Systems of Non

Systems of Non-Linear Equations: Definitions (page 1 of 6)
A "system" of equations is a set of equations that you have to deal with all together. That is, you're dealing with more than one equation at once when you're dealing with a system of equations. Think back to when you were first learning about equations. "Solutions" to equations were the points that made the equation true, that made the equation work correctly. For instance, in the equation "2x = 6", the "solution" is "x = 3" because, if you plug in 3 for x, you will get a true statement: 2(3) = 6 = 6. On the other hand, "x = 3" is not a solution to the equation, because plugging 3 in for x would create a false statement: 23 = 6 <> 6. (Note: "<>" is Internet shorthand for "does not equal" or "is not equal to".) Eventually, you moved on to two-variable equations, such as "y = 3x + 2". You could "evaluate" these equations (usually meaning that you were given a value for x which you plugged in, and then you solved for the value of y), or you could graph them. You could also check solutions. For instance, suppose you were given "y = x 4". Is the point (6, 3) a solution? No, because plugging in 6 for x and 3 for y makes the equation false: Copyright 2002-2011 Elizabeth Stapel All Rights Reserved
So (6,
3) is not a solution to this equation. But (6, 2) is:
You would not usually work with the equation in this way, of course; you would usually be picking xvalues, plugging them into the equation, finding the corresponding y-values, plotting the points, and graphing the line. For instance, you would pick 6 for x, plug this in to the equation, and compute y as:
y=x4 y=64 y=2

However, the result is the same: you would have shown, in either case, that equation. That's the important thing to see here:
(6, 2) is a solution to the
"SOLUTIONS" FOR EQUATIONS ARE "POINTS" ON THE GRAPHS
When you are solving a system of equations, you are looking for the points that are solutions for all of the system's equations. In other words, you are looking for the points that are solutions for all of the equations at once. What does this mean...? Suppose you have the following: Solve the system by graphing:
y = x2 y = 8 x2
I can graph each of these equations separately:
y = x2
y = 8 x2
..and each point on each graph is a solution to that graph's equation.
Now look at the graph of the system:
y = x2 y = 8 x2
A solution to the system is any point that is a solution for both equations. In other words, a solution point for this system is any point that is on both graphs. In other words: "SOLUTIONS" FOR SYSTEMS ARE INTERSECTIONS OF THE LINES
Then, graphically, the solutions for this system are the red-highlighted points at right:
That is, the solutions to this system are the points
(2, 4) and (2, 4).
So when you're trying to solve a system of equations, you're trying to find the coordinates of the intersection points. Copyright 2002-2011 Elizabeth Stapel All Rights Reserved
The system shown above has two solutions, because the graph shows two intersection points. A system
can have one solution:
...lots of solutions:
...or no solutions at all:
(In this last situation, where there was no solution, the system of equations is said to be "inconsistent".)
When you look at a graph, you can only guess at an approximation to the solution. Unless the solutions points are nice neat numbers (and unless you happen to know this in advance), you can't get the solution from the picture. For instance, you can't tell what the solution to the system graphed at right might be:
...because you're having to guess from a picture. As it happens, the solution is (x, you would have no possible way of knowing that from this picture.
y) = (13/7, 9/14), but
Advisory: Your text will almost certainly have you do some "solve by graphing" exercises. You may safely assume for these exercises that answers are nice and neat, because the solutions must be if you are to be able to have a chance at guessing the solutions from a picture. This "solving by graphing" can be useful, in that it helps you get an idea in picture form of what is going on when solving systems. But it can be misleading, too, in that it implies that all solutions will be "neat" ones, when most solutions are actually rather messy. To find the exact solution to a system of equations, you must use algebra. Let's look at that first system again: Solve the following system algebraically:
y = x2 y = 8 x2
Since I am looking for the intersection points, I am therefore looking for the points where the equations overlap, where they share the same values. That is, I am trying to find any spots where y = x2 equals y = 8 x2:
y = x2 = y = 8 x2
The algebra comes in when I manipulate useful bits of this last equation. I can pick out whichever parts I like. (They're all equal, after all -- at least at the intersection points, but the intersection points are the only points that I care about anyway!) So I can pick out any of the following:
y = x2 y = 8 x2 y=y x2 = 8 x2
Each of these sub-equations is true, but only the last one is usefully new and different:
x2 = 8 x2
I can solve this for the x-values that make the equation true:
x2 = 8 x2 2x2 = 8 x2 = 4 x = 2, +2
Then the solutions to the original system will occur when x
= 2 and when x = +2.
What are the corresponding y-values? To find them, I plug the x-values back in to either of the two original equations. (It doesn't matter which one I pick because I only care about the points where the equations spit out the same values. So I can pick whichever equation I like better.) I'll plug the x-values into the first equation, because it's the simpler of the two:
x = 2: y = x2 y = (2)2 = 4 x = +2: y = x2 y = (+2)2 = 4

Then the solutions (as we already knew) are
(x, y) = (2, 4) and (2, 4).
In this case, the solutions were "neat" values; no fractions or decimals. But solutions will not always be neat, so, while the pictures can be very useful for giving you a "feel" for what is going on, graphing is not as accurate as doing the algebra. Warning: Students are often taught nowadays to "round" absolutely everything, and are thus implicitly taught that all answers will be "neat" answers. But this is wrong; don't fall for it. For instance: Solve the following system:
y = x2 + 3x + 2 y = 2x + 3
I can solve this in the same manner as we did on the previous problem. The "solution" to the system will be any point(s) that the lines share; that is, any point(s) where the x-value and 2 corresponding y-value for y = x + 3x + 2 is the same as the x-value and corresponding y-value 2 for y = 2x + 3; that is, where the lines overlap or intersect; that is, where y = x + 3x + 2 equals y = 2x + 3. Copyright 2002-2011 Elizabeth Stapel All Rights Reserved
Looking at the graph of the system:
...I can see that there appear to be solutions at around (x, y) = (1.5, 0.25) and (x, y) = (0.5, 4.25). But I cannot assume that this is the answer! The picture can give me a good idea, but only the algebra can give me the actual answer. I'll set the equations equal, and solve:
x2 + 3x + 2 = 2x + 3 x2 + x 1 = 0
Using the Quadratic Formula gives me:
Then I have one solution:
...which has a corresponding
y-value of:
The other solution (from the "" in front of the square root) is: ....which gives me a y-value of:
So the solutions are:
For purposes of graphing, the approximate solutions are:
(x, y) = (1.62, 0.24) and (0.62, 4.24).

In other words, while our guess from the picture was close, it was not entirely correct. (However, if the algebra had given me answers that are far afield of these picture-based guesses, I would have been able to safely assume that I had messed up the math somewhere. In this way, the graph can be helpful for checking your work.) Solve the following system:
y = 2x2 + 3x + 4 y = x2 + 2x + 3
As before, I'll set these equations equal, and solve for the values of x:
2x2 + 3x + 4 = x2 + 2x + 3 x2 + x + 1 = 0
Using the Quadratic Formula:
But I can't graph that negative inside the square root! What's going on here? Take a look at the graph:
The lines do not intersect. Since there is no intersection, then there is no solution. That is, this is an inconsistent system. My final answer is: no solution: inconsistent system.
In general, the method of solution for general systems of equations is to solve one of the equations (you choose which) for one of the variables (again, you choose which). Then you plug the resulting expression into the other equation for the chosen variable, and solve for the values of the other variable. Then you plug those solutions back into the first equation, and solve for the values of the first variable. Here are some additional examples: Copyright 2002-2011 Elizabeth Stapel All Rights Reserved Solve the following system:
y = x 3 x2 + y2 = 17
Graphically, this system is a straight line crossing a circle centered at the origin:
There appear to be two solutions. I'll proceed algebraically to confirm this impression, and to get the exact values. Since the first equation is already solved for y, I will plug "x 3" in for "y" in the second equation, and solve for the values of x:
x2 + y2 = 17 x2 + (x 3)2 = 17 x2 + (x 3)(x 3) = 17 x2 + (x2 + 6x + 9) = 17 2x2 + 6x + 9 = 17 2x2 + 6x 8 = 0 x2 + 3x 4 = 0 (x + 4)(x 1) = 0 x = 4, x = 1

When x = 4, When x = 1,
y = x 3 = (4) 3 = 4 3 = 1 y = x 3 = (1) 3 = 4 1) and (1, 4).
Then the solution consists of the points (4,
Note the procedure: I solved one of the equations (the first equation looked easier) for one of the variables (solving for "y=" looked easier), and then plugged the resulting expression back into the other equation. This gave me one equation in one variable (the variable happened to be x), and a one-variable equation is something I know how to solve. Once I had the solution values for x, I back-solved for the corresponding y-values. I emphasize "corresponding" because you have to keep track of which y-value goes with which x-value. In the example above, the points (4, 4) and (1, 1) are not solutions. Even though I came up with x = 4 and 1 and y = 4 and 1, the x = 4 did not go with the y = 4, and the x = 1 did not go with the y = 1. Warning: You must match the x-values and y-values correctly!
Solve the following system of equations:
y = (1/2)x 5 y = x2 + 2x 15
Since both equations are already solved for y, I'll set them equal and solve for the values of x:
(1/2)x 5 = x2 + 2x 15 x 10 = 2x2 + 4x 30 0 = 2x2 + 3x 20 0 = (2x 5)(x + 4) x = 5/2, x = 4

When x =
5
/2 :
y = (1/2)x 5 = (1/2)(5/2) 5 = 5/4 20/4 = 15/4 = 3.75

When x = 4:
y = (1/2)x 5 = (1/2)(4) 5 = 2 5 = 7
Then the solutions are the points (
5
/2, 15/4 ) and (4, 7).
Graphically, the above system looks like this:
Solve the following system of equations:
xy = 1 x+y=2
Taking a quick look at the graph, I see that there appears to be only one solution:
I guess I'll solve the second equation for y, and plug the result into the first equation:
x+y=2 y = x + 2
Then:
xy = 1 x(x + 2) = 1 x2 + 2x = 1 x2 + 2x 1 = 0 x2 2x + 1 = 0 (x 1)(x 1) = 0 x=1

