What is the Difference Between Formulating the Answer via Quadratic Formula and Factoring?












5












$begingroup$


I'm quite eager to learn what is the difference between factoring quadratics (the $(x + a)(x + b)$ method), and using the typical formula (where $x = (-b pm sqrt{b^2 - 4ac})/2a$), and in what situations should I use either of them.



Take this for a problem (I didn't make it myself)



enter image description here



I know that the quadratic formula is required to solve the answer, but why not factor?



I previously asked this on Math Overflow, but this is the right place.



Thanks in advance.










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Smilez is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    What may be worth doing in this case is cancelling a constant factor rather than a linear one, to make the numbers more manageable in the quadratic formula, so we go from $16t^2-164t+92=0$ to $4t^2-41t+23=0$. However, you'll probably need a calculator either way, but it's worth bearing in mind for other quadratics later.
    $endgroup$
    – J.G.
    Mar 21 at 11:14










  • $begingroup$
    See also math.stackexchange.com/questions/3154893/…
    $endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Mar 21 at 11:31










  • $begingroup$
    Who said you cannot factor?
    $endgroup$
    – Taladris
    Mar 21 at 13:57










  • $begingroup$
    IIRC the primary value of factoring (wrt to particular solutions) is finding the zeroes (where the function crosses the x-axis). (x-3)(x+5)=88 (in fact, converting to quadratic, then using quadratic forms for closed form is what i'd do) isn't particularly easy to solve for an exact solution, but (x-3)(x+5) = 0 can be solved by inspection (x = 3 or x = -5).
    $endgroup$
    – Kristian H
    Mar 21 at 19:06


















5












$begingroup$


I'm quite eager to learn what is the difference between factoring quadratics (the $(x + a)(x + b)$ method), and using the typical formula (where $x = (-b pm sqrt{b^2 - 4ac})/2a$), and in what situations should I use either of them.



Take this for a problem (I didn't make it myself)



enter image description here



I know that the quadratic formula is required to solve the answer, but why not factor?



I previously asked this on Math Overflow, but this is the right place.



Thanks in advance.










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Smilez is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    What may be worth doing in this case is cancelling a constant factor rather than a linear one, to make the numbers more manageable in the quadratic formula, so we go from $16t^2-164t+92=0$ to $4t^2-41t+23=0$. However, you'll probably need a calculator either way, but it's worth bearing in mind for other quadratics later.
    $endgroup$
    – J.G.
    Mar 21 at 11:14










  • $begingroup$
    See also math.stackexchange.com/questions/3154893/…
    $endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Mar 21 at 11:31










  • $begingroup$
    Who said you cannot factor?
    $endgroup$
    – Taladris
    Mar 21 at 13:57










  • $begingroup$
    IIRC the primary value of factoring (wrt to particular solutions) is finding the zeroes (where the function crosses the x-axis). (x-3)(x+5)=88 (in fact, converting to quadratic, then using quadratic forms for closed form is what i'd do) isn't particularly easy to solve for an exact solution, but (x-3)(x+5) = 0 can be solved by inspection (x = 3 or x = -5).
    $endgroup$
    – Kristian H
    Mar 21 at 19:06
















5












5








5


1



$begingroup$


I'm quite eager to learn what is the difference between factoring quadratics (the $(x + a)(x + b)$ method), and using the typical formula (where $x = (-b pm sqrt{b^2 - 4ac})/2a$), and in what situations should I use either of them.



Take this for a problem (I didn't make it myself)



enter image description here



I know that the quadratic formula is required to solve the answer, but why not factor?



I previously asked this on Math Overflow, but this is the right place.



Thanks in advance.










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Smilez is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




I'm quite eager to learn what is the difference between factoring quadratics (the $(x + a)(x + b)$ method), and using the typical formula (where $x = (-b pm sqrt{b^2 - 4ac})/2a$), and in what situations should I use either of them.



Take this for a problem (I didn't make it myself)



enter image description here



I know that the quadratic formula is required to solve the answer, but why not factor?



I previously asked this on Math Overflow, but this is the right place.



Thanks in advance.







algebra-precalculus quadratics factoring






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Smilez is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Smilez is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Mar 21 at 7:06









Eevee Trainer

8,41321439




8,41321439






New contributor




Smilez is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked Mar 21 at 6:40









SmilezSmilez

283




283




New contributor




Smilez is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Smilez is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Smilez is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    What may be worth doing in this case is cancelling a constant factor rather than a linear one, to make the numbers more manageable in the quadratic formula, so we go from $16t^2-164t+92=0$ to $4t^2-41t+23=0$. However, you'll probably need a calculator either way, but it's worth bearing in mind for other quadratics later.
    $endgroup$
    – J.G.
    Mar 21 at 11:14










  • $begingroup$
    See also math.stackexchange.com/questions/3154893/…
    $endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Mar 21 at 11:31










  • $begingroup$
    Who said you cannot factor?
    $endgroup$
    – Taladris
    Mar 21 at 13:57










  • $begingroup$
    IIRC the primary value of factoring (wrt to particular solutions) is finding the zeroes (where the function crosses the x-axis). (x-3)(x+5)=88 (in fact, converting to quadratic, then using quadratic forms for closed form is what i'd do) isn't particularly easy to solve for an exact solution, but (x-3)(x+5) = 0 can be solved by inspection (x = 3 or x = -5).
    $endgroup$
    – Kristian H
    Mar 21 at 19:06
















  • 1




    $begingroup$
    What may be worth doing in this case is cancelling a constant factor rather than a linear one, to make the numbers more manageable in the quadratic formula, so we go from $16t^2-164t+92=0$ to $4t^2-41t+23=0$. However, you'll probably need a calculator either way, but it's worth bearing in mind for other quadratics later.
    $endgroup$
    – J.G.
    Mar 21 at 11:14










  • $begingroup$
    See also math.stackexchange.com/questions/3154893/…
    $endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Mar 21 at 11:31










  • $begingroup$
    Who said you cannot factor?
    $endgroup$
    – Taladris
    Mar 21 at 13:57










  • $begingroup$
    IIRC the primary value of factoring (wrt to particular solutions) is finding the zeroes (where the function crosses the x-axis). (x-3)(x+5)=88 (in fact, converting to quadratic, then using quadratic forms for closed form is what i'd do) isn't particularly easy to solve for an exact solution, but (x-3)(x+5) = 0 can be solved by inspection (x = 3 or x = -5).
    $endgroup$
    – Kristian H
    Mar 21 at 19:06










1




1




$begingroup$
What may be worth doing in this case is cancelling a constant factor rather than a linear one, to make the numbers more manageable in the quadratic formula, so we go from $16t^2-164t+92=0$ to $4t^2-41t+23=0$. However, you'll probably need a calculator either way, but it's worth bearing in mind for other quadratics later.
$endgroup$
– J.G.
Mar 21 at 11:14




