EXTREME quintic equation! (very tiring)

We will solve an extreme quintic equation x^5-5x+3=0 by brute force factoring. This is a solvable quintic because we can factor the quintic expression = quadratic * cubic by using the undetermined coefficients method. Then we can use the quadratic formula to solve the quadratic equation (and we will get a negative golden ratio). For the cubic, I will not use the cubic formula but I will show you the Lagrange Resolvent approach and we can find its real solution. Let me know if you can find the complex solutions to the cubic equation.
🛍 Get a 1.618 t-shirt: bit.ly/1618shirt
10% off with the code "WELCOME10"
Try another famous extreme algebra problem 👉 • Extreme Algebra Questi...
Solve this quintic equation by Newton's method 👉 • Newton's method (intro...
Another equation by the Lagrange Resolvent 👉 • solving a cubic equati...
----------------------------------------
**Thanks to ALL my lovely patrons for supporting my channel and believing in what I do**
AP-IP Ben Delo Marcelo Silva Ehud Ezra 3blue1brown Joseph DeStefano
Mark Mann Philippe Zivan Sussholz AlkanKondo89 Adam Quentin Colley
Gary Tugan Stephen Stofka Alex Dodge Gary Huntress Alison Hansel
Delton Ding Klemens Christopher Ursich buda Vincent Poirier Toma Kolev
Tibees Bob Maxell A.B.C Cristian Navarro Jan Bormans Galios Theorist
Robert Sundling Stuart Wurtman Nick S William O'Corrigan Ron Jensen
Patapom Daniel Kahn Lea Denise James Steven Ridgway Jason Bucata
Mirko Schultz xeioex Jean-Manuel Izaret Jason Clement robert huff
Julian Moik Hiu Fung Lam Ronald Bryant Jan Řehák Robert Toltowicz
Angel Marchev, Jr. Antonio Luiz Brandao SquadriWilliam Laderer Natasha Caron Yevonnael Andrew Angel Marchev Sam Padilla ScienceBro Ryan Bingham
Papa Fassi Hoang Nguyen Arun Iyengar Michael Miller Sandun Panthangi
Skorj Olafsen Riley Faison Rolf Waefler Andrew Jack Ingham P Dwag Jason Kevin Davis Franco Tejero Klasseh Khornate Richard Payne Witek Mozga Brandon Smith Jan Lukas Kiermeyer Ralph Sato Kischel Nair Carsten Milkau Keith Kevelson Christoph Hipp Witness Forest Roberts Abd-alijaleel Laraki Anthony Bruent-Bessette Samuel Gronwold Tyler Bennett christopher careta Troy R Katy Lap C Niltiac, Stealer of Souls Jon Daivd R meh Tom Noa Overloop Jude Khine R3factor Jasmine Twinkletoes
----------------------------------------
💪 If you would also like to support this channel and have your name in the video description, then you could become my patron here / blackpenredpen

[@mathboy8188]

