Information lost in solving system of quadratic equations












1












$begingroup$


I have a system of two quadratic equations
$$
left{
begin{array}{c}
2x^2+x-1=0 \
2x^2+5x+2=0
end{array}
right.
$$



I tried to solve it the following way:
$$ 2x^2=-5x-2$$
substituting in the first equation
$$ -5x-2+x-1=0$$
$$ -4x-3=0$$
$$ x=-3/4$$
However, this result just makes the two expressions equal to each other, but not equal to zero. Under another question someone suggested that equating the two expressions is a way to solve a system of quadratic equations. However that is precisely my problem. Where and why do I lose the information about zero? Is there a way to solve this that would tell me there is actually no solution? (Besides just solving them separately).










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I think the issue is that in the calculations following the substitution, there is an assumption that there EXISTS a common solution (i.e. among the values of $x$ that make the first equation true there will be at least one value that also makes the second equation true), and in this case that is a false assumption, and so by formal logic there is nothing incorrect about the logical steps no matter what you wind up concluding (i.e. "false" implies "anything" in logic). Anyway, that's my initial gut reaction, but I don't have time to flush this out better, so anyone else is welcome to continue.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave L. Renfro
    Dec 1 '18 at 16:56


















1












$begingroup$


I have a system of two quadratic equations
$$
left{
begin{array}{c}
2x^2+x-1=0 \
2x^2+5x+2=0
end{array}
right.
$$



I tried to solve it the following way:
$$ 2x^2=-5x-2$$
substituting in the first equation
$$ -5x-2+x-1=0$$
$$ -4x-3=0$$
$$ x=-3/4$$
However, this result just makes the two expressions equal to each other, but not equal to zero. Under another question someone suggested that equating the two expressions is a way to solve a system of quadratic equations. However that is precisely my problem. Where and why do I lose the information about zero? Is there a way to solve this that would tell me there is actually no solution? (Besides just solving them separately).










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I think the issue is that in the calculations following the substitution, there is an assumption that there EXISTS a common solution (i.e. among the values of $x$ that make the first equation true there will be at least one value that also makes the second equation true), and in this case that is a false assumption, and so by formal logic there is nothing incorrect about the logical steps no matter what you wind up concluding (i.e. "false" implies "anything" in logic). Anyway, that's my initial gut reaction, but I don't have time to flush this out better, so anyone else is welcome to continue.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave L. Renfro
    Dec 1 '18 at 16:56
















1












1








1


0



$begingroup$


I have a system of two quadratic equations
$$
left{
begin{array}{c}
2x^2+x-1=0 \
2x^2+5x+2=0
end{array}
right.
$$



I tried to solve it the following way:
$$ 2x^2=-5x-2$$
substituting in the first equation
$$ -5x-2+x-1=0$$
$$ -4x-3=0$$
$$ x=-3/4$$
However, this result just makes the two expressions equal to each other, but not equal to zero. Under another question someone suggested that equating the two expressions is a way to solve a system of quadratic equations. However that is precisely my problem. Where and why do I lose the information about zero? Is there a way to solve this that would tell me there is actually no solution? (Besides just solving them separately).










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




I have a system of two quadratic equations
$$
left{
begin{array}{c}
2x^2+x-1=0 \
2x^2+5x+2=0
end{array}
right.
$$



I tried to solve it the following way:
$$ 2x^2=-5x-2$$
substituting in the first equation
$$ -5x-2+x-1=0$$
$$ -4x-3=0$$
$$ x=-3/4$$
However, this result just makes the two expressions equal to each other, but not equal to zero. Under another question someone suggested that equating the two expressions is a way to solve a system of quadratic equations. However that is precisely my problem. Where and why do I lose the information about zero? Is there a way to solve this that would tell me there is actually no solution? (Besides just solving them separately).







systems-of-equations quadratics






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Dec 1 '18 at 16:35









StaseviciusStasevicius

61




61












  • $begingroup$
    I think the issue is that in the calculations following the substitution, there is an assumption that there EXISTS a common solution (i.e. among the values of $x$ that make the first equation true there will be at least one value that also makes the second equation true), and in this case that is a false assumption, and so by formal logic there is nothing incorrect about the logical steps no matter what you wind up concluding (i.e. "false" implies "anything" in logic). Anyway, that's my initial gut reaction, but I don't have time to flush this out better, so anyone else is welcome to continue.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave L. Renfro
    Dec 1 '18 at 16:56




