Then:
x+y=2 (1) + y = 2 y=1

Then the solution is the point
(1, 1).
Solve the system of nonlinear equations:
y = x2 x2 + (y 2)2 = 4
From the form of the equations, you should know that this system contains a parabola and a circle.
According to the graph, there should be three solutions to this system:
The solution at the origin is a "neat" one, but the other two intersection points may be messy.
From the first equation, I think I'll plug in "y" for "x " in the second equation, and solve:
x2 + (y 2)2 = 4 y + (y 2)2 = 4 y + (y2 4y + 4) = 4 y 2 3y = 0 y(y 3) = 0 y = 0, y = 3

Now I need to find the corresponding x-values. When y = 0:
y = x2 0 = x2 0=x
(This is the solution at the origin that we'd been expecting.) When
y = 3:
y = x2 3 = x2 sqrt(3) = x
Then the solutions are the points Solve the following system: , (0,
0), and
3x2 + 2y2 = 35 4x2 3y2 = 24

I can rearrange the first equation to get:
This tells me that the first equation is an ellipse. However, rather than graphing this using ellipse formulae, you could also solve to get a "plus-minus" expression that you can graph as two equations: Copyright 2002-2011 Elizabeth Stapel All Rights Reserved
(You would plug this into your graphing calculator as two graphs, one graph for the top "plus" part of the ellipse, and another for the bottom "minus" part.) The second equation rearranges as:
...which is an hyperbola. The second equation also solves (for your graphing calculator) as:
Whatever format you use (the ellipse and the hyperbola center-vertex forms, or the "plus-minus" for-calculator forms), this system graphs as:
As you can see, there appear to be four solutions. To find them algebraically, I will choose to 2 solve the second equation for x (rather than just x), and plug the resulting expression into the 2 first equation, which I will then solve for y:. (It's okay that I "only" solve for x , because neither equation has an x-term. There is no need, in this particular case, to do any more solving.)
4x2 3y2 = 24 4x2 = 3y2 + 24 x2 = ( 3/4 )y2 + 6

Then, subsituting into the first equation for the x , I get:
2
3x2 + 2y2 = 35 3(( 3/4 )y2 + 6) + 2y2 = 35 ( 9/4 )y2 + 18 + 2y2 = 35 9y2 + 72 + 8y2 = 140 17y2 = 68 y2 = 4 y=2
When
y = 2: x2 = ( 3/4 )y2 + 6 = ( 3/4 )(2)2 + 6 = ( 3/4 )(4) + 6 =3+6=9 x=3
When
y = 2: x2 = ( 3/4 )y2 + 6 = ( 3/4 )(2)2 + 6 = ( 3/4 )(4) + 6 =3+6=9 x=3
Then the solution is the points (3, 2), (3, 2), (3, 2), and (3, 2), which may alse be written as ( 3, 2), since all the "plus-minus" combinations are included. The example below demonstrates how the Quadratic Formula is sometimes used to help in solving, and shows how involved your computations might get. Solve the system:
x2 xy + y2 = 21 x2 + 2xy 8y2 = 0
This system represents an ellipse and a set of straight lines. If you solve each equation above for y, you can enter the "plus-minus" equations into your graphing calculator to verify this:
x2 xy + y2 = 21
y2 xy + (x2 21) = 0
x2 + 2xy 8y2 = 0 0 = 8y2 2xy x2
As you can see, I used the Quadratic Formula in each case to solve for y in terms of x. This gave me equations that I could graph. This technique doesn't come up that often, but it can be a lifesaver when you can't seem to solve things any other way. Where did the absolute-value bars come from? Recall that, technically, the square root of x is the absolute value of x. That's how I did that simplification in the next-to-last line above. The absolute value of x in the second equation above gives two cases for the values of y: If x < 0, then
2
| x | = x, so y =
(x 3x)
/8 = x/2, x/4
If x > 0, then | x In either case,
| = x, so y = (x 3x)/8 = x/4, x/2.
y = x/4 or y = x/2.
Since I derived these "y=" solution-equations from the second of the original equations, I will plug them into the first equation to solve for some actual numerical values: If y = /4:
x
Copyright 2002-2011 Elizabeth Stapel All Rights Reserved
Then, plugging into the "y=" solution-equations above, I get:
If
y = x/2:
Then:
Then the four solutions are: , , ,
Warning: Do not try to write the solution points as " " or " ", because this is not correct. Not all combinations of these x-value and y-values are solution points. Don't be sloppy; write the solution out correctly. By the way, the graph of the system looks like this:
(To graph the ellipse using the traditional methods, you would have to do a "rotation of axes", a process you probably won't see until calculus, if at all.)
There is another way of proceeding in the above exercise, because the second equation happens to be factorable. (This factorability is NOT generally true, but you should try to remember to check, just in case.) If you factor the second equation and solve for x in terms of y, you get:
x2 + 2xy 8y2 = 0 (x + 4y)(x 2y) = 0 x + 4y = 0 or x 2y = 0 x = 4y or x = 2y

Plug these into the first equation for y, and solve for the x-values. This last example (the first way I worked it) is about as complicated as these things ever get. But if you plug away and work neatly and completely, you should be able to arrive at the solution successfully. And if you have a graphing calculator (and the time), try doing a quick graph to verify your answers visually.
Special Factoring: Factoring Differences of Squares (page 1 of 3)

Sections: Differences of squares, Sums and differences of cubes, Recognizing patterns
When you learn to factor quadratics, there are three other formulas that they usually introduce at the same time. The first is the "difference of squares" formula. Remember from your translation skills that "difference" means "subtraction". So a difference of squares is 2 2 2 2 something that looks like x 4. That's because 4 = 2 , so you really have x 2 , a difference of squares. To factor this, do your parentheses, same as usual:
x2 4 = (x
)(x
You need factors of 4 that add up to zero, so use 2 and +2:
x2 4 = (x 2)(x + 2)
(Review Factoring Quadratics, if this example didn't make sense to you.)
Note that we had x 2 , and ended up with (x 2)(x + 2). Differences of squares (something squared minus something else squared) always work this way: For a
2
b2, do the parentheses: ( )( )
...put the first squared thing in front:
(a
)(a
...put the second squared thing in back:
(a
b)(a
b)
...and alternate the signs in the middles:
(a b)(a + b)
Memorize this formula! It will come in handy later, especially when you get to rational expressions (polynomial fractions), and you'll probably be expected to know the formula for your next test.
Here are examples of some typical homework problems: Factor x This is x

2
16 42, so I get:
x2 16 = x2 42 = (x 4)(x + 4)
Factor 4x
2
25
2
This is (2x)
52, so I get:
4x2 25 = (2x)2 52 = (2x 5)(2x + 5)

Factor 9x This is
6
y8
(3x3)2 (y4)2, so I get: 9x6 y8 = (3x3)2 (y4)2 = (3x3 y4)(3x3 + y4)
Factor x
1 Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2000-2011 All Rights Reserved ) 12, so I get:
This is (x
2 2
x4 1 = (x2)2 12 = (x2 1)(x2 + 1)

Note that I'm not done yet, because x 1 is itself a difference of squares, so I need to apply the 2 formula again to get the fully-factored form. Since x 1 = (x 1)(x + 1), then:
2
x4 1 = (x2)2 12 = (x2 1)(x2 + 1) = ((x)2 (1)2)(x2 + 1) = (x 1)(x + 1)(x2 + 1)

The answer to this last exercise depended on the fact that 1, to any power at all, is still just 1. Warning: Never forget that this formula is for the difference of squares; the sum of squares is always prime (that is, it can't be factored). The other two special factoring formulas are two sides of the same coin: the sum and difference of cubes. These are the formulas:
a3 + b3 = (a + b)(a2 ab + b2) a3 b3 = (a b)(a2 + ab + b2)

You'll learn in more advanced classes how they came up with these formulas. For now, just memorize them. First, notice that the terms in each factorization are the same; then notice that each formula has only one "minus" sign. For the difference of cubes, the "minus" sign goes with the linear factor, a b; for 2 2 the sum of cubes, the "minus" sign goes in the quadratic factor, a ab + b . Some people use the mnemonic "SOAP" for the signs; the letters stand for "same" as the sign in the middle of the original expression, "opposite" sign, and "always positive".
a3 b3 = (a [same sign] b)(a2 [opposite sign] ab [always positive] b2)
Whatever method helps you best keep these formulas straight, do it, because you should not assume that you'll be given these formulas on the test. You really should know them. Note: The quadratic part of each cube formula does not factor, so don't attempt it. When you have a pair of cubes, carefully apply the appropriate rule. By "carefully", I mean "using parentheses to keep track of everything, especially the negative signs". Here are some typical problems:
Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2000-2011 All Rights Reserved
Factor x This is x
8 23, so I get:
x3 8 = x3 23 = (x 2)(x2 + 2x + 22) = (x 2)(x2 + 2x + 4)

Factor 27x
3
+1
Remember that 1 can be regarded as having been raised to any power you like, so this is really (3x)3 + 13. Then I get:
27x3 + 1 = (3x)3 + 13 = (3x + 1)((3x)2 (3x)(1) + 12) = (3x + 1)(9x2 3x + 1)

Factor x
3 6
y 64
2 3
This is (xy
) 43, so I get:
x3y6 64 = (xy2)3 43 = (xy2 4)((xy2)2 + (xy2)(4) + 42) = (xy2 4)(x2y4 + 4xy2 + 16)
You can use the Mathway widget below to practice "Factoring Polynomials", subtopic "Sum of Cubes". Try the entered exercise, type in your own exercise, or select subtopic "Difference of Cubes". Then click "Answer" to compare your answer to Mathway's. (Or skip the widget and continue with the lesson.) (Clicking on "View Steps" on the widget's answer screen will take you to the Mathway site, where you can register for a free seven-day trial of the software.)
There is one "special" factoring that can actually be done using the usual methods for factoring, but, for whatever reason, many texts and instructors make a big deal of treating this case separately. "Perfect 2 square trinomials" are quadratics that you got by squaring a binomial. For instance, (x + 3) = (x + 3)(x 2 + 3) = x + 6x + 9 is a perfect square trinomial.
Recognizing the pattern to perfect squares isn't a make-or-break issue, but it can be a time-saver occasionally. The trick is really quite simple: If the first and third terms are squares, figure out what they're squares of. Multiply those things, multiply that product by 2, and compare your result with the quadratic's middle term. If you've got a match, then you've got a perfect square. Is x + 10x binomial.
2
+ 25 a perfect square trinomial? If so, write the trinomial as the square of a

2
Well, the first term, x , is the square of x. The third term, 25, is the square of 5. Multiplying, I get 5x. Multiplying this by 2, I get 10x. And this matches the middle term. So: this quadratic is a perfect square: x Write 16x
2 2
+ 10x + 25 = (x + 5)2
48x + 36 as a squared binomial.

