True or False?
If x and y are real numbers such that x = y , then
x = y .
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
Just asking but what about negative numbers? Square root of any negative number will always be undefined but that doesn't mean that they are the same
Log in to reply
Square root of negative numbers are complex numbers, not undefined.
x will be undefined for negative x if we are working in the field of real numbers, but it is of course defined in C , the field of complex numbers. Then with x = − a for real a > 0 , we find that
x ∗ x = − a − a = ( i a ) ( i a ) = i 2 a a = − a = x ,
where i = − 1 and thus i 2 = − 1 . So if we allow for complex numbers, then my solution method is valid for negative x , y as well. If, however, x , y are complex, i.e., have non-zero imaginary components, then this statement does not hold, since the square root function is not well-defined in C .
(Note that the equation x ∗ y = x y is only true in general for x , y being non-negative reals.)
When you take the squareroot of both sides you have to put plus or minus. That in itself has the potential of making them not equal always.
Log in to reply
This issue is one of the most commonly disputed on this site. Every positive real x does indeed have two square roots, one positive and one negative. (Of course x = 0 has a single square root.) However, in common usage, unless otherwise specified, when we are asked to evaluate x for x ≥ 0 we are looking for the principal square root, which is the unique non-negative value a such that a 2 = x .
It gets a bit more complicated for negative reals, as we are then dealing with complex numbers, but as I've mentioned in a comment above my solution applies to negative reals as well.
what if, we take the square of both the no. say x&y i.e x^2=y^2
Log in to reply
If x = y , then
x − y = 0 ⟹ ( x − y ) ( x + y ) = 0 ⟹ x 2 − y 2 = 0 ⟹ x 2 = y 2 .
However, the reverse is not true. If x 2 = y 2 , then
x 2 − y 2 = 0 ⟹ ( x − y ) ( x + y ) = 0 ,
in which case either x − y = 0 ⟹ x = y or x + y = 0 ⟹ x = − y .
The reason I took the approach I did is because, in general, the "square both sides" approach can introduce extraneous solutions, so it's preferable to avoid using it if an alternative approach is available. As shown above, x = y and x 2 = y 2 are not equivalent, since the first equation has only one solution, namely x = y , and the second equation has two solutions, namely x = y and x = − y .
More specific to the stated problem, it can be implied that, since we are taking the square roots of x and y , these two variables are non-negative, and thus x and y are real and non-negative as well. In this case the "square both sides" approach is actually valid and will not yield extraneous solutions since the domain does not allow for it. That is, with the implicit assumption that x and y are non-negative reals, the solution sets of x = y and x = y are identical. However, my approach does not require this implicit assumption nor any discussion about extraneous solutions, so I felt that it was the best approach.
Log in to reply
ya i got it.. actually i was mistaken .thanks for ur expertise approach,, i appreciate it
Thank you for your solution. It's not always true that a n = b n implies a = b .
Log in to reply
You don't think if a^(1/2) = b^(1/2), then a=b?
Square root of a= square root of b Square both sides you get a=b
i thought x is 22
I did too Mr k. but its x that's diagonal. y on the other hand is not x = y. so it's x that's the one. but y is still diagonal. why? well because even if you move x. you still have y as the diagonal one. but were still on the 1st step. mathematically x is diagonal if you move x = y. but pylogons are still diagonal. so is the concept that x is diagonal? no. But it's still the left most letter.
math: take 25 to 35 squared. now we have infinity. but 3 squrare root of 3 over 2 is a decimal. however. it's 3 thats the positive number.
But its not always true. Roots of ration no. Are in the form plus minus. For eg. If we take x=y=25 the x or y can be any of the plus minus 5
Log in to reply
You have a point, but in common usage, unless otherwise specified, the square root function f ( x ) = x for x ∈ R + ∪ 0 returns the principal square root, which is unique and non-negative.
Now I am writing {(-2)^2}^(1/2)={2^2}^(1/2). And this is true always true. But according to the answer of the question -2=2.Which is impossible.
Log in to reply
In your example we would have x = ( − 2 ) 2 = 4 and y = 2 2 = 4 , in which case x = y does imply that x = y .
What your example does show is that x 2 = y 2 does not necessarily imply that x = y , but only that ∣ x ∣ = ∣ y ∣ .
but surely \sqrt{64} can be 8 or -8 so x could be 8 and y could be -8
Log in to reply
By definition, over the non-negative reals the square root function returns a non-negative value, (i.e., the principal root).
Log in to reply
Sorry mister, we cannot assume that. There is no such thing as "principal root"; both are in same level. Numbers don't have any hierarchy, it does not even make sense.
Log in to reply
@Vitor Vecchi – I'm sorry, but there is such a concept as a principal square root according to Brilliant and to WolframMathWorld . Quoting from the latter link, "In common usage, unless otherwise specified, "the" square root is generally taken to be the principal square root."
The problem does not require a distinction, does it?
Taking 6 4 as a stand-in, the equation x = y would become 6 4 = 6 4 ; the values of the root are given as equal already, meaning they could be either (or both) roots, just as long as they were equal.
