our solutions for $x$ and back to $(3)$ the corresponding $y$'s.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You can make life simpler avoiding radicals but you will still arrive to a nasty quartic equation.
Considering $$a x^2 + (b+2ay)x - c_1 = 0 tag 1$$
$$ay^2 + (b+2ax)y - c_2 = 0 tag 2$$
eliminate $y$ from $(1)$to get (assuming $aneq 0$ and $xneq 0$)
$$y=frac{-a x^2-b x+c_1}{2 a x}tag 3$$
Plug this result in $(2)$, simplify as much as you can to get by the end
$$3 a^2 x^4+4a bx^3+(b^2+4 a c_2-2 a c_1 ) x^2 -c_1^2=0 tag 4$$
Now, have fun !
I think that considering some numerical method (such as Newton) could be a good idea looking for the zero's of function
$$f(x)=3 a^2 x^4+4a bx^3+(b^2+4 a c_2-2 a c_1 ) x^2 -c_1^2$$
Since $f(0)=-c_1^2 <0$, you could catch a first root (so you know that there is at least a second real root); deflate to a cubic equation (using long division) and this would be easier to handle.
Edit
Because of $f(0)=-c_1^2 <0$, we can think about applying Newton method twice first. Taking advantage of $f'(0)=0$, the estimates of two roots can be obtaines using a series expansion around $x=0$. This will give as estimates
$$x_pm=pm sqrt{frac{c_1^2}{b^2+4 a c_2-2 a c_1 }}$$
Let us try using $a=3$, $b=7$, $c_1=31$, $c_2=50$. This would give $x_pm=pm frac{31}{sqrt{463}}approx pm 1.44$. Let us start Newton method for the zero's of function
$$f(x)=27 x^4+84 x^3+463 x^2-961$$
For the positive root, the iterates would be
$$left(
begin{array}{cc}
n & x_n \
0 & 1.440692178 \
1 & 1.272119191 \
2 & 1.254474954 \
3 & 1.254291856 \
4 & 1.254291837
end{array}
right)$$
For the negative root, the iterates would be
$$left(
begin{array}{cc}
n & x_n \
0 & -1.440692178 \
1 & -1.559623512 \
2 & -1.554550306 \
3 & -1.554540654
end{array}
right)$$ Now, making the division
$$frac{27 x^4+84 x^3+463 x^2-961 }{(x-1.254291837)(x+1.554540654)}=27 x^2+75.8933 x+492.859$$ which does not show any real root. So, we have our solutions for $x$ and back to $(3)$ the corresponding $y$'s.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You can make life simpler avoiding radicals but you will still arrive to a nasty quartic equation.
Considering $$a x^2 + (b+2ay)x - c_1 = 0 tag 1$$
$$ay^2 + (b+2ax)y - c_2 = 0 tag 2$$
eliminate $y$ from $(1)$to get (assuming $aneq 0$ and $xneq 0$)
$$y=frac{-a x^2-b x+c_1}{2 a x}tag 3$$
Plug this result in $(2)$, simplify as much as you can to get by the end
$$3 a^2 x^4+4a bx^3+(b^2+4 a c_2-2 a c_1 ) x^2 -c_1^2=0 tag 4$$
Now, have fun !
I think that considering some numerical method (such as Newton) could be a good idea looking for the zero's of function
$$f(x)=3 a^2 x^4+4a bx^3+(b^2+4 a c_2-2 a c_1 ) x^2 -c_1^2$$
Since $f(0)=-c_1^2 <0$, you could catch a first root (so you know that there is at least a second real root); deflate to a cubic equation (using long division) and this would be easier to handle.