2
The first term, 16x , is the square of 4x, and the last term, 36, is the square of 6. Actually, since the middle term has a "minus" sign, the 36 is the square of 6. Just to be sure, I'll make sure that the middle term matches the pattern: (4x)(6)(2) = 48x. It's a match, so this is a perfect square:
16x2 48x + 36 = (4x 6)2

Is 4x
2
25x + 36 a perfect square trinomial?

2
The first term, 4x , is the square of 2x, and the last term, 36, is the square of 6 (or, in this case, 6, if this is a perfect square). Checking the middle term, I get (2x)(6)(2) = 24x, which does not match the middle term. So: this is not a perfect square trinomial. That's all there is to perfect squares. You've learned the difference-of-squares formula and the difference- and sum-of-cubes formulas. But how do you know which formula to use, and when to use it? First off, to use any of these formulas, you have to have only two terms in your polynomial. If you've factored out everything you can and you're still left with two terms with a square or a cube in them, then 2 you should look at using one of these formulas. For instance, 6x + 6x is two terms, but you can factor 2 out a 6x, giving you 6x + 6x = 6x(x + 1). Since the bit inside the parentheses does not have a squared or a cubed variable in it, you can't apply any of these special factoring formulas (and you don't need to, since it's already fully factored -- you can't go further than just plain old "x"!). On the other hand, 2x 162 = 2(x 81), and x 81 is a quadratic. When you see that you have a two-term non-linear polynomial, check to see if it fits any of the formulas. In this case, you've got a 2 2 difference of squares, so apply that formula: 2x 162 = 2(x 81) = 2(x 9)(x + 9). Warning: Always remember that, in cases like 2x + 162, all you can do is factor out the 2; the sum of 2 2 2 squares doesn't factor! 2x + 162 = 2(x + 81). (Your book may call x + 81 "prime", "unfactorable", or "irreducible". These all mean the same thing.)
2 2 2 2
There is one special case for applying these formulas. Take a look at x 64. Is this expression a 3 2 2 2 3 3 difference of squares, being ( (x ) 8 ), or a difference of cubes, being ( (x ) 4 )? Actually, it's both. You can factor this difference in either of two ways: difference of squares, followed by difference of cubes:
x6 64 = (x3)2 82 = (x3 8)(x3 + 8) = (x3 23)(x3 + 23) = (x 2)(x2 + 2x + 4)(x + 2)(x2 2x + 4)

difference of cubes, followed by difference of squares:
x6 64 = (x2)3 43 = (x2 4)((x2)2 + 4x2 + 42) = (x2 4)(x4 + 4x2 + 16) = (x 2)(x + 2)(x4 + 4x2 + 16)
You should get full credit for either answer, since you shouldn't be expected to know (or to guess) that the 4 2 2 2 quartic polynomial x + 4x + 16 factors as (x + 2x + 4)(x 2x + 4). But if you happen to notice that a problem could be worked either way (as a difference of squares or as a difference of cubes), then you can see from the above example that it might be best to apply the difference-of-squares formula first, because doing the squares first means that you'll get all four factors, not just three.
Since the hardest part of factoring usually comes in figuring out how to proceed with a given problem, below are some factoring examples, with an explanation of which way you need to go with it to arrive at the answer. Note: Not all solutions are provided. Factor x
2
+ 11x + 18
This polynomial has three terms. Try to factor the "usual" way. Find factors of 18 that add up to 11, and then fill in the parentheses: Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2000-2011 All Rights Reserved
x2 + 11x + 18 = (x + 2)(x + 9)
Factor 16x
2
49
This has two terms, and nothing factors out of both terms, so you have to be thinking "difference of squares, or sum or difference of cubes". Since there are no cubes (and especially since the x is squared), you should look for a difference of squares. Sixteen is a square, and so is 49, so 2 2 apply the difference of squares formula to (4x) 7 . Factor 3x
3
12x
You can factor out a 3x, giving you 3x(x 4). This leaves two terms inside the parentheses, where the two terms have a subtraction in the middle, and the x is squared. Apply the difference 2 2 of squares formula to x 2 , and don't forget the factor of "3x" when you write your final answer. Factor x
2
+ 6x + 9
This is a quadratic with three terms. Factor in the "usual" way:
x2 + 6x + 9 = (x + 3)(x + 3)
You might also have noticed that this is a perfect square trinomial, from the fact that x is the square of x, 9 is the square of 3, and (x)(3)(2) = 6x, which matches the middle term. So this answer could also have 2 been written as (x + 3) . Factor 27x
3 2
This has two terms, and nothing comes out of both. It's a difference. Twenty-seven is a cube, and 3 3 so is 8. Apply the difference of cubes formula to (3x) 2 . Factor 7x
7
56x
6
This has two terms, and a 7x comes out of both, giving you 7x(x 8). Inside the parentheses 6 2 3 you still have two terms, and it's a difference. The first term, x , could be a cube, (x ) , or a 3 2 3 2 3 3 square, (x ) , but 8 can only be a cube, 2 . Apply the difference of cubes formula to (x ) 2 . Factor x
9
+1
This polynomial has two terms, and nothing factors out of both. Remember that you can put any 9 power you feel like on 1, so you just have to figure out what to do with the x . Since this is a sum, 9 not a difference, you have to hope that there is some way you can turn x into a cube. There is: 3 3 3 3 6 3 apply the sum of cubes formula to (x ) + 1 to get (x + 1)(x x + 1). Then notice that you 3 can apply the sum of cubes formula again, to the factor x + 1. Factor (x
+ y)3 + (x y)3
Yes, this is needlessly complex, but you might see something like this in an extra-credit assignment. This is just a big lumpy sum of cubes. Be very careful with your parentheses when applying the formula. As you can imagine, there are many opportunities for mistakes!
(x + y)3 + (x y)3 = [ (x + y) + (x y) ] [ (x + y)2 (x + y)(x y) + (x y)2 ] = [ 2x ] [ (x2 + 2xy + y2) (x2 y2) + (x2 2xy + y2) ] = [ 2x ] [ x2 + 2xy + y2 x2 + y2 + x2 2xy + y2 ] = [ 2x ] [ x2 + 3y2 ]
To successfully complete these problems, just take your time, and don't be afraid to rely on your instincts and common sense.
Synthetic division is a shorthand, or shortcut, method of polynomial division in the special case of dividing by a linear factor -- and it only works in this case. Synthetic division is generally used, however, not for dividing out factors but for finding zeroes (or roots) of polynomials. More about this later. If you are given, say, the polynomial equation y = x + 5x + 6, you can factor the polynomial as y = (x + 3)(x + 2). Then you can find the zeroes of y by setting each factor equal to zero and solving. You will find that x = 2 and x = 3 are the two zeroes of y. You can, however, also work backwards from the zeroes to find the originating polynomial. For instance, if you are given that x = 2 and x = 3 are the zeroes of a quadratic, then you know that x + 2 = 0, so x + 2 is a factor, and x + 3 = 0, so x + 3 is a factor. Therefore, you know that the quadratic must be of the form y = a(x + 3)(x + 2). (The extra number "a" in that last sentence is in there because, when you are working backwards from the zeroes, you don't know toward which quadratic you're working. For any non-zero value of "a", your quadratic will still have the same zeroes. But the issue of the value of "a" is just a technical consideration; as long as you see the relationship between the zeroes and the factors, that's all you really need to know for this lesson.) Anyway, the above is a long-winded way of saying that, if x n is a factor, then x = n is a zero, and if x = n is a zero, then x n is a factor. And this is the fact you use when you do synthetic division. Let's look again at the quadratic from above: y = x + 5x + 6. From the Rational Roots Test, you know that 1, 2, 3, and 6 are possible zeroes of the quadratic. (And, from the factoring above, you know that the zeroes are, in fact, 3 and 2.) How would you use synthetic division to check the potential zeroes? Well, think about how long polynomial divison works. If we guess that x = 1 is a zero, then this means that x 1 is a factor of the quadratic. And if it's a factor, then it will divide out evenly; that is, if we divide x2 + 5x + 6 by x 1, we would get a zero remainder. Let's check:
2 2
As expected (since we know that x 1 is not a factor), we got a non-zero remainder. What does this look like in synthetic division? Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2002-2011 All Rights Reserved First, write the coefficients ONLY inside an upside-down division symbol:
Make sure you leave room inside, underneath the row of coefficients, to write another row of numbers later.
Put the test zero, x = 1, at the left:
Take the first number inside, representing the leading coefficient, and carry it down, unchanged, to below the division symbol:
Multiply this carry-down value by the test zero, and carry the result up into the next column:
Add down the column:
Multiply the previous carry-down value by the test zero, and carry the new result up into the last column:
Add down the column: This last carry-down value is the remainder.
Comparing, you can see that we got the same result from the synthetic division, the same quotient (namely, 1x + 6) and the same remainder at the end (namely, 12), as when we did the long division:
The results are formatted differently, but you should recognize that each format provided us with the result, being a quotient of x + 6, and a remainder of 12. You already know (from the factoring above) that x + 3 is a factor of the polynomial, and therefore that x = 3 is a zero. Now compare the results of long division and synthetic division when we use the factor x + 3 (for the long division) and the zero x =
3 (for the synthetic division):
As you can see above, while the results are formatted differently, the results are otherwise the same: In the long division, I divided by the factor x + 3, and arrived at the result of x + 2 with a remainder of zero. This means that x + 3 is a factor, and that x + 2 is left after factoring out the x + 3. Setting the factors equal to zero, I get that x = 3 and x = 2 are the zeroes of the quadratic. In the synthetic division, I divided by x = 3, and arrived at the same result of x + 2 with a remainder of zero. Because the remainder is zero, this means that x + 3 is a factor and x = 3 is a zero. Also, because of the zero remainder, x + 2 is the remaining factor after division. Setting this equal to zero, I get that x = 2 is the other zero of the quadratic. I will return to this relationship between factors and zeroes throughout what follows; the two topics are inextricably intertwined.
Polynomial Graphs: End Behavior (page 1 of 5)

