# Solving the Cubic, Part Two

A while back I I began a discussion about deriving formulas for solving polynomial equations. We saw that linear and quadratic polynomials did not pose much of a challenge. But cubic polynomials are considerably more complex. The set-up was that we had a polynomial equation of this form:

$x^3+ax^2+bx+c=0$

We can assume that the leading coefficient is one, so long as we're OK with the idea that the other coefficients might be fractions. If we have a cubic polynomial whose leading coefficient is not one, then we can simply divide through by whatever it is.

We got as far as saying that if you carry out the change of variables

$x=y-\frac{a}{3}$

the result is an equation of the form:

$y^3+py=q$

We referred to this sort of cubic polynomial, lacking a square term, as a reduced cubic.

If you work through all of the algebra you will find that

$p=b-\frac{a^2}{3} \phantom{xx} \textrm{and} \phantom{xx} q= -\left( \frac{2a^3}{27}-\frac{ab}{3}+c \right)$

The part that's important to us is the fact that p and q are polynomial functions in the coefficients of our original equation.

The question now becomes: where do we go from here? Why was it helpful to eliminate the quadratic term? The answer lies in the algebraic identity:

$\left( s-t \right)^3+3st(s-t)=s^3-t^3$

where s and t are arbitrary real numbers.

This identity is readily verified. If you remember the binomial theorem (and who doesn't!) then you can check it pretty quickly in your head. But now take a good hard look at it. It actually has the same form as our reduced cubic. Imagine, for the moment, that we could find values for s and t with the properties that

$s^3-t^3=q \phantom{xxx} \textrm{and} \phantom{xxx} 3st=p$

Then our algebraic identity becomes

$(s-t)^3+p(s-t)=q$

This implies that (s-t) is a solution to our reduced cubic. It follows that finding a formula for the reduced cubic is equivalent to solving our pair of equations. This is not so hard to do using standard algebraic techniques. We begin by squaring the first equation to get

$s^6-2s^3t^3+t^6=q^2$

Then we cube the second equation to get

$s^3t^3=\frac{p^3}{27}$

When this second equation is multiplied by four and added to the first equation, the result is

$s^6+2s^3t^3+s^6=q^2+\frac{4p^3}{27}$

Not impressed? Really? Well, what if I called your attention to the fact that the left-hand side is actually a perfect square? We actually have

$\left( s^3+t^3)^2=s^6+2s^3t^3+t^6$

It follows that if we take square roots on both sides of our equation then we get

$s^3+t^3=\sqrt{q^2+\frac{4p^3}{27}}$

Time to take stock. We have one equation about the sum of the cubes of s and t. We have another that addresses the differences of the cubes of s and t (scroll up a bit to refresh your memory). Adding them together gives us

$2s^3=q+\sqrt{q^2+\frac{4p^3}{27}}$

Subtracting one from the other gives us

$2t^3= -q + \sqrt{q^2+\frac{4p^3}{27}}$

Now we divide through by 2 and take cube roots to get

$s=\sqrt[3]{\frac{q}{2}+\sqrt{\frac{q^2}{4}+\frac{p^3}{27}}}$

$t=\sqrt[3]{\frac{-q}{2}+\sqrt{\frac{q^2}{4}+\frac{p^3}{27}}}$

Problem solved! We have found a solution to our system of equations. And since we have that

$y=s-t,$

we have successfully expressed x in terms of our coefficients p and q. In other words, we have the formula we seek.

Of course, it's a pretty complicated formula. And it's even worse than it looks, since p and q were just the coefficients of the reduced cubic. They were themselves complicated functions of our original coefficients a, b and c. If we tried to replace p and q with a, b and c in our formula above, we would be left with something very unwieldy indeed. If you had an actual cubic polynomial whose roots you actually wanted to find, you would do far better with a computer algebra system than you would with the cubic formula.

But it's still pretty cool that the formula exists at all. And this particular derivation, first discovered in the sixteenth century by the Italian mathematician Tartaglia and first published by his friend/rival Cardano (it's a long story), is really very clever.

I'm sure that, having come this far, you have already moved on to wondering if there is a formula for solving the general fourth degree polynomial. Indeed there is, but that's a different post...

Tags

### More like this

##### Monday Math: Solving the Cubic, Part One
We mathematician types like solving polynomial equations. The simplest such equations are the linear ones, meaning that the variable appears to the exponent one. They have the general form: $ax+b=0.$ If you remember anything at all from your basic algebra classes, then you know that this is…
##### Monday Math: Pythagorean Triples, cont.
Time to finish what we started last week. We saw that if a, b, c was a primitive Pythagorean triple, then at least one of a and b is even and one is odd. Let us declare, then, that we will use a to denote the odd length and b to denote the even one. By rearranging the Pythagorean equation and…
##### Monday Math: Infinite Descent
I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, “Gosh, it sure is neat that we can generate all Pythagorean triples from one simple formula, but what happens if we try an exponent bigger than two? That is, can you find nontrivial integer solutions to the equation $x^n+y^n=z^n$   when n is a…
##### Monday Math: Taylor Series
It is time to continue our quest to prove that the sum of the reciprocals of the primes diverges. We have one more ingredient to put into place. I am referring to the notion of a Taylor series. The idea is this: Some functions, like those from trigonometry, are difficult to evaluate precisely.…

The formula for the fourth degree polynomials is even worse! We're definitely talking about things of purely theoretical interest here.

It looks like the a and b from the initial polynomial were not supposed to be the a and b you derived as functions of p and q. This made the post very confusing.

One Brow --

Sorry for the confusion. I changed the notation to avoid the problem you point to. At the moment, however, for some reason a few of the equations are not rendering properly in Firefox. Everything renders fine in Internet Explorer, however, so it is not a problem with my TeX coding. Very frustrating.

Huh.
Test1:

$s^6-2s^3t^3+t^6=q^2$

Test2:

$s^6-2s^3t^3+t^6=q^2$

Test3:

$$s^6-2s^3t^3+t^6=q^2$$

Test4:

$$s^6-2s^3t^3+t^6=q^2$$

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 19 Jul 2011 #permalink

Hypothesis:

Using 'dollarsigndollarsign' as a delimiter works for rendering the problem equations in FF,

Test5:

$$(s-t)^3+p(s-t)=q$$

Test6:

$$2t^3= -q + \sqrt{q^2+\frac{4p^3}{27}}$$

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 19 Jul 2011 #permalink

Owlmirror --

Thanks for the information. It's weird that using backslash bracket works sometimes but not other times. And that other browsers don't seem to have that problem.

I wonder if it works inline?

â As we all know, $$\sqrt{2}$$ is irrational.

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 19 Jul 2011 #permalink

I don't see how
$$x = s - t$$
It looks to me like it should be
$$y = s - t$$, and so
$$x = s - t - \frac{a}{3}$$

And since a cubic equation has 1, 2, or 3 roots, how does one extract the three roots from this formula?

By Blaise Pascal (not verified) on 19 Jul 2011 #permalink

Blaise Pascal --

Good catch. I've corrected the error. In happier news, the TeX now seems to be rendering properly in both Firefox and Safari.

It's actually a tricky question how the values we found for s and t ultimately translate into the roots for the original polynomial. Ultimately it comes down to the fact that every real number (other than 0) has three distinct cube roots, exactly two of which will be complex numbers. That means there is some ambiguity in the formulas we derived for s and t. But a full explanation would require a blog post of its own.

I'm sure that, having come this far, you have already moved on to wondering if there is a formula for solving the general fourth degree polynomial. Indeed there is, but that's a different post...