I remember how to derive the formula for the cubic ( x^3 + a x^2 + bx + c = 0) by remembering these three steps: 1) Eliminate the quadratic term by a substitution x = y - a/3 (so that new cubic in y has no y^2 term). 2) Eliminate the fractions and then make a substitution absorbing the lead coefficient (it will be u = 3y). 3) Write u as the sum of two cube roots (so u = s^(1/3) + t^(1/3) ). (I don't really "remember" step 2 so much as I just "do it", because it's so natural; it's crying out to be done. But Step 1, and especially Step 3, I need to commit to memory. Step 3 is really the main one for me at least. I've derived this so many times that I now do remember the derivation without trouble.) With that setup, the solution is basically forced onto you by the algebra. You'll be forced into some algebra showing that you need to find s and t that simultaneously solve 2 equations: one for s+t in terms of the given coefficients, and another for st in terms of the given coefficients. But that means that s and t are the solutions to the quadratic: z^2 - (s+t) z + (st) = 0... and again, you know the values of s+t and st in terms of the original given a, b, and c. It works out like this: x^3 + a x^2 + bx + c = 0 Step 1: Let y = x + a/3, so that x = y - a/3. Then (y - a/3)^3 + a (y - a/3)^2 + b(y - a/3) + c = 0 [ y^3 - a y^2 + (a^2/3) y - a^3/27 ] + a [ y^2 - (2a/3) y + a^2/9 ] + b [ y - a/3 ] + c = 0 y^3 + ( a^2/3 - 2a^2/3 + b ) y + ( - a^3/27 + a^3/9 - ab/3 + c ) = 0 y^3 + ( - a^2/3 + b ) y + ( 2 a^3/27 - ab/3 + c ) = 0. Have a cubic in y with no quadratic term. Step 2: Eliminate the fractions and then make a substitution absorbing the lead coefficient (you can already see the coefficient expressions appearing in the Lagrange Resolvent) Multiply both sides by 27: 27 y^3 + ( - 9 a^2 + 27 b ) y + ( 2 a^3 - 9 ab + 27 c ) = 0 (3y)^3 - 3 ( a^2 - 3 b ) (3y) + ( 2 a^3 - 9 ab + 27 c ) = 0 u^3 - 3 ( a^2 - 3 b ) u + ( 2 a^3 - 9 ab + 27 c ) = 0, where u = 3y. Let P = a^2 - 3 b, and Q = 2 a^3 - 9 ab + 27 c, so P and Q are known values determined by the original cubic equation. The original cubic equation in x is now the cubic equation in u given by: u^3 - 3 P u + Q = 0. Step 3: Suppose s and t are values (possibly complex) such that u = s^(1/3) + t^(1/3). Then u^3 = [ s^(1/3) + t^(1/3) ]^3 = s^(3/3) + 3 s^(2/3) t^(1/3) + 3 s^(1/3) t^(2/3) + t^(3/3) = s + 3 s^(2/3) t^(1/3) + 3 s^(1/3) t^(2/3) + t = s + 3 [ s^(2/3) t^(1/3) + s^(1/3) t^(2/3) ] + t = s + 3 s^(1/3) t^(1/3) [ s^(1/3) + t^(1/3) ] + t = s + 3 s^(1/3) t^(1/3) [ u ] + t = 3 [ s^(1/3) t^(1/3) ] u + [ s + t ] = 3 [ st ]^(1/3) u + [ s + t ]. Thus u = s^(1/3) + t^(1/3) implies that u^3 - 3 [ st ]^(1/3) u - [ s + t ] = 0. That's a universal formula, but now make it apply to the specific equation u^3 - 3 P u + Q = 0, where P and Q are known. That requires that - 3 [ st ]^(1/3) = - 3 P, and - [ s + t ] = Q, and so that requires: st = P^3 and s+t = -Q. Thus s and t are the two solutions to the quadratic: z^2 - (s+t) z + (st) = 0, so here meaning z^2 + Q z + P^3 = 0. And that's the desired formula. Tracing it back in terms of x, get: x = y - a/3 = u/3 - a/3 = [ - a + s^(1/3) + t^(1/3) ] / 3, where s and t are the two solutions to the quadratic: z^2 + Q z + P^3 = 0, where P = a^2 - 3 b, and Q = 2 a^3 - 9 ab + 27 c.

[@blackpenredpen]

This is purely amazing!

[@salime01]

Woww.. I would prefer sudoku hard mode instead of solving this. Thanks for the video. I learned Lagrange resolvent 👍

[@mj90007]

Can you make on the derivation of parametric forms of pythagorean quadruples... Like m² + n² - p² - q² 2(mq + np) 2(nq - mp) m² + n² + p² + q²

[@lavanyajain2722]

The fact that you put on your effort to write such a long,tedious answer is absolutely mind bongling....damn your commitment towards maths is truly golden

[@mathboy8188]

​@@lavanyajain2722 Thanks, that was nice. However, the truth is, it isn't as demanding as it seems. When you spend your life swimming in a topic, things that can seem impressive to others really aren't that big a deal. Writing this up took a little investment in time, but it's worthwhile (ya know, gotta spread math love to everyone in the world who wants it) and it's not really an effort. I re-derive it any time I need to solve a cubic (it's now quicker than looking it up), so it's second nature by now. If you'd spent as many hours of your life focused on math as I have, it would be the same for you. The effort in the write-up is almost entirely in thinking about the best way to give a presentation that others can benefit from, not really thinking about the math itself.

[@jackson9143678]

Any Asian parent: "Don't accept sweets from strangers, it might be drugs" This guy: "Don't accept quintic equations from strangers, it might be unfactorable"

[@ffggddss]

And not just Asian parents! My Italian mom told me (as a kid) that. Fred

[@hellopleychess3190]

I'm trying to factor a quadratic equation right now but it has 11 and 17 and I can't figure out how to factor it

[@ffggddss]

@@hellopleychess3190 The quadratic formula always factors it. Essentially, if you have an integer quadratic, ax² + bx + c, with a,b,c all integers, and you want all integers in the factors, the discriminant, ∆ = (b² - 4ac) will always tell you whether that's possible. If ∆ is a perfect square, then yes; if not, no.