Sections: End behavior, Zeroes and their multiplicities, "Flexing", Turnings & "bumps", Graphing
When you're graphing (or looking at a graph of) polynomials, it can help to already have an idea of what basic polynomial shapes look like. One of the aspects of this is "end behavior", and it's pretty easy. Look at these graphs: with a positive leading coefficient with a negative leading coefficient
with a positive leading coefficient
with a negative leading coefficient
As you can see, even-degree polynomials are either "up" on both ends (entering and then leaving the graphing "box" through the "top") or "down" on both ends (entering and then leaving through the "bottom"), depending on whether the polynomial has, respectively, a positive or negative leading coefficient. On the other hand, odd-degree polynomials have ends that head off in opposite directions. If they start "down" (entering the graphing "box" through the "bottom") and go "up" (leaving the graphing "box" through the "top"), they're positive polynomials; if they start "up" and go "down", they're negative polynomials.
All even-degree polynomials behave, on their ends, like quadratics, and all odd-degree polynomials behave, on their ends, like cubics. Which of the following could be the graph of a polynomial 4 whose leading term is "3x "?
The important things to consider are the sign and the degree of the leading term. The exponent says that this is a degree-4 polynomial, so the graph will behave roughly like a quadratic: up on both ends or down on both ends. Since the sign on the leading coefficient is negative, the graph will be down on both ends. (The actual value of the negative coefficient, 3 in this case, is actually irrelevant for this problem. All I need is the "minus" part of the leading coefficient.) Clearly Graphs A and C represent odd-degree polynomials, since their two ends head off in opposite directions. Graph D shows both ends passing through the top of the graphing box, just like a positive quadratic would. The only graph with both ends down is: Graph B Describe the end behavior of
f(x) = 3x7 + 5x + 1004
This polynomial is much too large for me to view in the standard screen on my graphing calculator, so either I can waste a lot of time fiddling with WINDOW options, or I can quickly use my knowledge of end behavior. This function is an odd-degree polynomial, so the ends go off in opposite directions, just like every cubic I've ever graphed. A positive cubic enters the graph at the bottom, down on the left, and exits the graph at the top, up on the right. Since the leading coefficient of this odd-degree polynomial is positive, then its end-behavior is going to mimic a positive cubic. The real (that is, the non-complex) zeroes of a polynomial correspond to the x-intercepts of the graph of that polynomial. So you can find information about the number of real zeroes of a polynomial by looking at the graph, and conversely you can tell how many times the graph is going to touch or cross the x-axis by looking at the zeroes of the polynomial (or at the factored form of the polynomial). A zero has a "multiplicity", which refers to the number of times that its associated factor appears in the polynomial. For instance, the quadratic (x + 3)(x 2) has the zeroes x = 3 and x = 2, each occuring
once. The eleventh-degree polynomial (x + 3) (x 2) has the same zeroes as did the quadratic, but in this case, the x = 3 solution has multiplicity 4 because the factor (x + 3) occurs four times (the factor is raised to the fourth power) and the x = 2 solution has multiplicity 7 because the factor (x 2) occurs seven times. The point of multiplicities with respect to graphing is that any factors that occur an even number of time (twice, four times, six times, etc) are squares, so they don't change sign. Squares are always positive. This means that the x-intercept corresponding to an even-multiplicity zero can't cross the x-axis, because the zero can't cause the graph to change sign from positive (above the x-axis) to negative (below the xaxis), or vice versa. The practical upshot is that an even-multiplicity zero makes the graph just barely touch the x-axis, and then turns it back around the way it came. You can see this in the following graphs: Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2005-2011 All Rights Reserved
y = (x + 6)(x 7)
y = (x + 6)(x 7)2
x = 6 once x = 7 once y = (x + 6)2 (x 7)
x = 6 once x = 7 twice y = (x + 6)2(x 7)2
x = 6 twice x = 7 once
x = 6 twice x = 7 twice
All four graphs have the same zeroes, at x = 6 and at x = 7, but the multiplicity of the zero determines whether the graph crosses the x-axis at that zero or if it instead turns back the way it came. The following graph shows an eighth-degree polynomial. List the polynomial's zeroes with their multiplicities.
I can see from the graph that there are zeroes at x = 15, x = 10, x = 5, x = 0, x = 10, and x = 15, because the graph touches or crosses the x-axis at these points. (At least, I'm assuming that the graph crosses at exactly these points, since the exercise doesn't tell me the exact values. When I'm guessing from a picture, I do have to make certain assumptions.) Since the graph just touches at x = 10 and x = 10, then it must be that these zeroes occur an even number of times. The other zeroes must occur an odd number of times. The odd-multiplicity zeroes might occur only once, or might occur three, five, or more times each; there is no way to tell from the graph. (At least, there's no way to tell yet we'll learn more about that on the next page.) And the even-multiplicity zeroes might occur four, six, or more times each; I can't tell by looking. But if I add up the minimum multiplicity of each, I should end up with the degree, because otherwise this problem is asking for more information than is available for me to give. I've got the four odd-multiplicity zeroes (at x = 15, x = 5, x = 0, and x = 15) and the two even-multiplicity zeroes (at x = 10 and x = 10). Adding up their minimum multiplicities, I get 1 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 1 = 8, which is the degree of the polynomial. So the minimum multiplicities are the correct multiplicities.
x = 15 with multiplicity 1, x = 10 with multiplicity 2, x = 5 with multiplicity 1, x = 0 with multiplicity 1, x = 10 with multiplicity 2, and x = 15 with multiplicity 1
I was able to compute the multiplicities of the zeroes in part from the fact that the multiplicities will add up to the degree of the polynomial, or two less, or four less, etc, depending on how many complex zeroes there might be. But multiplicity problems don't usually get into complex numbers. There's an extra detail I'd like to mention regarding the multiplicity of a zero and the graph of the polynomial: You can tell from the graph whether an odd-multiplicity zero occurs only once or if it occurs more than once. What is the multiplicity of x = 5, given that the graph shows a fifth-degree polynomial with all real-number roots, and the root x = 5 has a multiplicity of 2?
The intercept at x = 5 is of multiplicity 2. The polynomial is of degree 5, so the zero at x = 5, the only other zero, must use up the rest of the multiplicities. Since 5 2 = 3, then
x = 5 must be of multiplicity 3.
The zero at x = 5 had to be of odd multiplicity, since the graph went through the x-axis. But the graph flexed a bit (the "flexing" being that bendy part of the graph) right in the area of x = 5. This flexing is what tells you that the multiplicity of x = 5 had to be more than just 1. In this particular case, the multiplicity couldn't have been 5 or 7 or more, because the degree of the whole polynomial was only 5,but the multiplicity certainly had to be more than just 1. Keep this in mind: Any odd-multiplicity zero that flexes at the crossing point, like this graph did at x = 5, is of multiplicity 3 or more. Notw: If you get that odd flexing behavior at some location on the graph that is off the x-axis (above or below the axis), then you're probably looking at the effect of complex zeroes; namely, the zeroes that you'd find by using the Quadratic Formula, the zeroes that don't correspond to the graph crossing the xaxis. Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2005-2011 All Rights Reserved Which of the following graphs could represent the polynomial f(x) = a(x b)2(x c)3?
Whatever this polynomial is, it is of degree 5. (I know this by adding the degrees on on the two repeated factors: if I multiplied everything out, the degree on the leading term would be 5.)
Since the polynomial is of odd degree, Graph A can't be correct, because its ends both go the same direction, meaning it is an even-degree polynomial. Since my polynomial has two real-number zeroes (namely, zeroes at x = b and at x = c), I know that Graph C can't be right: it only crosses the x-axis once. So Graph C may be of odd degree, but it doesn't have enough zeroes. From the end behavior, I can see that Graph D is of odd degree. Also, I know that the negative zero has an even multiplicity because the graph just touches the axis; this zero could correspond to x = b. But there is no flexing where the graph crosses the positive x-axis, so the odd zero here must have a multiplicity of only 1, and I need the multiplicity of this zero to be more than just 1. So Graph D might have the right overall degree (if the zero x = b is of multiplicity 1), but the multiplicities of the two zeroes don't match up with what I need. On the other hand, the ends of the graph tell me that Graph B is of odd degree, and the way the graph touches or crosses the x-axis at the two graphed x-intercepts tells me that the polynomial being graphed has one even-multiplicity zero and one odd-and-more-than-1-multiplicity zero. This matches what I need. The correct graph is Graph B. Find the degree-7 polynomial corresponding to the following graph, given that one of the zeroes has multiplicity 3.
From the graph, I can see that there are zeroes of even multiplicity at x = 4 and x = 4. The zero at x = 1 must be the zero of multiplicity 3. (This matches the graph, since the line goes through the axis, but flexes as it does so, telling me that the multiplicity must be odd and must be more than 1.) Since the total degree of the polynomial is 7, and I already have multiplicities of 2, 2, and 3 (which adds up to 7), then the zeroes at 4 and 4 must be of multiplicity 2, rather than multiplicity 4 or multiplicity 6 or something bigger. Working backwards from the zeroes, I get the following expression for the polynomial:
y = a(x + 4)2(x + 1)3(x 4)2
They marked that one point on the graph so that I can figure out the exact polynomial; that is, so I can figure out the value of the leading coefficient "a". Plugging in these x- and y-values from the point (1, 2), I get:
a(1 + 4)2(1 + 1)3(1 4)2 = a(25)(8)(9) = 1800a = 2