  • $begingroup$
    I think the issue is that in the calculations following the substitution, there is an assumption that there EXISTS a common solution (i.e. among the values of $x$ that make the first equation true there will be at least one value that also makes the second equation true), and in this case that is a false assumption, and so by formal logic there is nothing incorrect about the logical steps no matter what you wind up concluding (i.e. "false" implies "anything" in logic). Anyway, that's my initial gut reaction, but I don't have time to flush this out better, so anyone else is welcome to continue.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave L. Renfro
    Dec 1 '18 at 16:56


















$begingroup$
I think the issue is that in the calculations following the substitution, there is an assumption that there EXISTS a common solution (i.e. among the values of $x$ that make the first equation true there will be at least one value that also makes the second equation true), and in this case that is a false assumption, and so by formal logic there is nothing incorrect about the logical steps no matter what you wind up concluding (i.e. "false" implies "anything" in logic). Anyway, that's my initial gut reaction, but I don't have time to flush this out better, so anyone else is welcome to continue.
$endgroup$
– Dave L. Renfro
Dec 1 '18 at 16:56






$begingroup$
I think the issue is that in the calculations following the substitution, there is an assumption that there EXISTS a common solution (i.e. among the values of $x$ that make the first equation true there will be at least one value that also makes the second equation true), and in this case that is a false assumption, and so by formal logic there is nothing incorrect about the logical steps no matter what you wind up concluding (i.e. "false" implies "anything" in logic). Anyway, that's my initial gut reaction, but I don't have time to flush this out better, so anyone else is welcome to continue.
$endgroup$
– Dave L. Renfro
Dec 1 '18 at 16:56












5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















0












$begingroup$

Quite simple: you can apply the rational roots theorem and check $-1$ is a root of the first equation, so by Vieta's relations $frac12$ is the other root. None of these numbers is a root of the second equation.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This seems to address the issue of how to find the other root(s), rather than (what was asked) what caused the other root to be lost, since it seems everything involved making legitimate mathematical steps.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave L. Renfro
    Dec 1 '18 at 16:52





















0












$begingroup$

When you set the two equations equal to each other, you’re finding the $x$-coordinate where the graphs intersect, or the common point, not where $x$ gives an output of $0$ for both equations, hence the loss of information. This would apply regardless of the value of $c_1$ in



$$left{
begin{array}{c}
2x^2+x-1=c_1 \
2x^2+5x+2=c_1
end{array}
right.$$



Now, if you want to see where they intersect and give an output of $0$, you could use substitution for $x$ by solving for it in one of the equations.



$$2x^2+x-1 = 0 implies 2x(x+1)-1(x+1) = 0 implies (2x-1)(x+1) = 0$$



$$x_1 = frac{1}{2} quad x_2 = -1$$



Now, plugging these values in the second equation, you get



$$2bigg(frac{1}{2}bigg)^2+5bigg(frac{1}{2}bigg)+2 = 5 color{red}{neq 0}$$



$$2(-1)^2+5(-1)+2 = -1 color{red}{neq 0}$$



Hence, there is no common root. You would notice the same if you choose any $c_1$, as mentioned. You would solve for the common point at $x = -frac{3}{4}$, but plugging in that value wouldn’t yield $c_1$.



I’m not sure if this is the best explanation or if it precisely answers the question, but this is what I get from it.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$





















    0












    $begingroup$

    [Edit: This explains why there needn't be a solution. See my other answer for what went wrong in trying to find one.]



    The problem you've got is that either equation can already be fully solved on its own. Each quadratic expression on the left defines a parabola, and the solutions to each equation are the points where its parabola intersects the $x$ axis.



    So there would only be a common solution if both parabolas happened to intersect the $x$ axis in the same place.



    As noted in another answer, trying the roots of one equation as values of $x$ in the other tells you whether this actually happens—and in this case it doesn't.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$





















      0












      $begingroup$

      OK, now I see what's actually happened. Try replacing $0$ with $y$ in both equations.



      What you've actually done is to eliminate $y$. Instead of $$-4x-3=0$$ you'd have $$y-4x-3=y$$ after your substitution, then subtract out the $y$ and find $$x=-frac{3}{4}$$ as you did.