Edit
Because of $f(0)=-c_1^2 <0$, we can think about applying Newton method twice first. Taking advantage of $f'(0)=0$, the estimates of two roots can be obtaines using a series expansion around $x=0$. This will give as estimates
$$x_pm=pm sqrt{frac{c_1^2}{b^2+4 a c_2-2 a c_1 }}$$
Let us try using $a=3$, $b=7$, $c_1=31$, $c_2=50$. This would give $x_pm=pm frac{31}{sqrt{463}}approx pm 1.44$. Let us start Newton method for the zero's of function
$$f(x)=27 x^4+84 x^3+463 x^2-961$$
For the positive root, the iterates would be
$$left(
begin{array}{cc}
n & x_n \
0 & 1.440692178 \
1 & 1.272119191 \
2 & 1.254474954 \
3 & 1.254291856 \
4 & 1.254291837
end{array}
right)$$
For the negative root, the iterates would be
$$left(
begin{array}{cc}
n & x_n \
0 & -1.440692178 \
1 & -1.559623512 \
2 & -1.554550306 \
3 & -1.554540654
end{array}
right)$$ Now, making the division
$$frac{27 x^4+84 x^3+463 x^2-961 }{(x-1.254291837)(x+1.554540654)}=27 x^2+75.8933 x+492.859$$ which does not show any real root. So, we have our solutions for $x$ and back to $(3)$ the corresponding $y$'s.
$endgroup$
You can make life simpler avoiding radicals but you will still arrive to a nasty quartic equation.
Considering $$a x^2 + (b+2ay)x - c_1 = 0 tag 1$$
$$ay^2 + (b+2ax)y - c_2 = 0 tag 2$$
eliminate $y$ from $(1)$to get (assuming $aneq 0$ and $xneq 0$)
$$y=frac{-a x^2-b x+c_1}{2 a x}tag 3$$
Plug this result in $(2)$, simplify as much as you can to get by the end
$$3 a^2 x^4+4a bx^3+(b^2+4 a c_2-2 a c_1 ) x^2 -c_1^2=0 tag 4$$
Now, have fun !
I think that considering some numerical method (such as Newton) could be a good idea looking for the zero's of function
$$f(x)=3 a^2 x^4+4a bx^3+(b^2+4 a c_2-2 a c_1 ) x^2 -c_1^2$$
Since $f(0)=-c_1^2 <0$, you could catch a first root (so you know that there is at least a second real root); deflate to a cubic equation (using long division) and this would be easier to handle.
Edit
Because of $f(0)=-c_1^2 <0$, we can think about applying Newton method twice first. Taking advantage of $f'(0)=0$, the estimates of two roots can be obtaines using a series expansion around $x=0$. This will give as estimates
$$x_pm=pm sqrt{frac{c_1^2}{b^2+4 a c_2-2 a c_1 }}$$
Let us try using $a=3$, $b=7$, $c_1=31$, $c_2=50$. This would give $x_pm=pm frac{31}{sqrt{463}}approx pm 1.44$. Let us start Newton method for the zero's of function
$$f(x)=27 x^4+84 x^3+463 x^2-961$$
For the positive root, the iterates would be
$$left(
begin{array}{cc}
n & x_n \
0 & 1.440692178 \
1 & 1.272119191 \
2 & 1.254474954 \
3 & 1.254291856 \
4 & 1.254291837
end{array}
right)$$
For the negative root, the iterates would be
$$left(
begin{array}{cc}
n & x_n \
0 & -1.440692178 \
1 & -1.559623512 \
2 & -1.554550306 \
3 & -1.554540654
end{array}
right)$$ Now, making the division
$$frac{27 x^4+84 x^3+463 x^2-961 }{(x-1.254291837)(x+1.554540654)}=27 x^2+75.8933 x+492.859$$ which does not show any real root. So, we have our solutions for $x$ and back to $(3)$ the corresponding $y$'s.
edited Jan 8 at 5:31
answered Jan 4 at 6:15
Claude LeiboviciClaude Leibovici
124k1157135
124k1157135
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Qualitatively, Bézout’s Theorem on plane curves says that there will be four intersection points, including (pairs of conjugate) complex points and points at infinity.
A glance at the quadratic terms ($ax^2+2ayx$ in the first equation, $ay^2+2ayx$ in the second) shows that there will be no intersection points at infinity. In fact, the curves are both hyperbolas, with entirely different asymptotes. Thus you expect two pairs of complex points (no real intersection), one such pair and two real points (two visible points of intersection), or four visible intersection points, always taking account of multiplicity of course.