Then a
= 1/900, and the polynomial, in factored form, is: y = ( 1/900 )(x + 4)2(x + 1)3(x 4)2
The exercise didn't say that I had to multiply this out, so I'm not going to. The factored form (especially for something as huge as this) should be a completely acceptable form of the answer.
Degrees, Turnings, and "Bumps" (page 4 of 5)

Graphs don't always head in just one directly, like nice neat straight lines; they can turn around and head back the other way. It isn't standard terminology, and you'll learn the proper terms when you get to calculus, but I refer to the "turnings" of a polynomial graph as its "bumps". For instance, the following graph has three bumps, as indicated by the arrows: Compare the numbers of bumps in the graphs below to the degrees of their polynomials: degree two degree 3 degree 3 degree 4 degree 4
one bump degree 5
no bumps, but one flex point degree 5
two bumps
one (flattened) bump degree 6
three bumps degree 6
degree 5
degree 6
no bumps, but one flex point
two bumps (one flattened)
four bumps
one (flat) bump
three bumps (one flat)
five bumps
You can see from these graphs that, for degree n, the graph will have, at most, n 1 bumps. The bumps represent the spots where the graph turns back on itself and heads back the way it came. This change of direction often happens because of the polynomial's zeroes or factors. But extra pairs of factors don't show up in the graph as much more than just a little extra flexing or flattening in the graph. Because pairs of factors have this habit of disappearing from the graph (or hiding as a little bit of extra flexture or flattening), the graph may have two fewer, or four fewer, or six fewer, etc, bumps than you might otherwise expect, or it may have flex points instead of some of the bumps. That is, the degree of the polynomial gives you the upper limit (the ceiling) on the number of bumps possible for the graph (this upper limit being one less than the degree of the polynomial), and the number of bumps gives you the lower limit (the floor) on degree of the polynomial. What is the minimum possible degree of the polynomial graphed below?
Since there are four bumps on the graph, and since the end-behavior says that this is an odddegree polynomial, then the degree of the polynomial is 5, or 7, or 9, or... But: The minimum possible degree is 5. Given that a polynomial is of degree six, which of the following could be its graph?
To answer this question, I have to remember that the polynomial's degree gives me the ceiling on the number of bumps. In this case, the degree is 6, so the highest number of bumps the graph could have would be 6 1 = 5. But the graph, depending on the multiplicities of the zeroes, might have only 3 or 1 bumps. (I would add 1 or 3 or 5, etc, if I were going from the number of displayed bumps on the graph to the possible degree of the polynomial, but here I'm going from the known degree of the polynomial to the possible graph, so I subtract.) Also, I'll want to check the zeroes (and their multiplicities) to see if they give me any additional information. Graph A: This shows one bump (so not too many), but only two zeroes, each looking like a multiplicity-1 zero. This is probably just a quadratic, but it might possibly be a sixth-degree polynomial (with four of the zeroes being complex). Graph B: This has seven bumps, so this is a polynomial of degree at least 8, which is too high. Graph C: This has three bumps (so not too many), it's an even-degree polynomial (being "up" on both ends), and the zero in the middle is an even-multiplicity zero. Also, the bump in the middle looks flattened, so this is probably a zero of multiplicity 4 or more. With the two other zeroes looking like multiplicity-1 zeroes, this is a likely graph for a sixth-degree polynomial. Graph D: This has six bumps, which is too many. On top of that, this is an odd-degree graph, since the ends head off in opposite directions. This can't be a sixth-degree polynomial. Graph E: From the end-behavior, I can tell that this graph is from an even-degree polynomial. The one bump is fairly flat, so this is probably more than just a quadratic. This might be a sixthdegree polynomial. Graph F: This is an even-degree polynomial, and it has five bumps (and a flex point at that third zero). But looking at the zeroes, I've got an even-multiplicity zero, a zero that looks like multiplicity-1, a zero that looks like at least a multiplicity-3, and another even-multiplicity zero. That gives me a minimum of 2 + 1 + 3 + 2 = 8 zeroes, which is too many for a degree-six polynomial. The bumps were right, but the zeroes were wrong. This can't be a degree-six graph. Graph G: This is another odd-degree graph.
Graph H: From the ends, I can see that this is an even-degree graph, and there aren't too many bumps, seeing as there's only the one. Looking at the two zeroes, they both look like at least multiplicity-3 zeroes. So this could very well be a degree-six polynomial. Graphs B, D, F, and G can't possibly be graphs of degree-six polynomials. Graphs A and E might be degree-six, and Graphs C and H probably are. To help you keep straight when to add and when to subtract, remember your graphs of quadratics and cubics. Quadratics are degree-two polynomials and have one bump (always); cubics are degree-three polynomials and have two bumps or none (having a flex point instead). So going from your polynomial to your graph, you subtract, and going from your graph to your polynomial, you add. If you know your quadratics and cubics very well, and if you remember that you're dealing with families of polynomials and their family characteristics, you shouldn't have any trouble with this sort of exercise.
Quickie Graphing of Polynomials (page 5 of 5)

Once you know the basic behavior of polynomial graphs, you can use this knowledge to quickly sketch rough graphs, if required. This can save you the trouble of trying to plot a zillion points for a degree-seven polynomial, for instance. Once the graph starts heading off to infinity, you know that the graph is going to keep going, so you can just draw the line heading off the top or bottom of the graph; you don't need to plot a bunch of actual points. Without plotting any points other than intercepts, draw a graph of the following polynomial: Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2005-2011 All Rights Reserved
y = ( 1/5600 )(x + 5)2(x + 1)(x 4)3(x 7)

This polynomial has already been put into factored form, which saves me the trouble of doing the solving for the zeroes. I'll just solve the factors, noting the multiplicities as I go. The zeroes will be:
x = 5, with multiplicity 2 (so the graph will be just touching the x-axis here) x = 1, with multiplicity 1 (so the graph will be crossing the axis here) x = 4, with multiplicity 3 (so the graph will be crossing the axis here, but also flexing) x = 7, with multiplicity 1 (so the graph will be just crossing the axis here)
Also, adding the degrees of the factors, I see that this is a polynomial of degree seven (that is, an odd degree), so the ends will head off in opposite directions. Because the leading coefficient is negative, the lefthand end will be "up" (coming down from the top of the graph) and the right-hand end will go "down" (heading off the bottom of the graph). So I can start my graph by pencilling in the zeroes, the behavior near the zeroes, and the ends, like this:
If I multiplied this polynomial out (and I'm not going to, so don't hold your breath), the constant terms of the factors would give me 5 5 1 (4) (4) ( 4) (7) = 11 200, which is rather large. This would explain the large denominator of the leading coefficient: by dividing the polynomial by a sufficientlylarge number, they made this polynomial graphable. Otherwise, the graph would likely go off the picture between the zeroes. (Not all texts notice this, so don't worry about this consideration if it doesn't come up in class.) When x = 0, I get a y-value of (1/5600)(11 200) = 2, so I can pencil this in, too: I'm not supposed to find other plot points, so I'll just sketch in a rough guess as to what the graph looks like. I'll go further from the axis where there is more space between the zeroes, and I won't be so primitive as to assume that the y-intercept point is the minimum point, what with the midpoint between the two nearest zeroes, x = 1 and x = 4, being at x = 1.5. Granted, the flexy zero at x = 4 will probably push the graph a little to the left, but the bump is still probably to the right of the y-axis.
So I'll "rough in" an approximate drawing, and then draw my final answer as a heavier line, erasing my preliminary sketch-marks before I hand in my solution.
This compares favorably with the actual graph of the polynomial: Some of my details (like my max and min points) were a little off, but my overall sketch was still pretty good.
Complex Fractions (page 1 of 2)

I sometimes refer to complex fractions as "stacked" fractions, because they tend to have fractions stacked on top of each other, like this:
Simplify the following expression:
This fraction is formed of two fractional expressions, one on top of the other. There are two methods for simplifying complex fractions. The first method is fairly obvious: find common denominators for the complex numerator and complex denominator, convert the complex numerator and complex denominator to their respective common denominators, combine everything in the complex numerator and in the complex denominator into single fractions, and then, once you've got one fraction (in the complex numerator) divided by another fraction (in the complex denominator), you flip-n-multiply. (Remember that, when you are dividing by a fraction, you flip the fraction and turn the division into multiplication.)
This method looks like this:
Nothing cancels at this point, so this is the final answer.
(The "for x not equal to zero" part is because, in the original expression, "x = 0" would have caused division by zero in the complex fraction. Depending on your book and instructor, you may not need to account for this technicality. If you're not sure, ask now, before the test.) The other method is to find one common denominator for all the fractions in the expression, and then multiply both the complex numerator and complex denominator by this expression. Then simplify.
This method looks like this:
Then the final answer is:
By multiplying through, top and bottom, by the same thing, I was really just multiplying by 1. This is similar 1 2 2 to multiplying the fraction /2 by /2 to convert it to /4. In my experience, books and teachers often use the first method, but students generally prefer the second method. When I was in school, I was taught the first method. As soon as I encountered the second method, I switched to it. In the remaining examples, I will demonstrate this second method, but you can use either method you prefer. (If your text or instructor requires that you find the restrictions on the domains [the " x not equal to zero" part in the above example], you might find it helpful to use the "flip-n-multiply" method covered first, since this will give you the full fraction form of the denominator at some point in the computations.) Simplify the following expression:
Can I start by hacking off the x's? Or lopping off the 3's? (Hint: No!) I can only cancel off factors, not terms, so I can't do any canceling yet. The first thing I'll do is find the LCM for this expression.
The LCM (Least Common Multiple, or, for us older types, the LCD, Lowest Common Denominator) of the given denominators within this complex fraction is (x 1)(x + 4), so I'll multiply through, top and bottom, by this expression:
(If you're not sure how I multiplied those factors to get the cubic results, review this lesson on multiplying polynomials.)
Can I now cancel off the x 's? Or cancel the 6's into the 12? Can I go inside the adding and rip out parts of some of the terms? (Hint: No!) Nothing cancels, so this is the final answer:
Complex Fractions: More Examples (page 2 of 2)