      Next you'd substitute this in either of the original equations to get $$y=-frac{5}{8}$$



      So what you've effectively done is solve two equations in $x$ and $y$, but use $0$ as the name for $y$.



      You've treated $0$ as a variable. The information about $0$ disappeared when you eliminated the variable to find $x$.



      When you checked by putting $x$ into the original expressions, you got the information about $0$ back. And the information was:
      $$0=-frac{5}{8}$$
      which demonstrated the inconsistency of the system of equations.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$





















        0












        $begingroup$

        The system of equations is equivalent to:
        $$2x^2+x-1=2x^2+5x+2=0.$$
        You solved the LHS equation and found $x=-frac34$. And now you must make sure the same number suits the RHS equation. (Or you can solve the RHS equation and compare the roots). The solution of a system of equations is such a number that suits all equations.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$













        • $begingroup$
          @timtfj. How many equations and unknowns did I write in line 2? Is it equivalent to the OP's system? What will be the conclusion if no number is found that suits all (in this case two) equations (of the system)?
          $endgroup$
          – farruhota
          Dec 2 '18 at 12:06










        • $begingroup$
          Normally, a system of $n$ equations is a set of $n$ unknowns. He's got two equations but only one unknown—meaning the equations are either dependent or inconsistent. Since the only $x$ satisfying the left equation turns the right one into $0=-frac{5}{18}$, they're inconsistent.
          $endgroup$
          – timtfj
          Dec 2 '18 at 12:09










        • $begingroup$
          Yes, it's equivalent and is two equations (one for each equals sign) but only one unknown, $x$
          $endgroup$
          – timtfj
          Dec 2 '18 at 12:12










        • $begingroup$
          (Comments are out of order because I couldn't edit my first comment and ended up deleting and replacing it while farruhota was replying to it. Apologies.)
          $endgroup$
          – timtfj
          Dec 2 '18 at 12:16










        • $begingroup$
          @timtfj, I don't understand your point: are you objecting my answer, confirming it or not understanding it?
          $endgroup$
          – farruhota
          Dec 2 '18 at 12:19













        Your Answer





        StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
        return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
        StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
        StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
        });
        });
        }, "mathjax-editing");

        StackExchange.ready(function() {
        var channelOptions = {
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "69"
        };
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
        createEditor();
        });
        }
        else {
        createEditor();
        }
        });

        function createEditor() {
        StackExchange.prepareEditor({
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
        convertImagesToLinks: true,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: 10,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader: {
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        },
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        });


        }
        });














        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function () {
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3021539%2finformation-lost-in-solving-system-of-quadratic-equations%23new-answer', 'question_page');
        }
        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes








        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        0












        $begingroup$

        Quite simple: you can apply the rational roots theorem and check $-1$ is a root of the first equation, so by Vieta's relations $frac12$ is the other root. None of these numbers is a root of the second equation.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$









        • 1




          $begingroup$
          This seems to address the issue of how to find the other root(s), rather than (what was asked) what caused the other root to be lost, since it seems everything involved making legitimate mathematical steps.
          $endgroup$
          – Dave L. Renfro
          Dec 1 '18 at 16:52


















        0












        $begingroup$

        Quite simple: you can apply the rational roots theorem and check $-1$ is a root of the first equation, so by Vieta's relations $frac12$ is the other root. None of these numbers is a root of the second equation.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$









        • 1




          $begingroup$
          This seems to address the issue of how to find the other root(s), rather than (what was asked) what caused the other root to be lost, since it seems everything involved making legitimate mathematical steps.
          $endgroup$
          – Dave L. Renfro
          Dec 1 '18 at 16:52
















        0












        0








        0





        $begingroup$

        Quite simple: you can apply the rational roots theorem and check $-1$ is a root of the first equation, so by Vieta's relations $frac12$ is the other root. None of these numbers is a root of the second equation.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        Quite simple: you can apply the rational roots theorem and check $-1$ is a root of the first equation, so by Vieta's relations $frac12$ is the other root. None of these numbers is a root of the second equation.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Dec 1 '18 at 16:44









        BernardBernard

        119k639112




        119k639112








        • 1




          $begingroup$
          This seems to address the issue of how to find the other root(s), rather than (what was asked) what caused the other root to be lost, since it seems everything involved making legitimate mathematical steps.
          $endgroup$
          – Dave L. Renfro
          Dec 1 '18 at 16:52
