In the event, thanks to Desmos, it looks as if there are always at least two visible points of intersection; certainly when you take $a=1$, $b=4$, $c_1=1$ and $c_2=frac16$, you get four honest real points of intersection.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Qualitatively, Bézout’s Theorem on plane curves says that there will be four intersection points, including (pairs of conjugate) complex points and points at infinity.
A glance at the quadratic terms ($ax^2+2ayx$ in the first equation, $ay^2+2ayx$ in the second) shows that there will be no intersection points at infinity. In fact, the curves are both hyperbolas, with entirely different asymptotes. Thus you expect two pairs of complex points (no real intersection), one such pair and two real points (two visible points of intersection), or four visible intersection points, always taking account of multiplicity of course.
In the event, thanks to Desmos, it looks as if there are always at least two visible points of intersection; certainly when you take $a=1$, $b=4$, $c_1=1$ and $c_2=frac16$, you get four honest real points of intersection.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Qualitatively, Bézout’s Theorem on plane curves says that there will be four intersection points, including (pairs of conjugate) complex points and points at infinity.
A glance at the quadratic terms ($ax^2+2ayx$ in the first equation, $ay^2+2ayx$ in the second) shows that there will be no intersection points at infinity. In fact, the curves are both hyperbolas, with entirely different asymptotes. Thus you expect two pairs of complex points (no real intersection), one such pair and two real points (two visible points of intersection), or four visible intersection points, always taking account of multiplicity of course.
In the event, thanks to Desmos, it looks as if there are always at least two visible points of intersection; certainly when you take $a=1$, $b=4$, $c_1=1$ and $c_2=frac16$, you get four honest real points of intersection.
$endgroup$
Qualitatively, Bézout’s Theorem on plane curves says that there will be four intersection points, including (pairs of conjugate) complex points and points at infinity.
A glance at the quadratic terms ($ax^2+2ayx$ in the first equation, $ay^2+2ayx$ in the second) shows that there will be no intersection points at infinity. In fact, the curves are both hyperbolas, with entirely different asymptotes. Thus you expect two pairs of complex points (no real intersection), one such pair and two real points (two visible points of intersection), or four visible intersection points, always taking account of multiplicity of course.
In the event, thanks to Desmos, it looks as if there are always at least two visible points of intersection; certainly when you take $a=1$, $b=4$, $c_1=1$ and $c_2=frac16$, you get four honest real points of intersection.
answered Jan 8 at 6:28
LubinLubin
45.1k44687
45.1k44687
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3061281%2fadvice-on-solving-these-simultaneous-quadratic-cubic-equations%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
I have $-ay^2 pm cdots$ in your last line.
$endgroup$
– Doug M
Jan 4 at 3:24
1
$begingroup$
Because if $$3ay^2 pmsqrt{text{blah}}=0$$ then $$9a^2y^4-text{blah}=0$$. This is just a quartic and can be solved albeit awkwardly.
$endgroup$
– Rhys Hughes
Jan 4 at 3:26
1
$begingroup$
@Xiaomi Rhys Hughes approach may be best, An alternative approach is to subtract the two eqn's to create a third equation: $a(x^2 - y^2) +b(x-y) - (c_1 - c_2) = 0.$ I would ignore the 2nd equation, apply the quadratic formula to the first equation, expressing $x$ in terms of $y$, and then try to combine that with the third equation. This will result in two equations in two unknowns, one of which (the 3rd) is non-linear. If you still can't solve the problem re Rhys Hughes answer or my comment, respond, and I will take another look at it.
$endgroup$
– user2661923
Jan 4 at 3:31
$begingroup$
And it sould be $+ 4ac_1$ under the radical.
$endgroup$
– Doug M
Jan 4 at 3:32
$begingroup$
@DougM thanks for catching that mistake. I'll try that first and check back here if I dont maake any progress
$endgroup$
– Xiaomi
Jan 4 at 4:16