$begingroup$
What may be worth doing in this case is cancelling a constant factor rather than a linear one, to make the numbers more manageable in the quadratic formula, so we go from $16t^2-164t+92=0$ to $4t^2-41t+23=0$. However, you'll probably need a calculator either way, but it's worth bearing in mind for other quadratics later.
$endgroup$
– J.G.
Mar 21 at 11:14












$begingroup$
See also math.stackexchange.com/questions/3154893/…
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Mar 21 at 11:31




$begingroup$
See also math.stackexchange.com/questions/3154893/…
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Mar 21 at 11:31












$begingroup$
Who said you cannot factor?
$endgroup$
– Taladris
Mar 21 at 13:57




$begingroup$
Who said you cannot factor?
$endgroup$
– Taladris
Mar 21 at 13:57












$begingroup$
IIRC the primary value of factoring (wrt to particular solutions) is finding the zeroes (where the function crosses the x-axis). (x-3)(x+5)=88 (in fact, converting to quadratic, then using quadratic forms for closed form is what i'd do) isn't particularly easy to solve for an exact solution, but (x-3)(x+5) = 0 can be solved by inspection (x = 3 or x = -5).
$endgroup$
– Kristian H
Mar 21 at 19:06






$begingroup$
IIRC the primary value of factoring (wrt to particular solutions) is finding the zeroes (where the function crosses the x-axis). (x-3)(x+5)=88 (in fact, converting to quadratic, then using quadratic forms for closed form is what i'd do) isn't particularly easy to solve for an exact solution, but (x-3)(x+5) = 0 can be solved by inspection (x = 3 or x = -5).
$endgroup$
– Kristian H
Mar 21 at 19:06












4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















5












$begingroup$

Which is appropriate to use when is simply a matter of one's computational speed.



Factoring, for instance, is something we often think about only being doable when we have rational or integer coefficients, and generally smaller ones. For the most part, that's true - if you don't want to spend a painstaking amount of work, you want to focus on those cases. For instance, consider your equation:



$$h(t) = -16t^2 + 164t - 92 = 0$$



To properly factor this, you need to figure out which factors of $92cdot -16=-1472$ have a sum of $164$. You could sit there all day enumerating the various factors and checking the sum, or you can just go "screw this" and decide to just plug-and-chug using the quadratic formula, and probably solve it faster. Really, try it - see which one you solve faster!



(Anecdote: when you see a "round to the nearest hundredth" tenet in a question, a lot of the time that means the question will have not-so-nice roots, i.e. they'll be irrational probably. Which touches on another issue: if the square root in the quadratic formula is not a perfect square, then you definitely cannot factor it just by using integers, you might have to reach for square root factors instead ... which makes this even more of a mess and is why factoring isn't always optimal. Let's nail that point home...)



Okay, so forget the big numbers and such - let's say you're great at factorizing even large numbers. But then there's a problem: factoring doesn't necessitate integers/rationals. They are easier to work with like that, but consider:



$$(x+4sqrt 2)(x + 2sqrt 3) = x^2 + (4 sqrt 2 + 2 sqrt 3) x + 8 sqrt 6$$



At a glance, how would you even factor that latter expression, without knowing what led up to it? Or perhaps another, nastier, crueler one:



$$(x + 4 sqrt 6)(x - 3 sqrt 6) = x^2 + sqrt 6 x - 72$$



At least if they're "nice enough" you can guess perhaps a means to factorize it, but I see no obvious way for the above polynomial. How would you even begin to approach this a priori?



I'd rather sit there and just plug-and-chug, than try to guess how to factor some weird expression. Simpler to do and process.





That's not to say either method is "invalid" in either situation. Factoring takes advantage of the fact that, if a polynomial of degree $n$ has roots $r_1,r_2,...,r_n$, then it can be written in the form



$$a(x-r_1)(x-r_2)...(x-r_n) =0$$



where $a$ is its leading coefficient. And it so happens that for integers and similar-enough polynomials, factoring can be relatively easy. But that's simply not always the case, which is why it's nice that the quadratic formula provides a quick, general solution just in case the expressions aren't nice enough - which is something we can't say for all polynomials!



In short - use whichever method you choose, both are valid. But always be cognizant of the time it takes for you to get the solution any one way, as opposed to another way. No sense in wasting time and energy when the end result is the same.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I think there's a typo in your first radical equation. $(x + 4sqrt3)(x + 2sqrt3) = x^2 + 6sqrt{3}x + 24.$
    $endgroup$
    – Bladewood
    Mar 21 at 9:44










  • $begingroup$
    Hm, thanks. I think I'll replace it with a different one that'll better emphasize my point, to be honest
    $endgroup$
    – Eevee Trainer
    Mar 21 at 9:46










  • $begingroup$
    $x^2 + (4 sqrt 2 + 2 sqrt 3) x + 8 sqrt 6$ seems rather trivial to factor. Given that (x+a)(x+b)=x^2+(a+b)x+ab - it's quick to verify that $(4 sqrt 2)(2 sqrt 3)=8 sqrt 6$
    $endgroup$
    – Taemyr
    Mar 21 at 12:11










  • $begingroup$
    $x^2 + (4 sqrt 2 + 2 sqrt 3) x + 8 $ would be much harder.
    $endgroup$
    – Taemyr
    Mar 21 at 12:17










  • $begingroup$
    My point was that "okay, so even some of those with noninteger coefficients might be easy if you're observant, but then .. (much harder example here)".
    $endgroup$
    – Eevee Trainer
    Mar 21 at 20:15



















10












$begingroup$

First of all, in the context of a mechanics problem like the one where this equation originates, often you'll only want an approximate decimal solution in the first place. That said, henceforth let's assume we really want an exact answer and that the coefficients of the quadratic equation are integers, or even rational numbers.



One can always in principle use either method, but the roots of $$a x^2 + b x + c = 0$$ often contain radical expressions, so it's often not easy to factor these. By inspecting the quadratic formula we can actually say when this will happen: The solutions of the equation will involve radicals (and factoring is, roughly speaking, hard) except when the quantity $$boxed{Delta := b^2 - 4 a c}$$ is a perfect square.



Example In the linked example, we're asked to find the solutions of $-16 t^2 + 164 t = 92$. Rearranging gives
$$16 t^2 - 164 t + 92 = 0,$$
and computing with a pocket calculator shows that $Delta = 21,008$ and that $Delta$ is not a perfect square, so the roots will involve $sqrtDelta = sqrt{21,008} = 4 sqrt{1,313}$---definitely not a quantity you want to deal with when factoring manually, if you have a choice.