Simplify the following expression:
Can I start by hacking off the x 3's? Can I cancel the 4 with the 12? Or the 3 with the 9 or the 12? (Hint: No!)
The common denominator for this complex fraction would be x 3, so I'll multiply through, top and bottom, by that.
Clearly, nothing cancels, so my final answer is:
(Why the restrictions?) It is highly unusual for a complex fraction to simplify this much, but it can happen. In this case, the "except 3 for x equal to 3" part is rather important, since the original fraction is not always equal to /4. Indeed, it is not even defined for x equal to 3 (since this would cause division by zero). Simplify the following expression:
DON'T DO THIS! Can I start off by canceling like this:
I can only cancel factors, not terms, so the above cancellations are not proper.
The first thing I need to do is multiply through, top and bottom, by the common denominator of xy.
Then my final answer is:
(Why the restrictions?) Simplify the following expression:
Can I start by canceling off the 1's or the 1/t's? (Hint: No!) I'll multiply through, top and bottom, by the common denominator of t.
Can I cancel off the t's now? Or cancel off the 1's? (Hint: No!) I can only cancel off factors, not terms, and nothing factors here, so this is as simplified as it gets. The final answer is:
Complex Numbers: Introduction (page 1 of 3)

Sections: Introduction, Operations with complexes, The Quadratic Formula
Up until now, you've been told that you can't take the square root of a negative number. That's because you had no numbers which were negative after you'd squared them (so you couldn't "go backwards" by taking the square root). Every number was positive after you squared it. So you couldn't very well squareroot a negative and expect to come up with anything sensible. Now, however, you can take the square root of a negative number, but it involves using a new number to do it. This new number was invented (discovered?) around the time of the Reformation. At that time, nobody believed that any "real world" use would be found for this new number, other than easing the computations involved in solving certain equations, so the new number was viewed as being a pretend number invented for convenience sake. (But then, when you think about it, aren't all numbers inventions? It's not like numbers grow on trees! They live in our heads. We made them all up! Why not invent a new one, as long as it works okay with what we already have?) Anyway, this new number was called "i", standing for "imaginary", because "everybody knew" that i wasn't "real". (That's why you couldn't take the square root of a negative number before: you only had "real" numbers; that is, numbers without the "i" in them.) The imaginary is defined to be:
Then:
Now, you may think you can do this:
But this doesn't make any sense! You already have two numbers that square to 1; namely 1 and +1. And i already squares to 1. So it's not reasonable that i would also square to 1. This points out an important detail: When dealing with imaginaries, you gain something (the ability to deal with negatives inside square roots), but you also lose something (some of the flexibility and convenient rules you used to have when dealing with square roots). In particular, YOU MUST ALWAYS DO THE i-PART FIRST!
Simplify sqrt(9).
(Warning: The step that goes through the third "equals" sign is " outside the radical.) Simplify sqrt(25).
", not "
". The i is
Simplify sqrt(18).
Simplify sqrt(6).
In your computations, you will deal with i just as you would with x, except for the fact that x2 is just x2, but i2 is 1: Simplify 2i
+ 3i.
2i + 3i = (2 + 3)i = 5i
Simplify 16i
5i.
16i 5i = (16 5)i = 11i

Multiply and simplify (3i)(4i).
(3i)(4i) = (34)(ii) = (12)(i2) = (12)(1) = 12

Multiply and simplify (i)(2i)(3i).
(i)(2i)(3i) = (2 3)(i i i) = (6)(i2 i) =(6)(1 i) = (6)(i) = 6i

Note this last problem. Within it, you can see that , because i2 = 1. Continuing, we get:
This pattern of powers, signs, 1's, and i's is a cycle:
In other words, to calculate any high power of i, you can convert it to a lower power by taking the closest multiple of 4 that's no bigger than the exponent and subtracting this multiple from the exponent. For example, a common trick question on tests is something along the lines of "Simplify i99", the idea being that you'll try to multiply i ninety-nine times and you'll run out of time, and the teachers will get a good giggle at your expense in the faculty lounge. Here's how the shortcut works:
i99 = i96+3 = i(424)+3 = i3 = i

That is, i99 = i3, because you can just lop off the i96. (Ninety-six is a multiple of four, so i96 is just 1, which you can ignore.) In other words, you can divide the exponent by 4 (using long division), discard the answer, and use only the remainder. This will give you the part of the exponent that you care above. Here are a few more examples: Simplify i .
17
i17 = i16 + 1 = i4 4 + 1 = i1 = i
Simplify i
120
i120 = i4 30 = i4 30 + 0 = i0 = 1
Simplify i
64,002
i64,002 = i64,000 + 2 = i4 16,000 + 2 = i2 = 1

Now you've seen how imaginaries work; it's time to move on to complex numbers. "Complex" numbers have two parts, a "real" part (being any "real" number that you're used to dealing with) and an "imaginary" part (being any number with an "i" in it). The "standard" format for complex numbers is "a + bi"; that is, real-part first and i-part last.
Graphing Logarithmic Functions: Intro (page 1 of 3)
By nature of the logarithm, most log graphs tend to have the same shape, looking similar to a square-root graph:
y = sqrt(x)
y = log2(x)
The graph of the square root starts at the point (0, 0) and then goes off to the right. On the other hand, the graph of the log passes through (1, 0), going off to the right but also sliding down the positive side of the y-axis. Remembering that logs are the inverses of exponentials, this shape for the log graph makes perfect sense: the graph of the log, being the inverse of the exponential, would just be the "flip" of the graph of the exponential:
y = 2x
y = log2(x)
comparison of the two graphs, showing the inversion line in red
It is fairly simple to graph exponentials. For instance, to graph y = 2 , you would just plug in some values for x, compute the corresponding y-values, and plot the points. But how do you graph logs? There are two options. Here is the first: Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2002-2011 All Rights Reserved Graph y =
log2(x).
In order to graph this "by hand", I need first to remember that logs are not defined for negative x or for x = 0. Because of this restriction on the domain (the input values) of the log, I won't even bother trying to find y-values for, say, x = 3 or x = 0. Instead, I'll start with x = 1, and work from there, using the definition of the log. Since 2 = 1, then log2(1) = 0, and (1, 0) is on the graph. 1 Since 2 = 2, then log2(2) = 1, and (2, 1) is on the graph. Since 3 is not a power of 2, then log2(3) will be some messy value. So I won't bother with graphing x = 3. 2 Since 2 = 4, then log2(4) = 2, and (4, 2) is on the graph. Since 5, 6, and 7 aren't powers of 2 either, I'll skip them and move up to x = 8. 3 Since 2 = 8, then log2(8) = 3, so (8, 3) is on the graph. 4 The next power of 2 is 16: since 2 = 16, then log2(16) = 4, and (16, 4) is on the graph. The next power of 2, x = 32, is too big for my taste; I don't feel like drawing my graph that wide, so I'll quit at x = 16. The above gives me the point (1, 0) and some points to the right, but what do I do for x-values between 0 and 1? For this interval, I need to think in terms of negative powers and reciprocals. Just as the left-hand "half" of the exponential function had few graphable points (the rest of them being too close to the x-axis), so also the bottom "half" of the log function has few graphable points, the rest of them being too close to the y-axis. But I can find a few: Since 2 Since 2 Since 2
1 2 3 0
= 1/2 = 0.5, then log2(0.5) = 1, and (0.5, 1) is on the graph. = 1/4 = 0.25, then log2(0.25) = 2, and (0.25, 2) is on the graph. = 1/8 = 0.125, then log2(0.125) = 3, and (0.125, 3) is on the graph.
1 4
The next power of 2 (as x moves in this direction) is /16 = 2 , but the x-value for the point (0.0625, 4) seems too small to bother with, so I'll quit with the points I've already found.
Listing these points gives me my T-chart:
Drawing my dots and then sketching in the line (remembering not to go to the left of the y-axis!), I get this graph:
Graphing Logarithmic Functions: Examples (page 2 of 3)

In the previous example, I said there were two options for how to graph logs. The previous page demonstrated how to work from the concept of logarithms to find nice neat points to plot. However, the other option is that you can use your calculator to find plot points. Graph y =
log2(x)
To find my plot-points using my calculator (since my calculator can only compute common, or base-10, and natural, or base-e, logs), I will need to use the change-of-base formula, which gives me an equivalent equation. The original equation, y = log2(x) ln(x) becomes y = /ln(2):
Once I've entered the calculator-friendly form of the equation, I can get some plot points from my calculator's TABLE feature:
(If you have an old TI-85, so you have no inbuilt "TABLE" utility, you can install any of the various after-market programs which do much the same thing. The graphics to the right are screen shots of what the program on my TI-85 produced.) I know I have to have all positive -values inside the log, so I start the TABLE listing at x = 1, and go from there.
I'd still like to have some plot points between zero and one, so I adjust the initial ("start") value and the increment (the "count by" amount) to get some additional plot points between x = 0 and x = 1:
Using these points (plotted to one or two decimal places in "accuracy"), I will end up with the same graph as before.
Depending upon your calculator's software, you will either get blank spaces in your TABLE for the yvalues when x = 0 and when x is negative; or the slot will display "ERROR", "UNDEFINED", or some other error code; or else the program will crash. (Mine crashes for undefined y-values, which is why I was careful to start my TABLE display above at a positive x-value.) This behavior in the TABLE feature reinforces the fact that logarithms are not defined for non-positive arguments. (Regarding finding plot points between x = 0 and x = 1, if you do not know how to change your initial value from x = 0 or how to change your increment from 1, consult your owner's manual; the instructions will be somewhere in the chapter on graphing.)
If you are graphing the common (base-10) log or the natural (base-e) log, just use your calculator to get the plot points. When working with the common log, you will quickly reach awkwardly large numbers if you try to plot only whole-number points; for instance, in order to get as high as y = 2, you'd have to use x = 100, and your graph would be ridiculously wide. When working with the natural log, the base e is an irrational number anyway, so there's no point in even trying to find nice neat plot points, because, other than (1, 0), there aren't any.
Sometimes the log graph is shifted a bit from the "usual" location (shown in the graph above), either up, down, right, left, or upside-down, or else some combination of these. But the general shape of the graph tends to remain the same. Graph y =
log3(x) + 2.
This is the basic log graph, but it's been shifted upward by two units. To find plot points for this graph, I will plug in useful values of x (being powers of 3, because of the base of the log) and then I'll simplify for the corresponding values of y.
30 = 1, so log3(1) = 0, and log3(1) + 2 = 2 31 = 3, so log3(3) = 1, and log3(3) + 2 = 3 32 = 9, so log3(9) = 2, and log3(9) + 2 = 4 33 = 27, so log3(27) = 3, and log3(27) + 2 = 5
Moving in the other direction (to get some y-values for x between 0 and 1):
31 = 1/3, so log3( 1/3 ) = 1, and log3( 1/3 ) + 2 = 1 32 = 1/9, so log3( 1/9 ) = 2, and log3( 1/9 ) + 2 = 0 33 = 1/27, so log3( 1/27 ) = 3, and log3( 1/27 ) + 2 = 1
These are the only "neat" points that I'm going to bother finding for my graph. If I feel a need for additional plot points, especially between any two of the points I found above, I can evaluate the function "ln(x) / ln(3)" in my calculator.
The graph of y looks like this:
= log3(x) + 2
Graphing Logarithmic Functions: Examples (page 3 of 3)

