Given that p is a real number , then for what values of p the equation
(x+3p+1)31−x31=1 has real solutions.
My answer:
(x+3p+1)31−x31−1=0
if a+b+c=0 we have a3+b3+c3=3abc
x+3p+1−x−1=3[(x+3p+1)(x)]31
3p=3[(x+3p+1)(x)]31
p3=x(x+3p+1)
x2+(3p+1)x−p3=0
For real roots D≥0
4p3+9p2+6p+1≥0
(p+1)2(4p+1)≥0
therefore , p≥4−1∪−1.
Please help me understand which step did I do wrong? And what is the correct solution for the above question?
#Algebra
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*
or_italics_
**bold**
or__bold__
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
\(
...\)
or\[
...\]
to ensure proper formatting.2 \times 3
2^{34}
a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta
\boxed{123}
Comments
Now, note that
a+b+c=0⟹a3+b3+c3=3abc
But, a3+b3+c3=3abc⇒a+b+c=0
So, a+b+c=0 is not equivalent to a3+b3+c3=3abc.
A better approach to solve this is putting x=y3⟺x31=y.
Then, the equation becomes:
(y3+3p+1)31⟺y3+3p+1⟺y2+y−p=1+y=(1+y)3=0
So, for the roots of the original equation to be real, we need the discriminant of y2+y−p=0 to be non negative.
That is, 1+4p≥0⟺p≥−41
Log in to reply
I got what you meant here but still i think the answer is wrong , check on wolframalpha putting p = -0.25 , it says no solution exists to the below equation for (x+0.25)31−x31−1=0
Log in to reply
Try x=8−1
Log in to reply
WolframAlpha gives you the option to "use the real-valued root instead", (in blue just below the entry box), which in this case will give you a value of x=−81 as Deeparaj has pointed out.
What does 4−1∪1 mean?
Log in to reply
i mean that p>= -0.25 and also p = -1 is a solutionof the inequality
(p+1)2(4p+1)≥0
@Brian Charlesworth @Jon Haussmann , your help will be valuable .
Log in to reply
I used the same approach as Deeparaj, but I think we need more than just the discriminant to be non-negative; in order to avoid complex values for y=x31 we will require that x≥0 and thus also y≥0. So we require that
y=2−1+1+4p≥0⟹1+4p≥1⟹p≥0,
which seems to be in agreement with results from WolframAlpha.
Log in to reply
Don't we define x31=−(−x)31x<0 right?
Log in to reply
x=−81 for p=−41, and no solutions if p<−41.
Yes, we could choose to work with the real-valued root, in which case WolframAlpha does return a value of(WolframAlpha can be a bit difficult when taking fractional roots of negative numbers.)
Log in to reply