        • 1




          $begingroup$
          This seems to address the issue of how to find the other root(s), rather than (what was asked) what caused the other root to be lost, since it seems everything involved making legitimate mathematical steps.
          $endgroup$
          – Dave L. Renfro
          Dec 1 '18 at 16:52










        1




        1




        $begingroup$
        This seems to address the issue of how to find the other root(s), rather than (what was asked) what caused the other root to be lost, since it seems everything involved making legitimate mathematical steps.
        $endgroup$
        – Dave L. Renfro
        Dec 1 '18 at 16:52






        $begingroup$
        This seems to address the issue of how to find the other root(s), rather than (what was asked) what caused the other root to be lost, since it seems everything involved making legitimate mathematical steps.
        $endgroup$
        – Dave L. Renfro
        Dec 1 '18 at 16:52













        0












        $begingroup$

        When you set the two equations equal to each other, you’re finding the $x$-coordinate where the graphs intersect, or the common point, not where $x$ gives an output of $0$ for both equations, hence the loss of information. This would apply regardless of the value of $c_1$ in



        $$left{
        begin{array}{c}
        2x^2+x-1=c_1 \
        2x^2+5x+2=c_1
        end{array}
        right.$$



        Now, if you want to see where they intersect and give an output of $0$, you could use substitution for $x$ by solving for it in one of the equations.



        $$2x^2+x-1 = 0 implies 2x(x+1)-1(x+1) = 0 implies (2x-1)(x+1) = 0$$



        $$x_1 = frac{1}{2} quad x_2 = -1$$



        Now, plugging these values in the second equation, you get



        $$2bigg(frac{1}{2}bigg)^2+5bigg(frac{1}{2}bigg)+2 = 5 color{red}{neq 0}$$



        $$2(-1)^2+5(-1)+2 = -1 color{red}{neq 0}$$



        Hence, there is no common root. You would notice the same if you choose any $c_1$, as mentioned. You would solve for the common point at $x = -frac{3}{4}$, but plugging in that value wouldn’t yield $c_1$.



        I’m not sure if this is the best explanation or if it precisely answers the question, but this is what I get from it.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$


















          0












          $begingroup$

          When you set the two equations equal to each other, you’re finding the $x$-coordinate where the graphs intersect, or the common point, not where $x$ gives an output of $0$ for both equations, hence the loss of information. This would apply regardless of the value of $c_1$ in



          $$left{
          begin{array}{c}
          2x^2+x-1=c_1 \
          2x^2+5x+2=c_1
          end{array}
          right.$$



          Now, if you want to see where they intersect and give an output of $0$, you could use substitution for $x$ by solving for it in one of the equations.



          $$2x^2+x-1 = 0 implies 2x(x+1)-1(x+1) = 0 implies (2x-1)(x+1) = 0$$



          $$x_1 = frac{1}{2} quad x_2 = -1$$



          Now, plugging these values in the second equation, you get



          $$2bigg(frac{1}{2}bigg)^2+5bigg(frac{1}{2}bigg)+2 = 5 color{red}{neq 0}$$



          $$2(-1)^2+5(-1)+2 = -1 color{red}{neq 0}$$



          Hence, there is no common root. You would notice the same if you choose any $c_1$, as mentioned. You would solve for the common point at $x = -frac{3}{4}$, but plugging in that value wouldn’t yield $c_1$.



          I’m not sure if this is the best explanation or if it precisely answers the question, but this is what I get from it.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$
















            0












            0








            0





            $begingroup$

            When you set the two equations equal to each other, you’re finding the $x$-coordinate where the graphs intersect, or the common point, not where $x$ gives an output of $0$ for both equations, hence the loss of information. This would apply regardless of the value of $c_1$ in



            $$left{
            begin{array}{c}
            2x^2+x-1=c_1 \
            2x^2+5x+2=c_1
            end{array}
            right.$$



            Now, if you want to see where they intersect and give an output of $0$, you could use substitution for $x$ by solving for it in one of the equations.



            $$2x^2+x-1 = 0 implies 2x(x+1)-1(x+1) = 0 implies (2x-1)(x+1) = 0$$



            $$x_1 = frac{1}{2} quad x_2 = -1$$



            Now, plugging these values in the second equation, you get



            $$2bigg(frac{1}{2}bigg)^2+5bigg(frac{1}{2}bigg)+2 = 5 color{red}{neq 0}$$



            $$2(-1)^2+5(-1)+2 = -1 color{red}{neq 0}$$



            Hence, there is no common root. You would notice the same if you choose any $c_1$, as mentioned. You would solve for the common point at $x = -frac{3}{4}$, but plugging in that value wouldn’t yield $c_1$.