Remark The quantity $Delta$ is called the discriminant of the quadratic polynomial, and it gives us a good deal of information about it. For example, if it is negative, then the radical expression in the quadratic formula is an imaginary expression, and so the quadratic equation has no real roots at all.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Minor note: the polynomial in the question can't be meaningfully be factored that way. If you look closer, the question wants $t$ such that $$h(t) = 92 = -16t^2 + 164t$$ So in this scenario, you won't have that nice $(ax+b)x$ factoring
    $endgroup$
    – Eevee Trainer
    Mar 21 at 6:59










  • $begingroup$
    Oh, you're right. I just glanced at the polynomial and didn't see that we wanted to find the solutions of $h(t) = k$ rather than the roots of $h$. I'll adjust my answer---thanks for the catch!
    $endgroup$
    – Travis
    Mar 21 at 7:04










  • $begingroup$
    Perhaps the downvoter would explain their objection?
    $endgroup$
    – Travis
    Mar 21 at 19:03



















3












$begingroup$

In fact there is no "by factoring" resolution method.



Unless the factorization is obvious (e.g. $3x^2-2x$ or, with more practice, $x^2+7x+12$), you cannot find the factorization "out of the blue" and you need to resort to... the quadratic formula.



E.g. try to factor



$$x^2-x-1$$



and



$$x^2-x+1.$$





An alternative approach known as "completing the square", with the step



$$ax^2+bx+c=aleft(left(x+frac b{2a}right)^2+cdotsright)=0$$



is indeed a resolution method. But looking closely, it is just a way to re-establish the quadratic formula.





A second alternative is to use the Vieta relations,



$$r+s=-frac ba,\rs=frac ca$$



and solve for $r$ and $s$. There can be an obvious solution, and you are just in the case of factorization "at a glance". The second equation leads you to the "rational root theorem", which can be used when the coefficients are integers (factor $a$ and $c$ and try the ratios of the factors).



In the general case, analytical resolution of this system brings you back to… the quadratic formula.





As regards the way to present the answer, writing



$$r=cdots,\s=cdots $$ or $$ax^2+bx+c=a(x-r)(x-s)$$ convey the same information.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$





















    1












    $begingroup$

    In fact, they are equivalent so it does not matter.
    $$(x+A)(x+B)=0$$
    Expands to:
    $$x^2+(A+B)x+AB=0$$
    Substituting in quadratic formula:
    $$x=frac{-(A+B)pmsqrt{(A+B)^2-4AB}}{2}$$
    $$x=frac{-(A+B)pmsqrt{(A-B)^2}}{2}$$
    Simplifies to:
    $$x=frac{-(A+B)pm(A-B)}{2}=-A,-B$$
    which are exactly the roots found by factoring






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













      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
      });


      }
      });






      Smilez is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3156439%2fwhat-is-the-difference-between-formulating-the-answer-via-quadratic-formula-and%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes








      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      5












      $begingroup$

      Which is appropriate to use when is simply a matter of one's computational speed.



      Factoring, for instance, is something we often think about only being doable when we have rational or integer coefficients, and generally smaller ones. For the most part, that's true - if you don't want to spend a painstaking amount of work, you want to focus on those cases. For instance, consider your equation:



      $$h(t) = -16t^2 + 164t - 92 = 0$$



      To properly factor this, you need to figure out which factors of $92cdot -16=-1472$ have a sum of $164$. You could sit there all day enumerating the various factors and checking the sum, or you can just go "screw this" and decide to just plug-and-chug using the quadratic formula, and probably solve it faster. Really, try it - see which one you solve faster!



      (Anecdote: when you see a "round to the nearest hundredth" tenet in a question, a lot of the time that means the question will have not-so-nice roots, i.e. they'll be irrational probably. Which touches on another issue: if the square root in the quadratic formula is not a perfect square, then you definitely cannot factor it just by using integers, you might have to reach for square root factors instead ... which makes this even more of a mess and is why factoring isn't always optimal. Let's nail that point home...)



      Okay, so forget the big numbers and such - let's say you're great at factorizing even large numbers. But then there's a problem: factoring doesn't necessitate integers/rationals. They are easier to work with like that, but consider:



      $$(x+4sqrt 2)(x + 2sqrt 3) = x^2 + (4 sqrt 2 + 2 sqrt 3) x + 8 sqrt 6$$



      At a glance, how would you even factor that latter expression, without knowing what led up to it? Or perhaps another, nastier, crueler one:



      $$(x + 4 sqrt 6)(x - 3 sqrt 6) = x^2 + sqrt 6 x - 72$$



      At least if they're "nice enough" you can guess perhaps a means to factorize it, but I see no obvious way for the above polynomial. How would you even begin to approach this a priori?



      I'd rather sit there and just plug-and-chug, than try to guess how to factor some weird expression. Simpler to do and process.





      That's not to say either method is "invalid" in either situation. Factoring takes advantage of the fact that, if a polynomial of degree $n$ has roots $r_1,r_2,...,r_n$, then it can be written in the form



      $$a(x-r_1)(x-r_2)...(x-r_n) =0$$



      where $a$ is its leading coefficient. And it so happens that for integers and similar-enough polynomials, factoring can be relatively easy. But that's simply not always the case, which is why it's nice that the quadratic formula provides a quick, general solution just in case the expressions aren't nice enough - which is something we can't say for all polynomials!



      In short - use whichever method you choose, both are valid. But always be cognizant of the time it takes for you to get the solution any one way, as opposed to another way. No sense in wasting time and energy when the end result is the same.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$









      • 1




        $begingroup$
        I think there's a typo in your first radical equation. $(x + 4sqrt3)(x + 2sqrt3) = x^2 + 6sqrt{3}x + 24.$
        $endgroup$
        – Bladewood
        Mar 21 at 9:44










      • $begingroup$
        Hm, thanks. I think I'll replace it with a different one that'll better emphasize my point, to be honest
        $endgroup$
        – Eevee Trainer
        Mar 21 at 9:46










      • $begingroup$
        $x^2 + (4 sqrt 2 + 2 sqrt 3) x + 8 sqrt 6$ seems rather trivial to factor. Given that (x+a)(x+b)=x^2+(a+b)x+ab - it's quick to verify that $(4 sqrt 2)(2 sqrt 3)=8 sqrt 6$
        $endgroup$
        – Taemyr
        Mar 21 at 12:11










      • $begingroup$
        $x^2 + (4 sqrt 2 + 2 sqrt 3) x + 8 $ would be much harder.
        $endgroup$
        – Taemyr
        Mar 21 at 12:17










      • $begingroup$
        My point was that "okay, so even some of those with noninteger coefficients might be easy if you're observant, but then .. (much harder example here)".
        $endgroup$
        – Eevee Trainer
        Mar 21 at 20:15
















      5












      $begingroup$

      Which is appropriate to use when is simply a matter of one's computational speed.



      Factoring, for instance, is something we often think about only being doable when we have rational or integer coefficients, and generally smaller ones. For the most part, that's true - if you don't want to spend a painstaking amount of work, you want to focus on those cases. For instance, consider your equation:



      $$h(t) = -16t^2 + 164t - 92 = 0$$



      To properly factor this, you need to figure out which factors of $92cdot -16=-1472$ have a sum of $164$. You could sit there all day enumerating the various factors and checking the sum, or you can just go "screw this" and decide to just plug-and-chug using the quadratic formula, and probably solve it faster. Really, try it - see which one you solve faster!