Graph y =
log2(x + 3). log2(x), but it will be shifted sideways.
This graph will be similar to the graph of
Since the "+ 3" is inside the log's argument, the graph's shift cannot be up or down. This means that the shift has to be to the left or to the right. But which way? You can keep track of the direction of the shift by looking at the basic point (1, 0) ("basic" because it's neat and easy to remember). The log will be 0 when the argument, x + 3, is equal to 1. When is x + 3 equal to 1? When x = 2. Then the basic log-graph point of (1, 0) will be shifted over to (2, 0) on this graph; that is, the graph is shifted three units to the left. If you are not comfortable with this concept or these manipulations, please review how to work with translations of functions. Since a log cannot have an argument of zero or less, then I must have that, for this graph, x must always be greater than 3.
x + 3 > 0, this tells me
The graph of the basic log function y = log2(x) crawled up the positive side of the y-axis to reach the x-axis, with the line never going to the left of the limitation that x must be greater than zero. To remind myself of the similar limitation of this log (where x must always be greater than 3), I will insert a dashed line at x = 3:
A line like this, which marks off territory where the graph shouldn't go, is called a "vertical asymptote", or simply an "asymptote". I don't have to add this to the graph, but it can be very helpful, and might convince the grader that I know what I'm doing. After I dash in the asymptote, I plot some points:
20 = 1, so log2(1) = 0; x + 3 = 1 for x = 2: (2, 0) 21 = 2, so log2(2) = 1; x + 3 = 2 for x = 1: (1, 1) 22 = 4, so log2(4) = 2; x + 3 = 4 for x = 1: (1, 2) 23 = 8, so log2(8) = 3; x + 3 = 8 for x = 5: (5, 3)
Then, working in the other direction:
21 = 0.5, so log2(0.5) = 1; x + 3 = 0.5 for x = 2.5: (2.5, 1) 22 = 0.25, so log2(0.25) = 2; x + 3 = 0.25 for x = 2.75: (2.75, 2) 23 = 0.125, so log2(0.125) = 3; x + 3 = 0.125 for x = 2.875: (2.875, 3)
Note that, to find each of these points, I did not start with an x-value and then puzzle my way to a y-value; that would be too hard, and I'm too lazy. Instead, I started with a simple exponential statement, switched it around to the corresponding logarithmic statement, and then figured out, for that exponent (which is also my y-value), what the x-value needed to be. This method is, in my view, much the simpler way to work these problems.
Plotting the points I've calculated, I get:
...and connecting the dots gives me the following graph:
If you check this in your calculator, first, remember to put the " x + 3" inside parentheses, or your calculator will think you mean "log2(x) + 3", and you'll get the wrong answer; second, remember that your calculator can only follow its programming it can't think so the graph it displays will likely be incorrect, even if you enter the function correctly.
If you plug y = log2(x + 3) into a graphing calculator (in the change-of-base formulation of "ln(x + 3) / ln(2)"), you will likely get a graph that looks something like this:
Now, you know full well that the log doesn't just "end" there at the left, hanging uselessly in space. Why is the calculator doing it wrong? Because it's just a machine, and it's doing the best it can. The calculator graphs in a manner similar to how you do: it picks x-values, computes y-values, plots the points, and connects the dots. But, whereas you know that the log graph continues downward forever, getting infinitesimally close to the y-axis (or whatever the vertical asymptote happens to be), the calculator only knows that it tried one x-value on its list, got "ERROR" for an answer, tried the next x-value on its list, and got a valid y-value. Since it has no other dots before that first one, and because it can't think, it starts the graph with that first dot. This is another instance of "student smart; calculator stupid". Don't assume, just because the calculator displays a graph a certain way, that this is what the graph actually looks like. Use your head!
To review: below are some different variations on the same basic logarithmic function, with the associated graph below each equation. Note that, even if the graph is moved left or right, or up or down, or is flipped upside-down, it still displays the same curve:
y = ln(x)
y = ln(x)
y = ln(x)
y = ln(x + 1)
y = ln(x + 1)
y = ln(x)
y = ln(x) 1
y = ln(x) 1
y = ln(x 1)
y = ln(x) + 1
y = ln(x) + 1
y = ln(x 1)
Logarithms: Introduction to "The Relationship" (page 1 of 3)

Sections: Introduction to logs, Simplifying log expressions, Common and natural logs
Logarithms are the "opposite" of exponentials, just as subtraction is the opposite of addition and division is the opposite of multiplication. Logs "undo" exponentials. Technically speaking, logs are the inverses of exponentials. In practical terms, I have found it useful to think of logs in terms of The Relationship:
The Relationship y = bx
..............is equivalent to............... (means the exact same thing as)
x
logb(y) = x
On the left-hand side above is the exponential statement "y = b ". On the right-hand side above, "logb(y) = x" is the equivalent logarithmic statement, which is pronounced "log-base-b of y equals x"; The value of the subscripted "b" is "the base of the logarithm", just as b is the base in the exponential expression "b ". And, just as the base b in an exponential is always positive and not equal to 1, so also the base b for a logarithm is always positive and not equal to 1. Whatever is inside the logarithm is called the "argument" of the log. Note that the base in both the exponential equation and the log equation (above) is " b", but that the x and y switch sides when you switch between the two equations.
x
The Relationship Animated
If you can remember this relationship (that whatever had been the argument of the log becomes the "equals" and whatever had been the "equals" becomes the exponent in the exponential, and vice versa), then you shouldn't have too much trouble with logarithms. (I coined the term "The Relationship" myself. You will not find it in your text, and your teachers and tutors will have no idea what you're talking about if you mention it to them. "The Relationship" is entirely nonstandard terminology. Why do I use it anyway? Because it works.) By the way: If you noticed that I switched the variables between the two boxes displaying "The Relationship", you've got a sharp eye. I did that on purpose, to stress that the point is not the variables themselves, but how they move. Convert "6 = 216" to the equivalent logarithmic expression. To convert, the base (that is, the 6)remains the same, but the gives me:
3
3 and the 216 switch sides. This
log6(216) = 3
Convert "log4(1024) = 5" to the equivalent exponential expression. To convert, the base (that is, the 4) remains the same, but the 1024 and the 5 switch sides. This gives me:
45 = 1024
Simplify log2(8). This log is equal to some number, which I'll call y. Then the Relationship says:
y. This naming gives me the equation log2(8) =
2y=8
That is, log2(8), also known as y, is the power that, when put on 2, will turn 2 into 8. The power that does this is 3:
23 = 8
Since 2
y
= 8 = 23, then it must be true that y = 3, and I get:
log2(8) = 3
Simplify log5(25). The Relationship says that, since log5(25) = y, then 5 = 25. This means that the given log log5(25) is equal to the power y that, when put on 5, turns 5 into 25. The required power is 2, because 5
2
= 25. Then 52 = 5 y = 25, so:
log5(25) = 2
Simplify log64(4).
The Relationship says that this log represents the power y that, when put on 64, turns it into 4. 3 Remembering that 4 is 64, and remembering that fractional exponents correspond to roots, this (1/3) means that the cube root of 64 is 4, so 64 = 4. Then:
log64(4) = 1/3
This last example highlights the fact that, to be able to work intelligently with logs, you need to be pretty good with your exponents. So take the time to review them, if you're feeling a little shaky. Simplify log6(6).
The Relationship says that, since log6(6) = y, then 6 That is:
= 6. But 6 = 61, so 6 = 61, and y = 1.
log6(6) = 1
This is always true: logb(b) = 1 for any base b, not just for b Simplify log3(1). The Relationship says that, since log3(1) = y, then 3 That is:
y
= 6.
= 1. But 1 = 30, so 3 y = 30, and y = 0.
log3(1) = 0
This is always true: logb(1) = 0 for any base b, not just for b Simplify log4(16). The Relationship says that, since log4(16) = y, then 4 = 16. But wait! What power y could possibly turn a positive 4 into a negative 16? This just isn't possible, so the answer is: no solution This is always true: logb(a) is undefined for any negative argument a, regardless of what the base is. Simplify log2(0). The Relationship says that, since log2(0) = y, then 2 = 0. But wait! What power possibly turn a 2 into a zero? This just isn't possible, so the answer is: no solution This is always true: logb(0) is undefined for any base b, not just for b Simplify logb(b ). The Relationship says that "logb(b
3
3
= 3.
y could
= 2.
) = y" means "b y = b3". Then clearly y = 3, so:
logb(b3) = 3
This is always true: logb(b
n
) = n for any base b.
Some students like to think of the above simplification as meaning that the b and the log-base-b "cancel out". This is not technically correct, but it can be a useful way of thinking of things. Just don't say it out loud in front of your instructor. Simplify 2
log (9) 2 .
Remember that a logarithm is just a power; it's a lumpy and long way of writing the power, but it's just a power, nonetheless. The expression "log2(9)" means "the power which, when put on 2, turns 2 into 9." And they've put that power onto 2, which means that the 2 has been turned into 9! Looking at it another way, "2 2 = y" means "log2(y) = log2(9)" (which is the equivalent log (9) log (9) logarithmic statement), so y = 9. But y = 2 2 , so 2 2 = 9. While the second way is technically correct, I find the first way to be more intuitive and understandable. Either way, though, I get an answer of:
log (9)
2log2(9) = 9
This last example probably looks very complicated, and, in the technical explanation, it is. Look instead at the intuitive explanation (in the first paragraph). Some students even view the above problem as the 2 and the log-base-2 as "cancelling out", which is not technically correct, but can be a useful way of remembering how this type of problem works.
To synopsize, these are the things you should know from this lesson so far: The Relationship: "logb(x) = y" means the same thing as "b = x". Logarithms are really exponents (powers); they're just written differently. logb(b) = 1, for any base b, because b1 = b. logb(1) = 0, for any base b, because b0 = 1. logb(a) is undefined if a is negative. logb(0) is undefined for any base b.
y
logb(b ) = n, for any base b.
A logarithm can have any positive value as its base, but two log bases are more useful than the others. The base-10, or "common", log is popular for historical reasons, and is usually written as "log(x)". For instance, pH (the measure of a substance's acidity or alkalinity), decibels (the measure of sound intensity), and the Richter scale (the measure of earthquake intensity) all involve base-10 logs. If a log has no base written, you should generally (in algebra classes) assume that the base is 10. The other important log is the "natural", or base-e, log, denoted as "ln(x)" and usually pronounced as "ellenn-of-x". (Note: That's "ell-enn", not "one-enn" or "eye-enn"!) Just as the number e arises naturally in math and the sciences, so also does the natural log, which is why you need to be familiar with it. Warning: If you eventually progress to much-more advanced mathematics, you may find that sometimes "log(x)" means the base-e log or even base-2 log, rather than the common log. Because the common and natural logs are pretty much the only logs that are used "in real life", these are the only two for which you have calculator keys. Make sure you know where these keys are, and how to use them.
Aside: Why would the "natural log" be denoted by "ln", rather than by "nl"? One popular idea relates to Euler ("OY-lur"), the guy who discovered (invented?) the natural exponential. Euler was Swiss and spoke French, so he might have called the function "le Logarithme Naturel", rather than "the natural log", in which case, "ln" makes sense. However, history shows that Euler actually used just "l(x)" for the logarithm using "his" number e as its base. The first published use of the "ln" notation for the base-e logarithm was Stringham's, in his 1893 text "Uniplanar Algebra". Prof. Stringham was an American, so I have no idea why he would have used the notation "ln", other than perhaps to reflect a common, though mistaken, idea that Napier's log was a base-e log. That is, "ln" might have meant to stand for "Log of Napier". It is even possible that the "ln" notation is a mistake: A European mathematician once proposed abbreviating "log" as "lg" and then using a script "l" for the function, with, effectively, a little squiggle afterwards which was meant to indicate a subscripted italic "g". But in the graphic I've seen, the "g" looks much more like an "n". Some of the other proposed notations for the natural logarithm were even more odd. Mercator (not the map guy) used a Latin form of the term, "log naturalis" in his 1668 book on logarithms, and, as of the late 1800s, various English-speakers were using the notation "log.nat." for the natural logarithm. In short, the origin of this notation seems somewhat obscure, perhaps even unknown, which is unusual for such a recent "invention".
Simplify log(100). Since 100 = 10 , then log(100) = log(10 102", so y = 2.