[@hellopleychess3190]

@@ffggddss it seems you didnt understand the problem? I was trying to solve using the factoring method and 11 and 17 had no shared factor.

[@ffggddss]

@@hellopleychess3190 Yes, well it seems you didn't describe the problem you were having. What actually IS the quadratic you're trying to factor? I.e., what are a, b, and c? And what exactly does your "factoring method" consist of? (There are many ways to find factors of a quadratic polynomial.) Fred

[@brittanybrown-bchs6215]

“Don’t try to factor someone’s random quintic equation. It’s not safe.” 😂😂😂 I love this problem and I enjoy your humor and smiles of satisfaction as you solve it! This teacher appreciates your enthusiasm for math!

[@blackpenredpen]

Thank you!

[@Turalcar]

It's dangerous to do it alone so you need to Bring radicals.

[@masterofdeception9802]

why couldnt you just do the rational root theorem

[@heavennoes]

Solving degree 4 + equations through brute force is a real tedious task, good job.

[@blackpenredpen]

thanks!

[@little_pro2162]

Nothings tedious for bprp

[@oxygenwarlord9277]

It’s degree 5 surely.

[@leif1075]

@@blackpenredpen can't you use difference of fifth powers formula for this..like you use difference of cubes for a third degree equation just use the fifth root of 3 .you know what I mean? Wouldn't that work?

[@niccameranesi1997]

I wholeheartedly disagree. If you think through his logic it's actually way easier and less time consuming. That's what he's trying to teach, intuition.

[@Edgardtroof]

And remember kids : Do not take quintic equation from a stranger ! 😜

[@Sahnicamanish]

😆

[@priy_o]

😂😂

[@lyrimetacurl0]

x^5-x+1

[@Peter_1986]

😂😂😂

[@Twistandfly]

😂unless there is obvious roots

[@CroneoRegion]

I plugged the equation into Wolfram Alpha because I wanted to know the complex solutions, and here they are: x ≈ -0.1378 - 1.5273i x ≈ -0.1378 + 1.5273i

[@nightytime]

@coomf any imaginary or irrational root of a polynomial must have a conjugate as a root (assuming the polynomial has rational, real coefficients)

[@ghotifish1838]

@@nightytime only if the coefficients are real

[@nightytime]

@@ghotifish1838 yes

[@pauselab5569]

shouldn't there be 5 solutions though?

[@l3igl2eaper]

@@pauselab5569 There's the two real solutions that BPRP found first, and then another real solution from the cubic. The last two are imaginary. 5 total.

[@hxc7273]

I hate that I have to keep turning down people that try to hand me quintics when I’m walking on the sidewalk. Those people are so annoying.

[@kieldowdle2361]

Since you asked how I'm doing. I've been a subscriber for a long time. Back when I started at community college years ago your calculus 2 videos were very helpful in my studying. After that I would watch your videos periodically. Six years after initially subscribing I'm about to graduate with a degree in computer science. I'll continue to watch your videos even though I don't need calculus 2 videos to help me study because I like the content you make. Keep up the good work.

[@blackpenredpen]

Wow 6 years!! Thank you for the continuous support and congrats on graduating! I wish you the best in everything!

[@reggiecactus2810]

You know shit gets real when he has to pull out the blue pen

[@sergniko]

and the green one too

[@alphabeyta]

My parents always told me never take quintic equations from strangers! lol thank you for these videos. I'm just watching for fun because it's calming to watch someone work through algebraic problems, especially after finishing a calc 3 course :)

[@GingyNinjyy]

just graduated with my B.A. in applied mathematics, lots of which was thanks to you and your brilliant videos about differential equations. but these are just the fun random videos I liked watching when im making a coffee, doing dishes, eating breakfast, etc. the beauty and joy of mathematics, and the humor throughout make this content better than the rest

[@blackpenredpen]

Try this quintic equation (ft cubic formula) next 👉 kzbin.info/www/bejne/j5yogYCcZtFlpdU

[@theuserings]

Sure.