      (Anecdote: when you see a "round to the nearest hundredth" tenet in a question, a lot of the time that means the question will have not-so-nice roots, i.e. they'll be irrational probably. Which touches on another issue: if the square root in the quadratic formula is not a perfect square, then you definitely cannot factor it just by using integers, you might have to reach for square root factors instead ... which makes this even more of a mess and is why factoring isn't always optimal. Let's nail that point home...)



      Okay, so forget the big numbers and such - let's say you're great at factorizing even large numbers. But then there's a problem: factoring doesn't necessitate integers/rationals. They are easier to work with like that, but consider:



      $$(x+4sqrt 2)(x + 2sqrt 3) = x^2 + (4 sqrt 2 + 2 sqrt 3) x + 8 sqrt 6$$



      At a glance, how would you even factor that latter expression, without knowing what led up to it? Or perhaps another, nastier, crueler one:



      $$(x + 4 sqrt 6)(x - 3 sqrt 6) = x^2 + sqrt 6 x - 72$$



      At least if they're "nice enough" you can guess perhaps a means to factorize it, but I see no obvious way for the above polynomial. How would you even begin to approach this a priori?



      I'd rather sit there and just plug-and-chug, than try to guess how to factor some weird expression. Simpler to do and process.





      That's not to say either method is "invalid" in either situation. Factoring takes advantage of the fact that, if a polynomial of degree $n$ has roots $r_1,r_2,...,r_n$, then it can be written in the form



      $$a(x-r_1)(x-r_2)...(x-r_n) =0$$



      where $a$ is its leading coefficient. And it so happens that for integers and similar-enough polynomials, factoring can be relatively easy. But that's simply not always the case, which is why it's nice that the quadratic formula provides a quick, general solution just in case the expressions aren't nice enough - which is something we can't say for all polynomials!



      In short - use whichever method you choose, both are valid. But always be cognizant of the time it takes for you to get the solution any one way, as opposed to another way. No sense in wasting time and energy when the end result is the same.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$









      • 1




        $begingroup$
        I think there's a typo in your first radical equation. $(x + 4sqrt3)(x + 2sqrt3) = x^2 + 6sqrt{3}x + 24.$
        $endgroup$
        – Bladewood
        Mar 21 at 9:44










      • $begingroup$
        Hm, thanks. I think I'll replace it with a different one that'll better emphasize my point, to be honest
        $endgroup$
        – Eevee Trainer
        Mar 21 at 9:46










      • $begingroup$
        $x^2 + (4 sqrt 2 + 2 sqrt 3) x + 8 sqrt 6$ seems rather trivial to factor. Given that (x+a)(x+b)=x^2+(a+b)x+ab - it's quick to verify that $(4 sqrt 2)(2 sqrt 3)=8 sqrt 6$
        $endgroup$
        – Taemyr
        Mar 21 at 12:11










      • $begingroup$
        $x^2 + (4 sqrt 2 + 2 sqrt 3) x + 8 $ would be much harder.
        $endgroup$
        – Taemyr
        Mar 21 at 12:17










      • $begingroup$
        My point was that "okay, so even some of those with noninteger coefficients might be easy if you're observant, but then .. (much harder example here)".
        $endgroup$
        – Eevee Trainer
        Mar 21 at 20:15














      5












      5








      5





      $begingroup$

      Which is appropriate to use when is simply a matter of one's computational speed.



      Factoring, for instance, is something we often think about only being doable when we have rational or integer coefficients, and generally smaller ones. For the most part, that's true - if you don't want to spend a painstaking amount of work, you want to focus on those cases. For instance, consider your equation:



      $$h(t) = -16t^2 + 164t - 92 = 0$$



      To properly factor this, you need to figure out which factors of $92cdot -16=-1472$ have a sum of $164$. You could sit there all day enumerating the various factors and checking the sum, or you can just go "screw this" and decide to just plug-and-chug using the quadratic formula, and probably solve it faster. Really, try it - see which one you solve faster!



      (Anecdote: when you see a "round to the nearest hundredth" tenet in a question, a lot of the time that means the question will have not-so-nice roots, i.e. they'll be irrational probably. Which touches on another issue: if the square root in the quadratic formula is not a perfect square, then you definitely cannot factor it just by using integers, you might have to reach for square root factors instead ... which makes this even more of a mess and is why factoring isn't always optimal. Let's nail that point home...)



      Okay, so forget the big numbers and such - let's say you're great at factorizing even large numbers. But then there's a problem: factoring doesn't necessitate integers/rationals. They are easier to work with like that, but consider:



      $$(x+4sqrt 2)(x + 2sqrt 3) = x^2 + (4 sqrt 2 + 2 sqrt 3) x + 8 sqrt 6$$



      At a glance, how would you even factor that latter expression, without knowing what led up to it? Or perhaps another, nastier, crueler one:



      $$(x + 4 sqrt 6)(x - 3 sqrt 6) = x^2 + sqrt 6 x - 72$$



      At least if they're "nice enough" you can guess perhaps a means to factorize it, but I see no obvious way for the above polynomial. How would you even begin to approach this a priori?



      I'd rather sit there and just plug-and-chug, than try to guess how to factor some weird expression. Simpler to do and process.





      That's not to say either method is "invalid" in either situation. Factoring takes advantage of the fact that, if a polynomial of degree $n$ has roots $r_1,r_2,...,r_n$, then it can be written in the form



      $$a(x-r_1)(x-r_2)...(x-r_n) =0$$



      where $a$ is its leading coefficient. And it so happens that for integers and similar-enough polynomials, factoring can be relatively easy. But that's simply not always the case, which is why it's nice that the quadratic formula provides a quick, general solution just in case the expressions aren't nice enough - which is something we can't say for all polynomials!



      In short - use whichever method you choose, both are valid. But always be cognizant of the time it takes for you to get the solution any one way, as opposed to another way. No sense in wasting time and energy when the end result is the same.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$



      Which is appropriate to use when is simply a matter of one's computational speed.



      Factoring, for instance, is something we often think about only being doable when we have rational or integer coefficients, and generally smaller ones. For the most part, that's true - if you don't want to spend a painstaking amount of work, you want to focus on those cases. For instance, consider your equation:



      $$h(t) = -16t^2 + 164t - 92 = 0$$



      To properly factor this, you need to figure out which factors of $92cdot -16=-1472$ have a sum of $164$. You could sit there all day enumerating the various factors and checking the sum, or you can just go "screw this" and decide to just plug-and-chug using the quadratic formula, and probably solve it faster. Really, try it - see which one you solve faster!



      (Anecdote: when you see a "round to the nearest hundredth" tenet in a question, a lot of the time that means the question will have not-so-nice roots, i.e. they'll be irrational probably. Which touches on another issue: if the square root in the quadratic formula is not a perfect square, then you definitely cannot factor it just by using integers, you might have to reach for square root factors instead ... which makes this even more of a mess and is why factoring isn't always optimal. Let's nail that point home...)



