You are Here: Home >< Maths

question Watch

1. the root of ax^3+bx^2+cx+d is equal to the sum of its other two roots. Hence prove that b^3=4a(bc-2ad)

I realised the the roots must be equidistant ie the distance between them must be the same. I also though that a possibility of one root being 0 abd the other two equal in modulus. I was baffled after 15 minutes of trying. Can someone shed some light on this stuff.

Posted from TSR Mobile
2. Hi there,

While you're waiting for an answer, did you know we have 300,000 study resources that could answer your question in TSR's Learn together section?

We have everything from Teacher Marked Essays to Mindmaps and Quizzes to help you with your work. Take a look around.

If you're stuck on how to get started, try creating some resources. It's free to do and can help breakdown tough topics into manageable chunks. Get creating now.

Thanks!

Not sure what all of this is about? Head here to find out more.
3. (Original post by physicsmaths)
the root of ax^3+bx^2+cx+d is equal to the sum of its other two roots. Hence prove that b^3=4a(bc-2ad)

I realised the the roots must be equidistant ie the distance between them must be the same. I also though that a possibility of one root being 0 abd the other two equal in modulus. I was baffled after 15 minutes of trying. Can someone shed some light on this stuff.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Not necessarily true.

Consider this:

Now these roots are not equidistant, are they? Their differences are 2 and 3. (From left to right). Yet the relationship of still holds. Check it yourself on your calculator.

You can't consider that one root must be 0 in your answer (even though it may be in some cases), as I have just provided a counter-example of it having to be 0. Also, you are asked to prove it not to show it, so you can't just provide a special case and show it is true.
4. (Original post by DomStaff)
Not necessarily true.

Consider this:

Now these roots are not equidistant, are they? Their differences are 2 and 3. (From left to right). Yet the relationship of still holds. Check it yourself on your calculator.

You can't consider that one root must be 0 in your answer (even though it may be in some cases), as I have just provided a counter-example of it having to be 0. Also, you are asked to prove it not to show it, so you can't just provide a special case and show it is true.
so how would you prove it.

Posted from TSR Mobile
5. (Original post by physicsmaths)
so how would you prove it.

Posted from TSR Mobile
I'll have a go at it in a bit or tomorrow, but I would certainly use the 'roots of polynomials' aspect of A-Level maths to tackle it. If you haven't came across it, google it, if you have, then use it.
6. (Original post by physicsmaths)
so how would you prove it.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Think about how you can obtain a relationship between the roots of your polynomial and it's coefficients
7. I've not done it yet, but I've got the first few steps done in my head, ish. So when you get stuck I'll give you the first hint, which is how I will approach the problem when I come to do it.
8. lol everybody chill out i was making this horrible mistake time and time again. I shouldve got it right the first time. This is a question from 1968 btw. Suprised how i got deluded in some bogus method. Thanks for the help everyone. I cant believe i got this wrong first time.

Posted from TSR Mobile
9. (Original post by physicsmaths)
the root of ax^3+bx^2+cx+d is equal to the sum of its other two roots. Hence prove that b^3=4a(bc-2ad)

I realised the the roots must be equidistant ie the distance between them must be the same. I also though that a possibility of one root being 0 abd the other two equal in modulus. I was baffled after 15 minutes of trying. Can someone shed some light on this stuff.

Posted from TSR Mobile
For a standard quadratic, you have where are the roots.

There is a similar, but more involved, result that you can look up for the standard cubic. The result follows fairly easily once you know that result and you use the fact given in the question.
10. (Original post by physicsmaths)
lol everybody chill out i was making this horrible mistake time and time again. I shouldve got it right the first time. This is a question from 1968 btw. Suprised how i got deluded in some bogus method. Thanks for the help everyone. I cant believe i got this wrong first time.

Posted from TSR Mobile
So you've done it then, yes? I'll probably post my solution when I've done it anyways so that we can compare.
11. (Original post by DomStaff)
So you've done it then, yes? I'll probably post my solution when I've done it anyways so that we can compare.
i just used a couple of equations. 3 cubics and one linear. Sometimes these simple a level questions get to me. i was putting the sum into X and somehow trying some bull****. After the equations i just factorised and simplified and divided through by the root in the end.

Posted from TSR Mobile
12. (Original post by atsruser)
For a standard quadratic, you have where are the roots.

There is a similar, but more involved, result that you can look up for the standard cubic. The result follows fairly easily once you know that result and you use the fact given in the question.
yeh mate, thats a proper neat way of doin it. I'm going to use that now.

Posted from TSR Mobile
13. (Original post by physicsmaths)
yeh mate, thats a proper neat way of doin it. I'm going to use that now.

Posted from TSR Mobile
I personally would say that's the only 'proper' way of doing it. I say proper because I'm sure that's what the question-setter was after.
14. Good to see some nice hard a level questions though. The a levels nowadays are way to easy(im not complaining).

Posted from TSR Mobile
15. (Original post by DomStaff)
I personally would say that's the only 'proper' way of doing it. I say proper because I'm sure that's what the question-setter was after.
dw my methods are normally always in the (alternative methods) section.

Posted from TSR Mobile
16. ill post some other 1968 questions if anyones interested. This was probably the hardest though.

Posted from TSR Mobile
17. (Original post by physicsmaths)
ill post some other 1968 questions if anyones interested. This was probably the hardest though.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Sure.
18. (Original post by physicsmaths)
...
(Original post by Phoebe Buffay)
...
(Original post by atsruser)
...
(Original post by DomStaff)
...
After comparing the coefficients of the equality below, did y'all end up with That's what I got in my final expression after ending up with , so I just said that it's equal to the form given. I don't think that's right though. Shouldn't it be more general than

19. (Original post by Khallil)
After comparing the coefficients of the equality below, did y'all end up with That's what I got in my final expression after ending up with , so I just said that it's equal to the form given. I don't think that's right though. Shouldn't it be more general than
Not necessarily.

Consider (2x-3)(2x-5)(x-4), expand it, and the equation still holds.

I am just about to start my proof to this.
20. (Original post by DomStaff)
...
I thought so. I'll try another method.

TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: July 26, 2014
Today on TSR

Cambridge interview invitations

Has yours come through yet?

Official Oxford interview invite list

Discussions on TSR

• Latest
• See more of what you like on The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

• Poll
Useful resources

Make your revision easier

Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

Create your own Study Planner

Never miss a deadline again

Thinking about a maths degree?

Chat with other maths applicants

Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups
Discussions on TSR

• Latest
• See more of what you like on The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

• The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.