            I’m not sure if this is the best explanation or if it precisely answers the question, but this is what I get from it.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            When you set the two equations equal to each other, you’re finding the $x$-coordinate where the graphs intersect, or the common point, not where $x$ gives an output of $0$ for both equations, hence the loss of information. This would apply regardless of the value of $c_1$ in



            $$left{
            begin{array}{c}
            2x^2+x-1=c_1 \
            2x^2+5x+2=c_1
            end{array}
            right.$$



            Now, if you want to see where they intersect and give an output of $0$, you could use substitution for $x$ by solving for it in one of the equations.



            $$2x^2+x-1 = 0 implies 2x(x+1)-1(x+1) = 0 implies (2x-1)(x+1) = 0$$



            $$x_1 = frac{1}{2} quad x_2 = -1$$



            Now, plugging these values in the second equation, you get



            $$2bigg(frac{1}{2}bigg)^2+5bigg(frac{1}{2}bigg)+2 = 5 color{red}{neq 0}$$



            $$2(-1)^2+5(-1)+2 = -1 color{red}{neq 0}$$



            Hence, there is no common root. You would notice the same if you choose any $c_1$, as mentioned. You would solve for the common point at $x = -frac{3}{4}$, but plugging in that value wouldn’t yield $c_1$.



            I’m not sure if this is the best explanation or if it precisely answers the question, but this is what I get from it.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Dec 1 '18 at 17:18

























            answered Dec 1 '18 at 17:13









            KM101KM101

            5,8711423




            5,8711423























                0












                $begingroup$

                [Edit: This explains why there needn't be a solution. See my other answer for what went wrong in trying to find one.]



                The problem you've got is that either equation can already be fully solved on its own. Each quadratic expression on the left defines a parabola, and the solutions to each equation are the points where its parabola intersects the $x$ axis.



                So there would only be a common solution if both parabolas happened to intersect the $x$ axis in the same place.



                As noted in another answer, trying the roots of one equation as values of $x$ in the other tells you whether this actually happens—and in this case it doesn't.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$


















                  0












                  $begingroup$

                  [Edit: This explains why there needn't be a solution. See my other answer for what went wrong in trying to find one.]



                  The problem you've got is that either equation can already be fully solved on its own. Each quadratic expression on the left defines a parabola, and the solutions to each equation are the points where its parabola intersects the $x$ axis.



                  So there would only be a common solution if both parabolas happened to intersect the $x$ axis in the same place.



                  As noted in another answer, trying the roots of one equation as values of $x$ in the other tells you whether this actually happens—and in this case it doesn't.






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$
















                    0












                    0








                    0





                    $begingroup$

                    [Edit: This explains why there needn't be a solution. See my other answer for what went wrong in trying to find one.]



                    The problem you've got is that either equation can already be fully solved on its own. Each quadratic expression on the left defines a parabola, and the solutions to each equation are the points where its parabola intersects the $x$ axis.



                    So there would only be a common solution if both parabolas happened to intersect the $x$ axis in the same place.



                    As noted in another answer, trying the roots of one equation as values of $x$ in the other tells you whether this actually happens—and in this case it doesn't.






                    share|cite|improve this answer











                    $endgroup$



                    [Edit: This explains why there needn't be a solution. See my other answer for what went wrong in trying to find one.]



                    The problem you've got is that either equation can already be fully solved on its own. Each quadratic expression on the left defines a parabola, and the solutions to each equation are the points where its parabola intersects the $x$ axis.



                    So there would only be a common solution if both parabolas happened to intersect the $x$ axis in the same place.



                    As noted in another answer, trying the roots of one equation as values of $x$ in the other tells you whether this actually happens—and in this case it doesn't.







                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    edited Dec 2 '18 at 2:24

























                    answered Dec 1 '18 at 17:35









                    timtfjtimtfj

                    1,163318




                    1,163318























                        0












                        $begingroup$

                        OK, now I see what's actually happened. Try replacing $0$ with $y$ in both equations.