[@techno2371]

I love how you say "ft cubic formula"

[@kushaldey3003]

4:27 who is the stranger that hands quintic equations to everyone? I want to know

[@holyshit922]

Will you record video about quintics solvable by radicals f.e when quinics are solvable by radicals and how tho solve them How good you are in Numerical methods Here polynomial roots can be approximated by QR method for eigenvalues Two of the companion matrices are already in upper Hessenberg form so reduction to Hessenberg form is not needed (matrix with coefficients in first row xor last column and ones just below main diagonal) To get QR decomposition you can use Householder reflections xor Givens rotations (rotations are easier to derive) Unshifted method is A_{1}=A A_{i}=Q_{i}R_{i} A_{i+1}=R_{i}Q_{i} Clever choice of shift should accelerate convergence but for repeated eigenvalues it is still slow Doubly implicit shift is tempting because matrix entries are real but eigenvalues may be complex Complex eigenvalues can be calculated from 2x2 blocks

[@holyshit922]

I run my application for eigenvalues written in C# to solve this equation It works but can be improved

[@okok-zd3mb]

I started watching your channel when I was in the 7th grade, that year I won the math Olympiad with 60/60 and it was so hard that the second highest score in my school was 47. All thanks to your videos. Also, I could not solve everything back then, but now I understand almost all of them.

[@taheralabbar9853]

I wish i had something like this in my school.

[@lgooch]

Which Olympiad?

[@drfpslegend4149]

My semester is indeed almost done :) I'm in grad school, and taking advanced algebra this semester. Next year I'll be starting my research for my master's thesis. But in my class we actually covered the insolvability of the general quintic a few weeks ago, so this video relates to what I'm learning about in my class!

[@blackpenredpen]

Yay! 😀 quintics are always fun

[@roberttelarket4934]

In U.S. grad schools you don’t take advanced algebra.

[@drfpslegend4149]

@@roberttelarket4934 um... false? Abstract algebra is probably going to be a requirement for any kind of pure math masters/doctoral degree you can find, including the US which is where I'm going to school actually.

[@roberttelarket4934]

@@drfpslegend4149: You are apparently not in the U.S. Advanced Algebra is not the term used for an undergraduate Abstract Algebra or Modern Abstract Algebra course. Advanced Algebra was only used in my days in high school(usually as a senior) in the late 1960s and it definitely had nothing of the nature of Modern Abstract Algebra(groups, rings, etc.). Even today the latter is probably almost never taught in high school here! If accepted into a math grad program you must have as pre-requisite introductory Modern Abstract Algebra during your undergraduate years.

[@miny6793]

@@roberttelarket4934 a quick google search does indeed show that advanced algebra is a course that can be taken by senior undergraduate or master degree students at some universities in the u.s.

[@ayoubgarich8726]

in 2012 I finished my mathematics studies during my 2 years of intensive preparation in the so-called ``classes preparatoires`` in Morocco, which is a French education system that focuses on maths and physics for 2 successive years followed by a national competition to get a place in engineering schools. I graduated as an engineer and worked for many years and I am still enjoying your videos tackling some difficult calculus problems, and when you finish and find the solution it is like a stress-relieving process for me. Thank you for the great job, which is way better than watching the shitty social media content that has no point in our modern age.

[@__Nemesis]

I finished my Numerical Analysis II final exam last week - your videos let me reminisce on the good ol' days of Calculus and Algebra. How I'm doing is very relieved to have finished that class.

[@datt55]

I am reaching 12th Grade in September so I am preparing for math and physics already,your videos are very enjoyable and informative,keep it up! Sending love from Greece

[@Cristian-ie9et]

It’s fair to say the mechanics you explained are fantastic. For me. It’s substitution of trigonometric identity that is REQUIRED in order to come to a simplified expression. And that is where I stopped there’s a lot of thought in this video. Thank you it’s grand.

[@bigbrother1211]

台灣人路過 雖然大學不是念理工科系學到比較深的數學，但本身對代數和離散數學discrete math領域挺有興趣了解的 給個支持🎉

[@bryankirk7864]

Semester's done, watching for fun to help fix the c in business calculus. Thanks for your video, it's above my education but you explain things really well.

[@reubenmckay]

I can't even remember how I found your channel but I've been subscribed for quite a few years now. Love every video.

[@blackpenredpen]

Thank you!!