      Okay, so forget the big numbers and such - let's say you're great at factorizing even large numbers. But then there's a problem: factoring doesn't necessitate integers/rationals. They are easier to work with like that, but consider:



      $$(x+4sqrt 2)(x + 2sqrt 3) = x^2 + (4 sqrt 2 + 2 sqrt 3) x + 8 sqrt 6$$



      At a glance, how would you even factor that latter expression, without knowing what led up to it? Or perhaps another, nastier, crueler one:



      $$(x + 4 sqrt 6)(x - 3 sqrt 6) = x^2 + sqrt 6 x - 72$$



      At least if they're "nice enough" you can guess perhaps a means to factorize it, but I see no obvious way for the above polynomial. How would you even begin to approach this a priori?



      I'd rather sit there and just plug-and-chug, than try to guess how to factor some weird expression. Simpler to do and process.





      That's not to say either method is "invalid" in either situation. Factoring takes advantage of the fact that, if a polynomial of degree $n$ has roots $r_1,r_2,...,r_n$, then it can be written in the form



      $$a(x-r_1)(x-r_2)...(x-r_n) =0$$



      where $a$ is its leading coefficient. And it so happens that for integers and similar-enough polynomials, factoring can be relatively easy. But that's simply not always the case, which is why it's nice that the quadratic formula provides a quick, general solution just in case the expressions aren't nice enough - which is something we can't say for all polynomials!



      In short - use whichever method you choose, both are valid. But always be cognizant of the time it takes for you to get the solution any one way, as opposed to another way. No sense in wasting time and energy when the end result is the same.







      share|cite|improve this answer














      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer








      edited Mar 21 at 9:47

























      answered Mar 21 at 7:01









      Eevee TrainerEevee Trainer

      8,41321439




      8,41321439








      • 1




        $begingroup$
        I think there's a typo in your first radical equation. $(x + 4sqrt3)(x + 2sqrt3) = x^2 + 6sqrt{3}x + 24.$
        $endgroup$
        – Bladewood
        Mar 21 at 9:44










      • $begingroup$
        Hm, thanks. I think I'll replace it with a different one that'll better emphasize my point, to be honest
        $endgroup$
        – Eevee Trainer
        Mar 21 at 9:46










      • $begingroup$
        $x^2 + (4 sqrt 2 + 2 sqrt 3) x + 8 sqrt 6$ seems rather trivial to factor. Given that (x+a)(x+b)=x^2+(a+b)x+ab - it's quick to verify that $(4 sqrt 2)(2 sqrt 3)=8 sqrt 6$
        $endgroup$
        – Taemyr
        Mar 21 at 12:11










      • $begingroup$
        $x^2 + (4 sqrt 2 + 2 sqrt 3) x + 8 $ would be much harder.
        $endgroup$
        – Taemyr
        Mar 21 at 12:17










      • $begingroup$
        My point was that "okay, so even some of those with noninteger coefficients might be easy if you're observant, but then .. (much harder example here)".
        $endgroup$
        – Eevee Trainer
        Mar 21 at 20:15














      • 1




        $begingroup$
        I think there's a typo in your first radical equation. $(x + 4sqrt3)(x + 2sqrt3) = x^2 + 6sqrt{3}x + 24.$
        $endgroup$
        – Bladewood
        Mar 21 at 9:44










      • $begingroup$
        Hm, thanks. I think I'll replace it with a different one that'll better emphasize my point, to be honest
        $endgroup$
        – Eevee Trainer
        Mar 21 at 9:46










      • $begingroup$
        $x^2 + (4 sqrt 2 + 2 sqrt 3) x + 8 sqrt 6$ seems rather trivial to factor. Given that (x+a)(x+b)=x^2+(a+b)x+ab - it's quick to verify that $(4 sqrt 2)(2 sqrt 3)=8 sqrt 6$
        $endgroup$
        – Taemyr
        Mar 21 at 12:11










      • $begingroup$
        $x^2 + (4 sqrt 2 + 2 sqrt 3) x + 8 $ would be much harder.
        $endgroup$
        – Taemyr
        Mar 21 at 12:17










      • $begingroup$
        My point was that "okay, so even some of those with noninteger coefficients might be easy if you're observant, but then .. (much harder example here)".
        $endgroup$
        – Eevee Trainer
        Mar 21 at 20:15








      1




      1




      $begingroup$
      I think there's a typo in your first radical equation. $(x + 4sqrt3)(x + 2sqrt3) = x^2 + 6sqrt{3}x + 24.$
      $endgroup$
      – Bladewood
      Mar 21 at 9:44




      $begingroup$
      I think there's a typo in your first radical equation. $(x + 4sqrt3)(x + 2sqrt3) = x^2 + 6sqrt{3}x + 24.$
      $endgroup$
      – Bladewood
      Mar 21 at 9:44












      $begingroup$
      Hm, thanks. I think I'll replace it with a different one that'll better emphasize my point, to be honest
      $endgroup$
      – Eevee Trainer
      Mar 21 at 9:46




      $begingroup$
      Hm, thanks. I think I'll replace it with a different one that'll better emphasize my point, to be honest
      $endgroup$
      – Eevee Trainer
      Mar 21 at 9:46












      $begingroup$
      $x^2 + (4 sqrt 2 + 2 sqrt 3) x + 8 sqrt 6$ seems rather trivial to factor. Given that (x+a)(x+b)=x^2+(a+b)x+ab - it's quick to verify that $(4 sqrt 2)(2 sqrt 3)=8 sqrt 6$
      $endgroup$
      – Taemyr
      Mar 21 at 12:11




      $begingroup$
      $x^2 + (4 sqrt 2 + 2 sqrt 3) x + 8 sqrt 6$ seems rather trivial to factor. Given that (x+a)(x+b)=x^2+(a+b)x+ab - it's quick to verify that $(4 sqrt 2)(2 sqrt 3)=8 sqrt 6$
      $endgroup$
      – Taemyr
      Mar 21 at 12:11












      $begingroup$
      $x^2 + (4 sqrt 2 + 2 sqrt 3) x + 8 $ would be much harder.
      $endgroup$
      – Taemyr
      Mar 21 at 12:17




      $begingroup$
      $x^2 + (4 sqrt 2 + 2 sqrt 3) x + 8 $ would be much harder.
      $endgroup$
      – Taemyr
      Mar 21 at 12:17












      $begingroup$
      My point was that "okay, so even some of those with noninteger coefficients might be easy if you're observant, but then .. (much harder example here)".
      $endgroup$
      – Eevee Trainer
      Mar 21 at 20:15




      $begingroup$
      My point was that "okay, so even some of those with noninteger coefficients might be easy if you're observant, but then .. (much harder example here)".
      $endgroup$
      – Eevee Trainer
      Mar 21 at 20:15











      10












      $begingroup$

      First of all, in the context of a mechanics problem like the one where this equation originates, often you'll only want an approximate decimal solution in the first place. That said, henceforth let's assume we really want an exact answer and that the coefficients of the quadratic equation are integers, or even rational numbers.