                        What you've actually done is to eliminate $y$. Instead of $$-4x-3=0$$ you'd have $$y-4x-3=y$$ after your substitution, then subtract out the $y$ and find $$x=-frac{3}{4}$$ as you did.



                        Next you'd substitute this in either of the original equations to get $$y=-frac{5}{8}$$



                        So what you've effectively done is solve two equations in $x$ and $y$, but use $0$ as the name for $y$.



                        You've treated $0$ as a variable. The information about $0$ disappeared when you eliminated the variable to find $x$.



                        When you checked by putting $x$ into the original expressions, you got the information about $0$ back. And the information was:
                        $$0=-frac{5}{8}$$
                        which demonstrated the inconsistency of the system of equations.






                        share|cite|improve this answer











                        $endgroup$


















                          0












                          $begingroup$

                          OK, now I see what's actually happened. Try replacing $0$ with $y$ in both equations.



                          What you've actually done is to eliminate $y$. Instead of $$-4x-3=0$$ you'd have $$y-4x-3=y$$ after your substitution, then subtract out the $y$ and find $$x=-frac{3}{4}$$ as you did.



                          Next you'd substitute this in either of the original equations to get $$y=-frac{5}{8}$$



                          So what you've effectively done is solve two equations in $x$ and $y$, but use $0$ as the name for $y$.



                          You've treated $0$ as a variable. The information about $0$ disappeared when you eliminated the variable to find $x$.



                          When you checked by putting $x$ into the original expressions, you got the information about $0$ back. And the information was:
                          $$0=-frac{5}{8}$$
                          which demonstrated the inconsistency of the system of equations.






                          share|cite|improve this answer











                          $endgroup$
















                            0












                            0








                            0





                            $begingroup$

                            OK, now I see what's actually happened. Try replacing $0$ with $y$ in both equations.



                            What you've actually done is to eliminate $y$. Instead of $$-4x-3=0$$ you'd have $$y-4x-3=y$$ after your substitution, then subtract out the $y$ and find $$x=-frac{3}{4}$$ as you did.



                            Next you'd substitute this in either of the original equations to get $$y=-frac{5}{8}$$



                            So what you've effectively done is solve two equations in $x$ and $y$, but use $0$ as the name for $y$.



                            You've treated $0$ as a variable. The information about $0$ disappeared when you eliminated the variable to find $x$.



                            When you checked by putting $x$ into the original expressions, you got the information about $0$ back. And the information was:
                            $$0=-frac{5}{8}$$
                            which demonstrated the inconsistency of the system of equations.






                            share|cite|improve this answer











                            $endgroup$



                            OK, now I see what's actually happened. Try replacing $0$ with $y$ in both equations.



                            What you've actually done is to eliminate $y$. Instead of $$-4x-3=0$$ you'd have $$y-4x-3=y$$ after your substitution, then subtract out the $y$ and find $$x=-frac{3}{4}$$ as you did.



                            Next you'd substitute this in either of the original equations to get $$y=-frac{5}{8}$$



                            So what you've effectively done is solve two equations in $x$ and $y$, but use $0$ as the name for $y$.



                            You've treated $0$ as a variable. The information about $0$ disappeared when you eliminated the variable to find $x$.



                            When you checked by putting $x$ into the original expressions, you got the information about $0$ back. And the information was:
                            $$0=-frac{5}{8}$$
                            which demonstrated the inconsistency of the system of equations.







                            share|cite|improve this answer














                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer








                            edited Dec 2 '18 at 3:53

























                            answered Dec 2 '18 at 2:00









                            timtfjtimtfj

                            1,163318




                            1,163318























                                0












                                $begingroup$

                                The system of equations is equivalent to:
                                $$2x^2+x-1=2x^2+5x+2=0.$$
                                You solved the LHS equation and found $x=-frac34$. And now you must make sure the same number suits the RHS equation. (Or you can solve the RHS equation and compare the roots). The solution of a system of equations is such a number that suits all equations.






