[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Why is the negative root?
*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
*Subject*: [mg69656] Re: Why is the negative root?
*From*: Paul Abbott <paul at physics.uwa.edu.au>
*Date*: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 02:43:59 -0400 (EDT)
*Organization*: The University of Western Australia
*References*: <200609130803.EAA18412@smc.vnet.net><eeof1k$1n7$1@smc.vnet.net>
In article <eeof1k$1n7$1 at smc.vnet.net>, p-valko at tamu.edu wrote:
> I am a bit surprised by the "elitism" of the responses.
Simply put, Root objects are preferable to explicit expressions
involving radicals. Is that elitism?
The debate over "Roots versus radical expressions" depends on the
application: what do you want to do with these roots once you have them?
What is your end goal?
In my experience, apart from quadratics, expressions involving radicals
are just about useless. The trig expressions for real roots (below) are
indeed more useful -- but, if I'm doing symbolic operations on the roots
of some general polynomial, Root objects are much more useful.
> Paul and Andrej and previously Daniel Lichtbau all defend the Root objects without
> telling the whole story.
Really? What has been omitted?
> In my opinion those objects are just pseudo-useful.
Why do you think that?
> If you plot Plot[Root[-1 + b #1 + #1^3 &, 1], {b,-10,10}]
> you will see that they are defending a monster.
There is nothing wrong with that plot. You have omitted the context
explaining why you are interested in this Root over that range. Let's
deconstruct why you might be interested in this Root. You obtain it as
the root of
z^3 + b z - 1 == 0
for b > -(3/2^(2/3)) and z > 0.
Reduce[{z^3 + b z - 1 == 0, b > -(3/2^(2/3)), z > 0}, z]
Noting the condition on b, the relevant plot is
Plot[Root[-1 + b # + #^3 &, 1], {b, -(3/2^(2/3)), 10}]
Alternatively, if you enter
Reduce[{z^3 + b z - 1 == 0, z > 0, Element[b, Reals]}, z]
you will find the (piecewise) solution (involving two Root objects) for
b real.
f[b_] = Piecewise[{
{Root[#^3 + b # - 1 & , 3], b <= -(3/2^(2/3))},
{Root[#^3 + b # - 1 & , 1], b > -(3/2^(2/3))}
}]
Plot[f[b], {b,-10,10}]
> But I am not going to start (continue) a debate on faith. Rather I am
> trying to formulate my question on a language even hard-core Mathematica
> defenders can accept:
>
> "Assuming that the coefficients are real and I am interested only in
> real roots, how do I persuade Reduce to give the formulas 69 - 72 of
>
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CubicFormula.html ?
See the American Journal of Physics 52(3), 269 (1984) and the Tricks of
the Trade column in The Mathematica Journal 2(3), where the real roots
of cubics are discussed. In particular, a cubic of the form
x^3 - 3 a x + 2 b == 0
has three real roots iff 0 < b^2 < a^3. So, using
r = ToRadicals[Reduce[{x^3 - 3 a x + 2 b == 0}, x]]
and
Simplify[ComplexExpand[#], 0 < b^2 < a^3] & /@ r
effectively gives you the formulas you are after.
Cheers,
Paul
_______________________________________________________________________
Paul Abbott Phone: 61 8 6488 2734
School of Physics, M013 Fax: +61 8 6488 1014
The University of Western Australia (CRICOS Provider No 00126G)
AUSTRALIA http://physics.uwa.edu.au/~paul
Prev by Date:
**Re: Re: Why is the negative root?**
Next by Date:
**Re: CauchyPrincipalValue questions**
Previous by thread:
**Re: Why is the negative root?**
Next by thread:
**Re: Why is the negative root?**
| |