But if we take √4 ,it might be equal to ±2..either the question should have said that |x|=|y|…
Log in to reply
Any positive real number does indeed have two square roots, but unless specified otherwise, the function f ( x ) = x for x ≥ 0 returns the non-negative principal square root. I suspect that this convention may not be universal, but I find that it holds true on this site and Wolfram, among others.
I've mentioned elsewhere in the comments that the given statement also holds true for negative reals, but that it does not hold true for x , y ∈ C , (with both of x , y having non-zero imaginary components), as the square root function is not well-defined over the complex numbers.
Log in to reply
You statement is patently false: "More specific to the stated problem, it can be implied that, since we are taking the square roots of x and y these two variables are non-negative..." The problem statement only states that they are real numbers. So x and y can equal -1 or any other negative number. No need to be scared of imaginary numbers!
Log in to reply
@Anu Sood – I assume that you are referring to a previous statement other than the one you've replied to, and I can assure you that I'm not scared of imaginary numbers. :) My actual solution does not require the assumption that x , y are non-negative, so I hope that it does meet with your approval. The statement that you're referring to was more based on the fact that this is a level 1 question so that it "can be implied" that x , y are non-negative, by which I meant that solvers might be inclined to make that assumption based on the level of the question. But in fact, this implicit assumption is not required for the problem statement to be true, which is why I used the approach I did in my solution. So I see why you take exception to my comment; I should have been more clear on connecting the "can be implied" phrase with the assumptions that might generally be made when solving a level 1 problem, but hopefully solvers read through all the comments to realize that this "level 1 assumption" is not actually required.
As the squreroot of a negative number is not real, the answer is always true.
The square root of say 81 is plus OR minus 9
The problem states ONLY that x & y be real, NOT that their roots be real--meaning, x , y < 0 is still valid.
I agree. This is my primary point.
I know that 3 squared is 2π. But if we did this: x=2-3= -8. and not that 3±3 over 34π equals 3π. btw. π is equaled to 3±5. now let's get back to math. basically. a+b+c over 2 is not a fraction. but if x is equal to y. how does it work? well. 3+5=8 but we're using calculus so. x=x. But if we had y in our hands. we could add it to x to create x=y. But hold on a second. is that calculus? yes. of course it is. But we are not working with calculus. But (x) is not on calculus. so should we have it in calculus? yes and no. yes: it can be added to anything. no: but it is still not equal to x. btw. It's (x) that's added. But the letter x is not the only one r k & d are in too.
Log in to reply
what gives? it's x that's diagonal. and yes. x is 22. but its still a decimal.
do this: take 1 then from 9. then squareroot it to 5. now make 5 divided by 2 that equals... 3 over 2.
Root of a no. Is always positive in real plane. sqrt(x)=+ve no. Therefore x is a positive real no. sqrt of a positive real no. Is unique Therefore x=y
Where does it say x & y are real?
Log in to reply
Agreed, this question is misleading (or the answer is wrong). Either way: bah.
Take square of two terms √x^2 = √y^2 X=Y
it will always be true,,, It's clearly said, x & y are real numbers,, & u can't get the root of negative real numbers,, So in order to satisfy rootX= rootY, x & y both must be positive,, Simple if they both r positive, then bot x & y will have same value smile emoticon
Why cant we take x and y are negative real numbers? The condition is only that they are real numbers.
x = y
( x ) 2 = ( y ) 2 x = y
So, the statement is always true.
I forgot about this. But it's not a big deal about your math.
Doesn't squaring both sides potentially introduce extraneous solutions?
Log in to reply
Since we know that both sides are non-negative, we can square directly, no?
Log in to reply
Yes, but that needs to be justified in the solution. Not all of us are mindreaders.
squaring will not tell the correct answer coz when root of x will be opened then a mod will come over there ( i think that )
Squaring each side should be valid, should it not?
[Let us assume ( x , y < 0 ∣ x = − a ; y = − b ) : ]
1) [ ( x ) 2 = ( i 2 a 2 ) = − a ] & [ ( y ) 2 = ( i 2 b 2 ) = − b ]
2) [ ( − a = ) x = y ( = − b ) ]
There is no ambiguity or extraneous solutions possible. We KNOW from the outset that x = y , whatever those values may be (positive, negative, or complex). If we "backtrack" and find they may not be equal, then so be it--we do not care what x = y tells us about x = y .
[I.e.The inference need follow only one direction, specifically from the root equality to the unit variable equality; the reverse (back to the root) is outside the present domain of discourse.]
Log in to reply
My comment wasn't saying "squaring both sides is not a valid move". The comment was to indicate "please justify why we can square both sides".
What I wanted to point out was that a = b ⇒ a 2 = b 2 but we do not always have the converse implication.
just take an easy number for x:
let's say x = 3
sqrt(3) = sqrt(y) -> easily seen that y = 3
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
By Applying the Difference of Two Squares Identity : a 2 − b 2 = ( a − b ) ( a + b ) , we have that
x − y = 0 ⟹ ( x − y ) ( x + y ) = 0 ⟹ x − y = 0 ⟹ x = y .