      One can always in principle use either method, but the roots of $$a x^2 + b x + c = 0$$ often contain radical expressions, so it's often not easy to factor these. By inspecting the quadratic formula we can actually say when this will happen: The solutions of the equation will involve radicals (and factoring is, roughly speaking, hard) except when the quantity $$boxed{Delta := b^2 - 4 a c}$$ is a perfect square.



      Example In the linked example, we're asked to find the solutions of $-16 t^2 + 164 t = 92$. Rearranging gives
      $$16 t^2 - 164 t + 92 = 0,$$
      and computing with a pocket calculator shows that $Delta = 21,008$ and that $Delta$ is not a perfect square, so the roots will involve $sqrtDelta = sqrt{21,008} = 4 sqrt{1,313}$---definitely not a quantity you want to deal with when factoring manually, if you have a choice.



      Remark The quantity $Delta$ is called the discriminant of the quadratic polynomial, and it gives us a good deal of information about it. For example, if it is negative, then the radical expression in the quadratic formula is an imaginary expression, and so the quadratic equation has no real roots at all.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$









      • 1




        $begingroup$
        Minor note: the polynomial in the question can't be meaningfully be factored that way. If you look closer, the question wants $t$ such that $$h(t) = 92 = -16t^2 + 164t$$ So in this scenario, you won't have that nice $(ax+b)x$ factoring
        $endgroup$
        – Eevee Trainer
        Mar 21 at 6:59










      • $begingroup$
        Oh, you're right. I just glanced at the polynomial and didn't see that we wanted to find the solutions of $h(t) = k$ rather than the roots of $h$. I'll adjust my answer---thanks for the catch!
        $endgroup$
        – Travis
        Mar 21 at 7:04










      • $begingroup$
        Perhaps the downvoter would explain their objection?
        $endgroup$
        – Travis
        Mar 21 at 19:03
















      10












      $begingroup$

      First of all, in the context of a mechanics problem like the one where this equation originates, often you'll only want an approximate decimal solution in the first place. That said, henceforth let's assume we really want an exact answer and that the coefficients of the quadratic equation are integers, or even rational numbers.



      One can always in principle use either method, but the roots of $$a x^2 + b x + c = 0$$ often contain radical expressions, so it's often not easy to factor these. By inspecting the quadratic formula we can actually say when this will happen: The solutions of the equation will involve radicals (and factoring is, roughly speaking, hard) except when the quantity $$boxed{Delta := b^2 - 4 a c}$$ is a perfect square.



      Example In the linked example, we're asked to find the solutions of $-16 t^2 + 164 t = 92$. Rearranging gives
      $$16 t^2 - 164 t + 92 = 0,$$
      and computing with a pocket calculator shows that $Delta = 21,008$ and that $Delta$ is not a perfect square, so the roots will involve $sqrtDelta = sqrt{21,008} = 4 sqrt{1,313}$---definitely not a quantity you want to deal with when factoring manually, if you have a choice.



      Remark The quantity $Delta$ is called the discriminant of the quadratic polynomial, and it gives us a good deal of information about it. For example, if it is negative, then the radical expression in the quadratic formula is an imaginary expression, and so the quadratic equation has no real roots at all.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$









      • 1




        $begingroup$
        Minor note: the polynomial in the question can't be meaningfully be factored that way. If you look closer, the question wants $t$ such that $$h(t) = 92 = -16t^2 + 164t$$ So in this scenario, you won't have that nice $(ax+b)x$ factoring
        $endgroup$
        – Eevee Trainer
        Mar 21 at 6:59










      • $begingroup$
        Oh, you're right. I just glanced at the polynomial and didn't see that we wanted to find the solutions of $h(t) = k$ rather than the roots of $h$. I'll adjust my answer---thanks for the catch!
        $endgroup$
        – Travis
        Mar 21 at 7:04










      • $begingroup$
        Perhaps the downvoter would explain their objection?
        $endgroup$
        – Travis
        Mar 21 at 19:03














      10












      10








      10





      $begingroup$

      First of all, in the context of a mechanics problem like the one where this equation originates, often you'll only want an approximate decimal solution in the first place. That said, henceforth let's assume we really want an exact answer and that the coefficients of the quadratic equation are integers, or even rational numbers.



      One can always in principle use either method, but the roots of $$a x^2 + b x + c = 0$$ often contain radical expressions, so it's often not easy to factor these. By inspecting the quadratic formula we can actually say when this will happen: The solutions of the equation will involve radicals (and factoring is, roughly speaking, hard) except when the quantity $$boxed{Delta := b^2 - 4 a c}$$ is a perfect square.



      Example In the linked example, we're asked to find the solutions of $-16 t^2 + 164 t = 92$. Rearranging gives
      $$16 t^2 - 164 t + 92 = 0,$$
      and computing with a pocket calculator shows that $Delta = 21,008$ and that $Delta$ is not a perfect square, so the roots will involve $sqrtDelta = sqrt{21,008} = 4 sqrt{1,313}$---definitely not a quantity you want to deal with when factoring manually, if you have a choice.



      Remark The quantity $Delta$ is called the discriminant of the quadratic polynomial, and it gives us a good deal of information about it. For example, if it is negative, then the radical expression in the quadratic formula is an imaginary expression, and so the quadratic equation has no real roots at all.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$



      First of all, in the context of a mechanics problem like the one where this equation originates, often you'll only want an approximate decimal solution in the first place. That said, henceforth let's assume we really want an exact answer and that the coefficients of the quadratic equation are integers, or even rational numbers.



      One can always in principle use either method, but the roots of $$a x^2 + b x + c = 0$$ often contain radical expressions, so it's often not easy to factor these. By inspecting the quadratic formula we can actually say when this will happen: The solutions of the equation will involve radicals (and factoring is, roughly speaking, hard) except when the quantity $$boxed{Delta := b^2 - 4 a c}$$ is a perfect square.



      Example In the linked example, we're asked to find the solutions of $-16 t^2 + 164 t = 92$. Rearranging gives
      $$16 t^2 - 164 t + 92 = 0,$$
      and computing with a pocket calculator shows that $Delta = 21,008$ and that $Delta$ is not a perfect square, so the roots will involve $sqrtDelta = sqrt{21,008} = 4 sqrt{1,313}$---definitely not a quantity you want to deal with when factoring manually, if you have a choice.