[@afuyeas9914]

For degree 3 the Lagrange resolvent isn't actually that bad to compute. It's all about symmetric polynomials of the roots, the key idea is to find quantities that remain fixed even if you switch around the roots. To do so let's call x_1, x_2 and x_3 the three roots of the cubic x^3+bx^2+cx+d, then we have by Vieta's formulas the three following polynomials: x_1 + x_2 +x_3 = -b x_1*x_2 + x_1*x_3 +x_2*x_3 = c x_1*x_2*x_3 = -d These polynomials are symmetric polynomials of the roots since clearly if you switch around the roots you still get the same three quantities. In fact they are the simplest symmetric polynomials of three variables and are known as the elementary symmetric polynomials of 3 variables and an important theorem is that any symmetric polynomial of n variables can be expressed using the elementary polynomials of n variables and therefore their values can be expressed using the coefficients of an equation of degree n. Knowing this Lagrange sets two quantities: y_1 = x_1 + j*x_2 + j^2*x_3 where j is any of the two roots of j^2+j+1 = 0 y_2 = x_1 + j^2*x_2 + j*x_3 Then you can show that the sum of the cubes of those two quantities stays the same even if you switch the roots around. This means the sum of the cubes is a symmetric polynomial of the roots which can then be expressed using the 3 elementary symmetric polynomials above and therefore y_1^3 + y_2^3 can be expressed using the coefficients b,c and d of the cubic to be solved. You can also show that the product of y_1 and y_2 is also invariant by switching around the roots so the product of the two quantities can also be expressed using the coefficients of the original cubic. In other words you can get this system of equations: y_1^3 + y_2^3 = something expressed with b, c and d y_1*y_2 = something else expressed with b, c and d Clearly if you take the cube of the second equation you get a system where you're looking for quantities for which you know the sum and the product, y_1^3 and y_2^3 will therefore be the roots of a quadratic equation and this equation will be the Lagrange resolvent. If you do your math right you will find y_1^3+y_2^3 = -2b^3 + 9bc - 27d and y_1*y_2 = b^2 - 3c. If you manage to do it you might try to apply the same reasoning for a quartic equation and find a resolvent that will be a cubic though this is noticeably longer to compute. Happy computation :)

[@auztenz]

I aint reading all of the fnaf

[@ocayaro]

I enjoy your pain and frustrations - makes it more authentic. As a physicist, this is still stimulating 🤣

[@diablo6250]

thanks for asking how it's going :) I actually had a further math final today D: and I left a bunch of it empty, because I did some simplification error and couldn't get a vector equation for a 3d line 😔 but I do love your videos! you speak with such excitement, I can see how much you love math I too love math, but sometimes I feel like it doesn't love me as much

[@n1knice]

The good "news" is that noone asks a mathematician "Yes, but why have you tried this (method/idea etc.) ?" as soon as it works. The winner is always right. Bravo for having created this working example !

[@noahali-origamiandmore2050]

I have found the two complex solutions, and they are much longer than the real solution to the cubic to write out (4 cube roots!) This quintic was quite the journey, and I plan to do more of these. Here are the complex solutions: cbrt = cube root sqrt = square root x = (1/3) - cbrt[(65+15*sqrt(21))/432] - cbrt[(65-15*sqrt(21))/432] ± {cbrt[(65*sqrt(3)+45*sqrt(7))/144] - cbrt[(65*sqrt(3)+45*sqrt(7))/144]}*i Note: I combined fractions into the cube roots because I think that they look ugly outside the cube roots. I have to give credit to @rslitman for showing the technique in the comments. Hopefully I didn't make any typos.

[@ernestschoenmakers8181]

Well my answer is 1 real root and 2 complex roots from the cubic equation but a little bit different from yours. Real solution according to Cardano: X=(1/3)*[1+(1/cbrt(2))*(cbrt(65+15*sqrt(21))+cbrt(65-15*sqrt(21))]. The complex solutions are of course much longer.

[@johnnolen8338]

Why would I even attempt to solve a stranger's quintic equation? 🤔

[@priy_o]

😂😂

[@user-yb5cn3np5q]

That's exactly what would a regular kid say, and then would end up in a sus van anyway.

[@johnnolen8338]

@@user-yb5cn3np5q Regular kids are enticed by puppies, not polynomials. 😈

[@jonathanschlott8559]

Surprisingly the most mind blowing part of this for me was the 65^2 trick

[@mireyajones810]

or 60*60 + 5*60 + 5*60 + 25 = 3600 + 300 + 300 + 25 = 4225 (2 seconds)

[@axbs4863]

timestamp?

[@szerednik.laszlo]

22:50

[@axbs4863]

@@szerednik.laszlo thanks :D

[@aykoaykobiyebiye204]

whats the idea behind that? just a coincidence?

[@puppergump4117]

It took me 8 minutes 56 seconds to realize that he was holding a pokeball the whole time and that it is a microphone

[@safalghimire7142]

sometimes I do my math homework and just play one of your videos in the background, its very soothing

[@diaha4398]

Love watching your videos! Just pure fun!

