Previously, we have seen that to solve a quadratic equation
we can use the quadratic formula given by
provided that , so that
is a unique sensible real number.
Example 1. Given non-negative integers , show that
. Furthermore, if
, show that
Solution. We observe that
Since ,
For the second claim, we employ a similar strategy:
so that .
Lemma 1. is an non-negative integer if and only if there exists a non-negative integer
such that
, in which we write
. In this case, we say that
is a perfect square.
Proof Sketch. Use prime factorisation and a proof by contradiction in the spirit of proving that the number is not a fraction (i.e. an irrational number).
Lemma 2. Suppose there exist positive integers such that
. Then
.
Proof. By Example 1,
Example 2. Evaluate the numbers in the form
, where
are rational numbers.
Solution. We observe that . By Lemma 2,
Similarly, , so that by Lemma 2 again,
Lemma 3. Suppose is not a perfect square. If
are rational numbers such that
, then
. In particular, if
, then
and
. We call this technique comparing of coefficients.
Proof Sketch. Follow the proof strategy in Lemma 1. Left as an exercise in proof by contradiction and baby number theory for interested readers.
Definition 1. Let be a positive natural number.
- We say that
square-free if none of the numbers
are factors of
.
- A real number of the form
, where
is square-free, is called a surd.
- Given a square-free natural number
, all numbers
, where
are rational, are real numbers. The collection of such numbers is called a quadratic field, commonly denoted
.
In particular, if are integers, then
is an integer as well, and the quadratic equation has roots
By Lemma 2, we still obtain two real and distinct roots. By Lemma 3, we will not be able to represent them purely using fractions.
Example 3. Evaluate in the form
, where
are rational numbers.
Solution. By Example 1,
By observing that ,
Therefore, .
Example 4. Given rational numbers and a non-negative integer
, show that
is a rational number. Hence, evaluate in the form
, where
are rational numbers.
Solution. Using the difference of squares formula,
Since are rational numbers, so is
.
Similar to Example 3, we observe that , so that
Remark 1. The technique in Examples 3 and 4 is called rationalising the denominator.
Example 5. Calculate the length of a square with area sqaured-units in the form
, where
are rational numbers.
Solution. Let denote the length of the square. Since the square has area
,
By comparing of coefficients as per Lemma 3,
Thus, we reduce the problem to solving a pair of equations, and we shall do so by substitution. Making the subject in the second equation,
Substituting this value of into the first equation,
Since is a perfect square, we could solve by either factorisation or the quadratic formula. We shall use the latter since we are lazy:
Hence, or
.
In the latter case, , which is a contradiction since
is a rational number and
is not a rational number, therefore we reject this case, and conclude that
. Hence,
. Substituting into the expression for
,
Therefore, , which abbreviates the following two cases:
- if
, then
, and
- if
, then
.
Hence, the length of the square is either or
. Since lengths are non-negative and
, we reject the latter case, and conclude that the length of the square is
units. In more mathematical jargon,
Example 6. Calculate the length of the base of a right-isosceles triangle with longest side length (i.e. hypotenuse) .
Solution. Denote the desired side length by . By Pythagoras’ theorem,
Taking square roots,
By rationalising the denominator,
Therefore, the triangle has base length .
Remark 2. As far as possible, we express answers involving surds in the form , where
are simplified rational numbers and
is square-free. In linear algebra, numbers of this form are called linear combinations of the basis
.
While understanding surds of the form , where
is non-negative, has its uses in simplifying otherwise complicated numerical expressions, its power becomes beefed up significantly if
is negative, for example, if we consider numbers of the form
.
You would scream at me for committing this mathematical crime. We have emphasised repeatedly that there is no real number such that
, so how in good faith and conscience can we write
and not cringe like the 6-7 kid? You are absolutely right—but we are assuming that the only numbers that we can talk about are real numbers.
Definition 1. Call the number the imaginary unit, defined by the “false” equation
.
- For more interested readers: legitimately defined using techniques in linear algebra here).
- A number of the form
, where
are real numbers, is called complex.
Since , we have
.
While we need a rather distinct visual idea for what means, if we allow the calculation
, we recover many of the properties discussed in the previous lemmas and examples.
Theorem 1. The complex numbers satisfy the following properties:
- If
, then
.
- If
are real numbers such that
, then
.
- Given real numbers
,
is still a complex number.
- Given real numbers
,
is still a complex number.
Proof Sketch. Adapt the solutions in the previous lemmas and examples.
Definition 2. Define the conjugate of a complex number by .
Example 7. Let be a complex number. Show that
is a real number. Deduce that
Solution. Write , where
are real numbers. Using Example 4,
which is a real number since are real numbers. In particular, if
, then
. Since
are real numbers,
Therefore, implies that
. Similarly,
, so that
In particular, we can make the following claim.
Theorem 2. The solutions to the equation are given by
In particular, the solutions are
- real and distinct if
,
- real and repeated if
,
- complex conjugates if
.
Any further discussion on complex numbers is relegated to A-Level Mathematics, and so we will only explore this idea in detail when we get there.
For now, we can ask a humble yet daunting question: given real numbers where
, how can we solve the cubic equation below?
We will explore this idea next time using polynomials and its cousin the partial fractions.
—Joel Kindiak, 25 Oct 25, 1443H
Leave a comment