      Remark The quantity $Delta$ is called the discriminant of the quadratic polynomial, and it gives us a good deal of information about it. For example, if it is negative, then the radical expression in the quadratic formula is an imaginary expression, and so the quadratic equation has no real roots at all.







      share|cite|improve this answer














      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer








      edited Mar 21 at 19:07

























      answered Mar 21 at 6:51









      TravisTravis

      63.7k769151




      63.7k769151








      • 1




        $begingroup$
        Minor note: the polynomial in the question can't be meaningfully be factored that way. If you look closer, the question wants $t$ such that $$h(t) = 92 = -16t^2 + 164t$$ So in this scenario, you won't have that nice $(ax+b)x$ factoring
        $endgroup$
        – Eevee Trainer
        Mar 21 at 6:59










      • $begingroup$
        Oh, you're right. I just glanced at the polynomial and didn't see that we wanted to find the solutions of $h(t) = k$ rather than the roots of $h$. I'll adjust my answer---thanks for the catch!
        $endgroup$
        – Travis
        Mar 21 at 7:04










      • $begingroup$
        Perhaps the downvoter would explain their objection?
        $endgroup$
        – Travis
        Mar 21 at 19:03














      • 1




        $begingroup$
        Minor note: the polynomial in the question can't be meaningfully be factored that way. If you look closer, the question wants $t$ such that $$h(t) = 92 = -16t^2 + 164t$$ So in this scenario, you won't have that nice $(ax+b)x$ factoring
        $endgroup$
        – Eevee Trainer
        Mar 21 at 6:59










      • $begingroup$
        Oh, you're right. I just glanced at the polynomial and didn't see that we wanted to find the solutions of $h(t) = k$ rather than the roots of $h$. I'll adjust my answer---thanks for the catch!
        $endgroup$
        – Travis
        Mar 21 at 7:04










      • $begingroup$
        Perhaps the downvoter would explain their objection?
        $endgroup$
        – Travis
        Mar 21 at 19:03








      1




      1




      $begingroup$
      Minor note: the polynomial in the question can't be meaningfully be factored that way. If you look closer, the question wants $t$ such that $$h(t) = 92 = -16t^2 + 164t$$ So in this scenario, you won't have that nice $(ax+b)x$ factoring
      $endgroup$
      – Eevee Trainer
      Mar 21 at 6:59




      $begingroup$
      Minor note: the polynomial in the question can't be meaningfully be factored that way. If you look closer, the question wants $t$ such that $$h(t) = 92 = -16t^2 + 164t$$ So in this scenario, you won't have that nice $(ax+b)x$ factoring
      $endgroup$
      – Eevee Trainer
      Mar 21 at 6:59












      $begingroup$
      Oh, you're right. I just glanced at the polynomial and didn't see that we wanted to find the solutions of $h(t) = k$ rather than the roots of $h$. I'll adjust my answer---thanks for the catch!
      $endgroup$
      – Travis
      Mar 21 at 7:04




      $begingroup$
      Oh, you're right. I just glanced at the polynomial and didn't see that we wanted to find the solutions of $h(t) = k$ rather than the roots of $h$. I'll adjust my answer---thanks for the catch!
      $endgroup$
      – Travis
      Mar 21 at 7:04












      $begingroup$
      Perhaps the downvoter would explain their objection?
      $endgroup$
      – Travis
      Mar 21 at 19:03




      $begingroup$
      Perhaps the downvoter would explain their objection?
      $endgroup$
      – Travis
      Mar 21 at 19:03











      3












      $begingroup$

      In fact there is no "by factoring" resolution method.



      Unless the factorization is obvious (e.g. $3x^2-2x$ or, with more practice, $x^2+7x+12$), you cannot find the factorization "out of the blue" and you need to resort to... the quadratic formula.



      E.g. try to factor



      $$x^2-x-1$$



      and



      $$x^2-x+1.$$





      An alternative approach known as "completing the square", with the step



      $$ax^2+bx+c=aleft(left(x+frac b{2a}right)^2+cdotsright)=0$$



      is indeed a resolution method. But looking closely, it is just a way to re-establish the quadratic formula.





      A second alternative is to use the Vieta relations,



      $$r+s=-frac ba,\rs=frac ca$$



      and solve for $r$ and $s$. There can be an obvious solution, and you are just in the case of factorization "at a glance". The second equation leads you to the "rational root theorem", which can be used when the coefficients are integers (factor $a$ and $c$ and try the ratios of the factors).



      In the general case, analytical resolution of this system brings you back to… the quadratic formula.





      As regards the way to present the answer, writing



      $$r=cdots,\s=cdots $$ or $$ax^2+bx+c=a(x-r)(x-s)$$ convey the same information.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$


















        3












        $begingroup$

        In fact there is no "by factoring" resolution method.



        Unless the factorization is obvious (e.g. $3x^2-2x$ or, with more practice, $x^2+7x+12$), you cannot find the factorization "out of the blue" and you need to resort to... the quadratic formula.



        E.g. try to factor



        $$x^2-x-1$$



        and



        $$x^2-x+1.$$





        An alternative approach known as "completing the square", with the step



        $$ax^2+bx+c=aleft(left(x+frac b{2a}right)^2+cdotsright)=0$$



        is indeed a resolution method. But looking closely, it is just a way to re-establish the quadratic formula.





        A second alternative is to use the Vieta relations,



        $$r+s=-frac ba,\rs=frac ca$$



        and solve for $r$ and $s$. There can be an obvious solution, and you are just in the case of factorization "at a glance". The second equation leads you to the "rational root theorem", which can be used when the coefficients are integers (factor $a$ and $c$ and try the ratios of the factors).



        In the general case, analytical resolution of this system brings you back to… the quadratic formula.





        As regards the way to present the answer, writing



        $$r=cdots,\s=cdots $$ or $$ax^2+bx+c=a(x-r)(x-s)$$ convey the same information.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$
















          3












          3








          3





          $begingroup$

          In fact there is no "by factoring" resolution method.



          Unless the factorization is obvious (e.g. $3x^2-2x$ or, with more practice, $x^2+7x+12$), you cannot find the factorization "out of the blue" and you need to resort to... the quadratic formula.



          E.g. try to factor



          $$x^2-x-1$$



          and



          $$x^2-x+1.$$





          An alternative approach known as "completing the square", with the step



          $$ax^2+bx+c=aleft(left(x+frac b{2a}right)^2+cdotsright)=0$$



          is indeed a resolution method. But looking closely, it is just a way to re-establish the quadratic formula.





          A second alternative is to use the Vieta relations,



          $$r+s=-frac ba,\rs=frac ca$$



          and solve for $r$ and $s$. There can be an obvious solution, and you are just in the case of factorization "at a glance". The second equation leads you to the "rational root theorem", which can be used when the coefficients are integers (factor $a$ and $c$ and try the ratios of the factors).



          In the general case, analytical resolution of this system brings you back to… the quadratic formula.





          As regards the way to present the answer, writing



          $$r=cdots,\s=cdots $$ or $$ax^2+bx+c=a(x-r)(x-s)$$ convey the same information.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          In fact there is no "by factoring" resolution method.