[@benhur2806]

My preferred method for extracting the other two roots is to simply observe that in the process of deriving the cubic formula, the two cube roots, p and q, multiply to equal a constant. So you can simply multiply one root by (-1+sqrt(3)i)/2 and the other by (-1-sqrt(3)i)/2, and vice versa, assuming the first pair of cube roots you took already produced the correct answer, of course...

[@essayasnigussie5790]

Good explanation! 'e' is represented by more than 300 decimal places next to the whiteboard. That is also what I observed.

[@alvaroarizacaro3451]

Me encantó este problema; además, maravilloso el rostro de buena persona de este matemático. Gracias.

[@chessthejameswei]

Not as EXTREME PATIENCE as the extreme algebra question, but still extreme patience.

[@blackpenredpen]

In fact, I did a Chinese version first. That’s why this one went a lot more smoothly 😆

[@chessthejameswei]

@@blackpenredpen Oh that's cool. I'm taking my AP Calc BC Exam this Monday so wish me luck! I believe you took yours in 2004?

[@victorchoripapa2232]

Wow man... I loved your amazing video! I had never thought to solve like you did😮👌🏽👏🏽👏🏽

[@blackpenredpen]

Thanks!

[@nomekop777]

The best part is 7:57, where he had to stop and think about -1+5, right after writing systems of equations to define 5 variables

[@user-fb2qr4ru6i]

Eu gosto disso! Boa explicação detalhada!

[@govindrajanverma4081]

Hard to imagine! You have done it. Salute you 👏

[@Risu0chan]

The complex solutions are straightforward, though. In your formule 1/3 (-a + ³√z1 + ³√z2) you apply a small change: 1/3 (-a + ω ³√z1 + 1/ω ³√z2) and 1/3 (-a + 1/ω ³√z1 + ω ³√z2) where ω is a complex cubic root of unity (ω³ = 1, ω = -1/2 + i√3/2) It's really the same recipe for Cardano's formula.

[@MichaelRothwell1]

Very nice, but there's a typo in your value for ω, which should be -1/2 + i√3/2.

[@Risu0chan]

@@MichaelRothwell1 Thank you, I edited it.

[@dauminfranks337]

The formula you gave is even more convenient if you use w2 (omega squared) instead of 1/w, as they're equivalent and both equal to the conjugate of w. w = -1/2 + i*sqrt(3)/2 w2 = -1/2 - i*sqrt(3)/2 Of course, it's the same thing. I just think the 1/w (reciprocal) notation makes the computation look harder than it really is.

[@sie_khoentjoeng4886]

For f(x) =x^5-5x+3, we find that: f(-1) =7, f(0) =3, f(1) =-1, f(2) =25, then x must be near to 1 or x=1+v and x=1-w, and v, w are small number. For x=1+v, using trap method, we have f(1,.5) =3.0938 and f(1.25) = -0.1928' then 1.25

[@mathsintuition1937]

Your explanation, as always, was very clear..

[@mikejackson19828]

I just watch your videos for fun, Steve! They are great! 👍

[@blackpenredpen]

Thank you!

[@davidblauyoutube]

There is a trick that can be used in cases like this. If the polynomial has a factorization, reducing the polynomial modulo various primes will reduce the factors as well, and there are tools for factoring polynomials modulo primes that can speed up the process (Berlekamp's algorithm comes to mind). In this case, two obvious primes to reduce by are the coefficients 3 and 5. Reducing mod 5 and factoring produces x^5+3 = (x+3)^5 mod 5, which goes quickly since all five factors are linear. If a factorization of the original polynomial exists at all, there must be a quadratic factor and a cubic factor, and (x+3)^2 = x^2+6x+9 = x^2+x+4 mod 5 must be the quadratic factor. Now the constant term 4 does not divide the constant term of x^5-5x+3 over the integers, but x^2+x+4 = x^2+x-1 mod 5 and -1 divides +3. Testing x^2+x-1 shows that it is actually a factor of the original polynomial, and the other (cubic) factor comes from long division (and is equal to (x+3)^3 = x^3+9x^2+27x+27 modulo 5, as expected).

[@MichaelRothwell1]

Very nice! Now I know what to do next time a stranger hands me a random quintic to factorise.

[@Christian_Martel]

15:15 I’m an old engineer who went to university 25 years ago. I’m watching for fun (of course) but also to keep my brain alert!!!

[@mahmoudalbahar1641]

Many thanks for your great videos. And I suggest making video about non-integer base of numeration.