2 2
) = 2, because "log(100) = y" means "10 y = 100 =
log(100) = 2
Plug "log(100)" into your calculator, and you'll get the same answer. Simplify log(98). Since 98 is not a nice neat power of 10 (the way that 100 was), I cannot be clever with exponents to arrive at an exact answer. On this exercise, I am stuck with using my calculator to get an approximate value. So I'll plug this into my calculator, remembering to use the "LOG" key (not the "LN" key), and I get log(98) = 1.99122607569..., or:
log(98) = 1.99, rounded to two decimal places

Simplify ln(e ).
4.5
)" might be thought of as "loge(e4.5)". 4.5 4.5 The Relationship says that "ln(e ) = y" means "e = e ", so y = 4.5, and:
Remember that "ln( )" means the base-e log, so "ln(e
y
4.5
ln(e4.5) = 4.5
Plug "ln(e )" into your calculator, and you'll get the same answer. (Make sure you put parentheses 4.5 around the "e ", so the calculator knows that the exponent is inside the log.) Simplify ln(2).
4.5
Since 2 is a nice neat whole number and since e isn't, then it is unlikely that 2 is a nice neat power of e. So I can't simplify this expression by being clever with exponents. Instead, I'll have to evaluate this in my calculator, getting an approximate answer of ln(2) = 0.69314718056..., or:
ln(2) = 0.69, rounded to two decimal places.
The graph of a logarithm looks similar to that of a square root: square-root function log function
However, the square-root graph stops at the point (0, 0), while the logarithm graph does not pass through the origin, but instead passes through (1, 0) and then continues down along the right-hand (positive) side of the y-axis. Since the log function is the inverse of the exponential function, the graph of the log is the flip of the graph of the exponential:
The exponential rides along the top of the x-axis, crosses the y-axis at the point (0, 1), and then shoots up. The logarithm rides up the right side of the y-axis, crosses the x-axis at the point (1, 0), and then shoots right. For more information, review the graphing lesson.

Systems of Non

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Systems of Non

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Systems of Non-Linear Equations: Definitions (page 1 of 6)

3) is not a solution to this equation. But (6, 2) is:

y=x4 y=64 y=2

(6, 2) is a solution to the

"SOLUTIONS" FOR EQUATIONS ARE "POINTS" ON THE GRAPHS

I can graph each of these equations separately:

..and each point on each graph is a solution to that graph's equation.

Now look at the graph of the system:

That is, the solutions to this system are the points

(2, 4) and (2, 4).

can have one solution:

...or no solutions at all:

y) = (13/7, 9/14), but

= 2 and when x = +2.

x = 2: y = x2 y = (2)2 = 4 x = +2: y = x2 y = (+2)2 = 4

(x, y) = (2, 4) and (2, 4).

Looking at the graph of the system:

Using the Quadratic Formula gives me:

Then I have one solution:

...which has a corresponding

So the solutions are:

For purposes of graphing, the approximate solutions are:

(x, y) = (1.62, 0.24) and (0.62, 4.24).

Using the Quadratic Formula:

x2 + y2 = 17 x2 + (x 3)2 = 17 x2 + (x 3)(x 3) = 17 x2 + (x2 + 6x + 9) = 17 2x2 + 6x + 9 = 17 2x2 + 6x 8 = 0 x2 + 3x 4 = 0 (x + 4)(x 1) = 0 x = 4, x = 1

y = x 3 = (4) 3 = 4 3 = 1 y = x 3 = (1) 3 = 4 1) and (1, 4).

Then the solution consists of the points (4,

Solve the following system of equations:

(1/2)x 5 = x2 + 2x 15 x 10 = 2x2 + 4x 30 0 = 2x2 + 3x 20 0 = (2x 5)(x + 4) x = 5/2, x = 4

y = (1/2)x 5 = (1/2)(5/2) 5 = 5/4 20/4 = 15/4 = 3.75

/2, 15/4 ) and (4, 7).

Graphically, the above system looks like this:

Solve the following system of equations:

xy = 1 x(x + 2) = 1 x2 + 2x = 1 x2 + 2x 1 = 0 x2 2x + 1 = 0 (x 1)(x 1) = 0 x=1

x+y=2 (1) + y = 2 y=1

Solve the system of nonlinear equations:

According to the graph, there should be three solutions to this system:

x2 + (y 2)2 = 4 y + (y 2)2 = 4 y + (y2 4y + 4) = 4 y 2 3y = 0 y(y 3) = 0 y = 0, y = 3

3x2 + 2y2 = 35 4x2 3y2 = 24

4x2 3y2 = 24 4x2 = 3y2 + 24 x2 = ( 3/4 )y2 + 6

y = 2: x2 = ( 3/4 )y2 + 6 = ( 3/4 )(2)2 + 6 = ( 3/4 )(4) + 6 =3+6=9 x=3

y = 2: x2 = ( 3/4 )y2 + 6 = ( 3/4 )(2)2 + 6 = ( 3/4 )(4) + 6 =3+6=9 x=3

x2 + 2xy 8y2 = 0 0 = 8y2 2xy x2

If x > 0, then | x In either case,

| = x, so y = (x 3x)/8 = x/4, x/2.

Then, plugging into the "y=" solution-equations above, I get:

Then the four solutions are: , , ,

x2 + 2xy 8y2 = 0 (x + 4y)(x 2y) = 0 x + 4y = 0 or x 2y = 0 x = 4y or x = 2y

Special Factoring: Factoring Differences of Squares (page 1 of 3)

You need factors of 4 that add up to zero, so use 2 and +2:

b2, do the parentheses: ( )( )

...put the first squared thing in front:

...put the second squared thing in back:

...and alternate the signs in the middles:

Here are examples of some typical homework problems: Factor x This is x

4x2 25 = (2x)2 52 = (2x 5)(2x + 5)

(3x3)2 (y4)2, so I get: 9x6 y8 = (3x3)2 (y4)2 = (3x3 y4)(3x3 + y4)

1 Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2000-2011 All Rights Reserved ) 12, so I get:

x4 1 = (x2)2 12 = (x2 1)(x2 + 1)

x4 1 = (x2)2 12 = (x2 1)(x2 + 1) = ((x)2 (1)2)(x2 + 1) = (x 1)(x + 1)(x2 + 1)

a3 + b3 = (a + b)(a2 ab + b2) a3 b3 = (a b)(a2 + ab + b2)

a3 b3 = (a [same sign] b)(a2 [opposite sign] ab [always positive] b2)

x3 8 = x3 23 = (x 2)(x2 + 2x + 22) = (x 2)(x2 + 2x + 4)

27x3 + 1 = (3x)3 + 13 = (3x + 1)((3x)2 (3x)(1) + 12) = (3x + 1)(9x2 3x + 1)