                                share|cite|improve this answer









                                $endgroup$













                                • $begingroup$
                                  @timtfj. How many equations and unknowns did I write in line 2? Is it equivalent to the OP's system? What will be the conclusion if no number is found that suits all (in this case two) equations (of the system)?
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – farruhota
                                  Dec 2 '18 at 12:06










                                • $begingroup$
                                  Normally, a system of $n$ equations is a set of $n$ unknowns. He's got two equations but only one unknown—meaning the equations are either dependent or inconsistent. Since the only $x$ satisfying the left equation turns the right one into $0=-frac{5}{18}$, they're inconsistent.
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – timtfj
                                  Dec 2 '18 at 12:09










                                • $begingroup$
                                  Yes, it's equivalent and is two equations (one for each equals sign) but only one unknown, $x$
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – timtfj
                                  Dec 2 '18 at 12:12










                                • $begingroup$
                                  (Comments are out of order because I couldn't edit my first comment and ended up deleting and replacing it while farruhota was replying to it. Apologies.)
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – timtfj
                                  Dec 2 '18 at 12:16










                                • $begingroup$
                                  @timtfj, I don't understand your point: are you objecting my answer, confirming it or not understanding it?
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – farruhota
                                  Dec 2 '18 at 12:19


















                                0












                                $begingroup$

                                The system of equations is equivalent to:
                                $$2x^2+x-1=2x^2+5x+2=0.$$
                                You solved the LHS equation and found $x=-frac34$. And now you must make sure the same number suits the RHS equation. (Or you can solve the RHS equation and compare the roots). The solution of a system of equations is such a number that suits all equations.






                                share|cite|improve this answer









                                $endgroup$













                                • $begingroup$
                                  @timtfj. How many equations and unknowns did I write in line 2? Is it equivalent to the OP's system? What will be the conclusion if no number is found that suits all (in this case two) equations (of the system)?
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – farruhota
                                  Dec 2 '18 at 12:06










                                • $begingroup$
                                  Normally, a system of $n$ equations is a set of $n$ unknowns. He's got two equations but only one unknown—meaning the equations are either dependent or inconsistent. Since the only $x$ satisfying the left equation turns the right one into $0=-frac{5}{18}$, they're inconsistent.
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – timtfj
                                  Dec 2 '18 at 12:09










                                • $begingroup$
                                  Yes, it's equivalent and is two equations (one for each equals sign) but only one unknown, $x$
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – timtfj
                                  Dec 2 '18 at 12:12










                                • $begingroup$
                                  (Comments are out of order because I couldn't edit my first comment and ended up deleting and replacing it while farruhota was replying to it. Apologies.)
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – timtfj
                                  Dec 2 '18 at 12:16










                                • $begingroup$
                                  @timtfj, I don't understand your point: are you objecting my answer, confirming it or not understanding it?
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – farruhota
                                  Dec 2 '18 at 12:19
















                                0












                                0








                                0





                                $begingroup$

                                The system of equations is equivalent to:
                                $$2x^2+x-1=2x^2+5x+2=0.$$
                                You solved the LHS equation and found $x=-frac34$. And now you must make sure the same number suits the RHS equation. (Or you can solve the RHS equation and compare the roots). The solution of a system of equations is such a number that suits all equations.






                                share|cite|improve this answer









                                $endgroup$



                                The system of equations is equivalent to:
                                $$2x^2+x-1=2x^2+5x+2=0.$$
                                You solved the LHS equation and found $x=-frac34$. And now you must make sure the same number suits the RHS equation. (Or you can solve the RHS equation and compare the roots). The solution of a system of equations is such a number that suits all equations.







                                share|cite|improve this answer












                                share|cite|improve this answer



                                share|cite|improve this answer










                                answered Dec 2 '18 at 6:36









                                farruhotafarruhota

                                19.6k2738




                                19.6k2738












                                • $begingroup$
                                  @timtfj. How many equations and unknowns did I write in line 2? Is it equivalent to the OP's system? What will be the conclusion if no number is found that suits all (in this case two) equations (of the system)?
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – farruhota
                                  Dec 2 '18 at 12:06










                                • $begingroup$
                                  Normally, a system of $n$ equations is a set of $n$ unknowns. He's got two equations but only one unknown—meaning the equations are either dependent or inconsistent. Since the only $x$ satisfying the left equation turns the right one into $0=-frac{5}{18}$, they're inconsistent.
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – timtfj
                                  Dec 2 '18 at 12:09










                                • $begingroup$
                                  Yes, it's equivalent and is two equations (one for each equals sign) but only one unknown, $x$
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – timtfj
                                  Dec 2 '18 at 12:12










                                • $begingroup$
                                  (Comments are out of order because I couldn't edit my first comment and ended up deleting and replacing it while farruhota was replying to it. Apologies.)
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – timtfj
                                  Dec 2 '18 at 12:16