[@activatewindows7415]

hope you reach 1m subs soon with amazing vids like this

[@user-fy5tn7sy3t]

Thank you so much for video and wonderful ideas

[@itamar20112]

I’m one of the people watching this just for fun! Really interesting stuff here. Thank you for making this 🙏🏻

[@rslitman]

How to arrive at the complex solutions: 1. Keep the 1/3 fractions in place. 2. Multiply the first cube root by (-1 + sqrt(-3))/2. 3. Multiply the second cube root by (-1 - sqrt(-3))/2. 4. The above steps give you the first complex solution. To get the other one, swap the placement of the two complex multipliers. You may recognize the complex numbers as containing the unit circle values of the cos and sin of 2pi/3 and 4pi/3 (or 120 degrees and 240 degrees). In fact, the multiplier of the real root is 1 + 0i, the unit circle values of the cos and sin of 0 (or 0 degrees).

[@revectedb6005]

Wow i‘m so amazed! I dont really have a clue about math, but i think its really great how many people can talk about this topic with you. Greeting from Germany🇩🇪

[@blackpenredpen]

Thank you!

[@roger7341]

let f(x) = x^5 - 5x + 3. f(-2) = -32 + 10 + 3 = -19. f(0) = 0 - 0 + 3 = 3 f(1) = 1 - 5 + 3 = -1 f(2) = 32 - 1 + 3 = 34 Thus there is a real root between -2 and 0, a second real root between 0 and 1, and a third real root between 1 and 2. Let f'(x) = 5x^4 - 5 be the first derivative of f(x) and use x = x - f(x)/f'(x) to iteratively update estimates of roots of f(x) = 0. Set x = -1 or so to iteratively compute the real root between -2 and 0. Set x = 0.5 or so to iteratively compute the real root between 0 and 1. Set x = 1.5 or so to iteratively compute the real root between 1 and 2. With these three roots use synthetic division to obtain a remaining quadratic g(x) = 0. Use quadratic formula to get the remaining two roots.

[@andersonrodriguez1121]

Very interesting. Greetings from Colombia.

[@denielalain5701]

Hello! I am thinking about the "If a stranger gives you this quintic equsion....", and it gives giggles because it sounds like "Don't try this at home" xD. Regardless of me not being a student at any university, i still find your video entertaining

[@mcgrewgs]

I'm struggling a bit with life right now, but watching your videos really helps. Thank you!

[@tajreilly3729]

I like watching you cause I wanna go back to school eventually, don't want to forget everything in the mean time

[@hbowman108]

With a little linear algebra there is a general solution for a system of n quadratics in n unknowns. What you do is that for matrices A and B, you have x†Ax + Bx + C = 0 for a symmetric A where x is the vector of variables and x† is its transpose. Since A is symmetric you can choose a basis to diagonalize A, then (xS^(-1))† D (Sx) + BSx + C = 0. Then you can complete the square and take the square root. In finding the square root of D each eigenvalue has two square roots and so there are 2^n solutions.

[@raphougnac]

15:32 Very good advice ! Now i'll know what to do the next time a stranger give me a quintic equation

[@markphc99]

good job , and I didn't know the lagrange resolvent but do remember cardano's formula for the cubic , rather you than me though

[@Kurtlane]

Please, please, please! Teach us everything about the Lagrange resolvent. Are there resolvents for polynomial equations of other powers? If there are, please give examples. How did Lagrange come up with this formula? Wikipedia gives a general formula for Lagrange resolvents (sum from i=0 to n-1 X sub i omega ^i), where omega is a primitive nth root of unity. How does that apply here, or in polynomial equations of other powers? I haven't seen anything like that on KZbin. Thanks a lot!

[@cryptoniandream1278]

The .618 is the power of root, Roots can be transformed in powers by raising the radicand to the power of a fraction, in which the numerator is the exponent (usually -1) of the radicand and the denominator will be the index of the radical

[@fakepillow1]

Rare footage of a kindergarten teacher at an asian school

[@EducarePakInd]

nice and informative video thanks for sharing this video

[@mathmathician8250]

I tried to prove langrange resolvent based on the construction of cubic formula and the three solutions would be (-a+(w^j)*³√z1+(w^(3-j))*³√z2)/3 Where j=0,1,2 and w=(1+i√3)/2

[@MathNerd1729]

Shouldn't w=(-1+i√3)/2? [With a minus sign in front of the 1] Or, am I missing something?