          Unless the factorization is obvious (e.g. $3x^2-2x$ or, with more practice, $x^2+7x+12$), you cannot find the factorization "out of the blue" and you need to resort to... the quadratic formula.



          E.g. try to factor



          $$x^2-x-1$$



          and



          $$x^2-x+1.$$





          An alternative approach known as "completing the square", with the step



          $$ax^2+bx+c=aleft(left(x+frac b{2a}right)^2+cdotsright)=0$$



          is indeed a resolution method. But looking closely, it is just a way to re-establish the quadratic formula.





          A second alternative is to use the Vieta relations,



          $$r+s=-frac ba,\rs=frac ca$$



          and solve for $r$ and $s$. There can be an obvious solution, and you are just in the case of factorization "at a glance". The second equation leads you to the "rational root theorem", which can be used when the coefficients are integers (factor $a$ and $c$ and try the ratios of the factors).



          In the general case, analytical resolution of this system brings you back to… the quadratic formula.





          As regards the way to present the answer, writing



          $$r=cdots,\s=cdots $$ or $$ax^2+bx+c=a(x-r)(x-s)$$ convey the same information.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Mar 21 at 17:37

























          answered Mar 21 at 7:53









          Yves DaoustYves Daoust

          131k676230




          131k676230























              1












              $begingroup$

              In fact, they are equivalent so it does not matter.
              $$(x+A)(x+B)=0$$
              Expands to:
              $$x^2+(A+B)x+AB=0$$
              Substituting in quadratic formula:
              $$x=frac{-(A+B)pmsqrt{(A+B)^2-4AB}}{2}$$
              $$x=frac{-(A+B)pmsqrt{(A-B)^2}}{2}$$
              Simplifies to:
              $$x=frac{-(A+B)pm(A-B)}{2}=-A,-B$$
              which are exactly the roots found by factoring






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$


















                1












                $begingroup$

                In fact, they are equivalent so it does not matter.
                $$(x+A)(x+B)=0$$
                Expands to:
                $$x^2+(A+B)x+AB=0$$
                Substituting in quadratic formula:
                $$x=frac{-(A+B)pmsqrt{(A+B)^2-4AB}}{2}$$
                $$x=frac{-(A+B)pmsqrt{(A-B)^2}}{2}$$
                Simplifies to:
                $$x=frac{-(A+B)pm(A-B)}{2}=-A,-B$$
                which are exactly the roots found by factoring






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$
















                  1












                  1








                  1





                  $begingroup$

                  In fact, they are equivalent so it does not matter.
                  $$(x+A)(x+B)=0$$
                  Expands to:
                  $$x^2+(A+B)x+AB=0$$
                  Substituting in quadratic formula:
                  $$x=frac{-(A+B)pmsqrt{(A+B)^2-4AB}}{2}$$
                  $$x=frac{-(A+B)pmsqrt{(A-B)^2}}{2}$$
                  Simplifies to:
                  $$x=frac{-(A+B)pm(A-B)}{2}=-A,-B$$
                  which are exactly the roots found by factoring






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  In fact, they are equivalent so it does not matter.
                  $$(x+A)(x+B)=0$$
                  Expands to:
                  $$x^2+(A+B)x+AB=0$$
                  Substituting in quadratic formula:
                  $$x=frac{-(A+B)pmsqrt{(A+B)^2-4AB}}{2}$$
                  $$x=frac{-(A+B)pmsqrt{(A-B)^2}}{2}$$
                  Simplifies to:
                  $$x=frac{-(A+B)pm(A-B)}{2}=-A,-B$$
                  which are exactly the roots found by factoring







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited Mar 21 at 21:05

























                  answered Mar 21 at 20:44









                  nluiginluigi

                  1979




                  1979






















                      Smilez is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                      draft saved

                      draft discarded


















                      Smilez is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                      Smilez is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                      Smilez is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                      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.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3156439%2fwhat-is-the-difference-between-formulating-the-answer-via-quadratic-formula-and%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      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







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Masuk log Menu navigasi

                      Identifying “long and narrow” polygons in with PostGISlength and width of polygonWhy postgis st_overlaps reports Qgis' “avoid intersections” generated polygon as overlapping with others?Adjusting polygons to boundary and filling holesDrawing polygons with fixed area?How to remove spikes in Polygons with PostGISDeleting sliver polygons after difference operation in QGIS?Snapping boundaries in PostGISSplit polygon into parts adding attributes based on underlying polygon in QGISSplitting overlap between polygons and assign to nearest polygon using PostGIS?Expanding polygons and clipping at midpoint?Removing Intersection of Buffers in Same Layers

                      Старые Смолеговицы Содержание История | География | Демография | Достопримечательности | Примечания | НавигацияHGЯOLHGЯOL41 206 832 01641 606 406 141Административно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области«Переписная оброчная книга Водской пятины 1500 года», С. 793«Карта Ингерманландии: Ивангорода, Яма, Копорья, Нотеборга», по материалам 1676 г.«Генеральная карта провинции Ингерманландии» Э. Белинга и А. Андерсина, 1704 г., составлена по материалам 1678 г.«Географический чертёж над Ижорскою землей со своими городами» Адриана Шонбека 1705 г.Новая и достоверная всей Ингерманландии ланткарта. Грав. А. Ростовцев. СПб., 1727 г.Топографическая карта Санкт-Петербургской губернии. 5-и верстка. Шуберт. 1834 г.Описание Санкт-Петербургской губернии по уездам и станамСпецкарта западной части России Ф. Ф. Шуберта. 1844 г.Алфавитный список селений по уездам и станам С.-Петербургской губернииСписки населённых мест Российской Империи, составленные и издаваемые центральным статистическим комитетом министерства внутренних дел. XXXVII. Санкт-Петербургская губерния. По состоянию на 1862 год. СПб. 1864. С. 203Материалы по статистике народного хозяйства в С.-Петербургской губернии. Вып. IX. Частновладельческое хозяйство в Ямбургском уезде. СПб, 1888, С. 146, С. 2, 7, 54Положение о гербе муниципального образования Курское сельское поселениеСправочник истории административно-территориального деления Ленинградской области.Топографическая карта Ленинградской области, квадрат О-35-23-В (Хотыницы), 1930 г.АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Л., 1933, С. 27, 198АрхивированоАдминистративно-экономический справочник по Ленинградской области. — Л., 1936, с. 219АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Л., 1966, с. 175АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Лениздат, 1973, С. 180АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Лениздат, 1990, ISBN 5-289-00612-5, С. 38АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — СПб., 2007, с. 60АрхивированоКоряков Юрий База данных «Этно-языковой состав населённых пунктов России». Ленинградская область.Административно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — СПб, 1997, ISBN 5-86153-055-6, С. 41АрхивированоКультовый комплекс Старые Смолеговицы // Электронная энциклопедия ЭрмитажаПроблемы выявления, изучения и сохранения культовых комплексов с каменными крестами: по материалам работ 2016-2017 гг. в Ленинградской области