                                • $begingroup$
                                  @timtfj, I don't understand your point: are you objecting my answer, confirming it or not understanding it?
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – farruhota
                                  Dec 2 '18 at 12:19




















                                • $begingroup$
                                  @timtfj. How many equations and unknowns did I write in line 2? Is it equivalent to the OP's system? What will be the conclusion if no number is found that suits all (in this case two) equations (of the system)?
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – farruhota
                                  Dec 2 '18 at 12:06










                                • $begingroup$
                                  Normally, a system of $n$ equations is a set of $n$ unknowns. He's got two equations but only one unknown—meaning the equations are either dependent or inconsistent. Since the only $x$ satisfying the left equation turns the right one into $0=-frac{5}{18}$, they're inconsistent.
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – timtfj
                                  Dec 2 '18 at 12:09










                                • $begingroup$
                                  Yes, it's equivalent and is two equations (one for each equals sign) but only one unknown, $x$
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – timtfj
                                  Dec 2 '18 at 12:12










                                • $begingroup$
                                  (Comments are out of order because I couldn't edit my first comment and ended up deleting and replacing it while farruhota was replying to it. Apologies.)
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – timtfj
                                  Dec 2 '18 at 12:16










                                • $begingroup$
                                  @timtfj, I don't understand your point: are you objecting my answer, confirming it or not understanding it?
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – farruhota
                                  Dec 2 '18 at 12:19


















                                $begingroup$
                                @timtfj. How many equations and unknowns did I write in line 2? Is it equivalent to the OP's system? What will be the conclusion if no number is found that suits all (in this case two) equations (of the system)?
                                $endgroup$
                                – farruhota
                                Dec 2 '18 at 12:06




                                $begingroup$
                                @timtfj. How many equations and unknowns did I write in line 2? Is it equivalent to the OP's system? What will be the conclusion if no number is found that suits all (in this case two) equations (of the system)?
                                $endgroup$
                                – farruhota
                                Dec 2 '18 at 12:06












                                $begingroup$
                                Normally, a system of $n$ equations is a set of $n$ unknowns. He's got two equations but only one unknown—meaning the equations are either dependent or inconsistent. Since the only $x$ satisfying the left equation turns the right one into $0=-frac{5}{18}$, they're inconsistent.
                                $endgroup$
                                – timtfj
                                Dec 2 '18 at 12:09




                                $begingroup$
                                Normally, a system of $n$ equations is a set of $n$ unknowns. He's got two equations but only one unknown—meaning the equations are either dependent or inconsistent. Since the only $x$ satisfying the left equation turns the right one into $0=-frac{5}{18}$, they're inconsistent.
                                $endgroup$
                                – timtfj
                                Dec 2 '18 at 12:09












                                $begingroup$
                                Yes, it's equivalent and is two equations (one for each equals sign) but only one unknown, $x$
                                $endgroup$
                                – timtfj
                                Dec 2 '18 at 12:12




                                $begingroup$
                                Yes, it's equivalent and is two equations (one for each equals sign) but only one unknown, $x$
                                $endgroup$
                                – timtfj
                                Dec 2 '18 at 12:12












                                $begingroup$
                                (Comments are out of order because I couldn't edit my first comment and ended up deleting and replacing it while farruhota was replying to it. Apologies.)
                                $endgroup$
                                – timtfj
                                Dec 2 '18 at 12:16




                                $begingroup$
                                (Comments are out of order because I couldn't edit my first comment and ended up deleting and replacing it while farruhota was replying to it. Apologies.)
                                $endgroup$
                                – timtfj
                                Dec 2 '18 at 12:16












                                $begingroup$
                                @timtfj, I don't understand your point: are you objecting my answer, confirming it or not understanding it?
                                $endgroup$
                                – farruhota
                                Dec 2 '18 at 12:19






                                $begingroup$
                                @timtfj, I don't understand your point: are you objecting my answer, confirming it or not understanding it?
                                $endgroup$
                                – farruhota
                                Dec 2 '18 at 12:19




















                                draft saved

                                draft discarded




















































                                Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function () {
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3021539%2finformation-lost-in-solving-system-of-quadratic-equations%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                }
                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                Probability when a professor distributes a quiz and homework assignment to a class of n students.

                                Aardman Animations

                                Are they similar matrix