[@mathmathician8250]

My w satisfies w³=1 but your w satisfies w³=-1

[@MathNerd1729]

@@mathmathician8250 I thought it was the other way around since x³ - 1 = (x - 1)(x² + x + 1) and you get the -1 in the numerator due to the -b of the quadratic formula. I've seen some KZbin vids use your version, but I also saw my version by just searching "cube roots of unity" in Google. I don't know what's going on

[@mathmathician8250]

Oh yeah just realized my mistake

[@byronwatkins2565]

I imagine that Lagrange's strategy was that if r is a root of the cubic, then (x-r) is a factor and he divided this from the cubic to see how the coefficients of the remaining quadratic must be related to the root and the original a, b, and c.

[@fanamatakecick97]

I watch math videos for fun, but this completely fried my brain

[@johnbennett7509]

Very enjoyable to listen to your solu5i9ns.

[@zachhw0]

Great video!!!

[@LydellAaron]

Interesting. I would try using sinusoids as solution to this general equation? And complex exponentials. This can be viewed as a harmonic equation, oscillating around zero. If we use sinusoids, then we can leverage quantum computing.

[@cyman8427]

With Newtons Method I got x equals about 0.6180,-1.6180 and 1.2757. Btw. Love your Videos!

[@saschazimmer]

If you already have a quadratic equation in the form 0 = x² + px + q (which of course could easily be achieved with any quadratic equasion by dividing ax² + bx + c = 0 by a), the quadratic formula reduces to x = -p/2 +- sqrt((p/2)-q) and thus is much less convoluted.

[@raphougnac]

11:44 That's what she said

[@VanNguyen-kx6gx]

Really good solution,

[@ItachiUchiha-wk3zm]

Awesome video!

[@zathrasyes1287]

Could you make a video about solving the quintic with elliptic integrals? That would be cool.

[@karlbuenzalida8561]

Sheesh bro lemme sleep. Ngl, I really find your vids so satisfying to watch that it made me appreciate more the innate beauty of Math. God bless you man!!! Much love from ph!

[@J2TheAirco]

I just bought a hoodie from you it’s amazing I saw it and didn’t hesitate!

[@blackpenredpen]

Thank you!! Which one did u get?

[@J2TheAirco]

I bought the converge hoodie!

[@Paco96]

Yay! Math videos for fun!

[@CallMeIshmael999]

There is an exam at my grad school which we have to take to start the research stage of our Ph.D. There is almost always a polynomial on there and they ask us if it can be factored using whole numbers. Usually there is a trick that makes it quick, but I was doing one of the older tests and one test writer gave one that had to be solved like this. It was very mean.

[@emanuellandeholm5657]

So sneaky to inject that natural number range!

[@GoldrushGaming0107]

11:45 “Wow. D is big.” -BPRP 2022

[@rcpg248]

11:43 “Wow, D is pretty big”

[@xcandle_]

its also nice you can just use iteration / newton rapson to get a non exact answer in a few seconds :)

[@Angel.HuiQui]

Saludos desde Perú BlackPenRedPen 💪📚

[@ronaldnoll3247]

I guess I won't recalculate that nice equation tonight... As always, you get a thumbs up

[@AnonimityAssured]

Perhaps one of your best videos yet. For all practical purposes, though, an iterative formula gives real roots to any level of precision we choose: x₀ = ?; xₙ₊₁ = (4xₙ⁵ − 3)/(5xₙ⁴ − 5). x₀ = −2: xₙ → −1.61803398875... = −(√5 + 1)/2; x₀ = 0: xₙ → 0.61803398875... = (√5 − 1)/2; x₀ = 2: xₙ → 1.27568220364.... = complicated stuff with cube roots and square roots.

[@MichaelRothwell1]

How did you get this particular iterative formula?

[@AnonimityAssured]

@@MichaelRothwell1 To be honest, I can't remember exactly. It's based on my own variation of the Newton-Raphson method, developed independently to solve specific problems. I think it's a little less versatile, but it seems to provide exactly the same rate of convergence.

[@lozhomo8390]

Yo, this is UCT ( Undefined Coeffent Technique ). I learnt this when I was 15

[@taito404]

"let's just guess and hope for the best" Words to live by

[@mathsenhancersclass]

Nice video thanks

[@gijs-janbruil6738]

I did something like this myself. Thanks for the inspiring hints at finding the complex solutions. I will remember what you have said and will set to work some future time, undoubtly keeping in mind at what you have hinted. I admire your ability to calculate fast and accurately, by the way!

[@paul-andreigiurgi1246]

11:44 the best part

[@knyansa1569]

I believe you could use the combinatorial method

[@intezarshah7910]

Bro you are just like quantum arrow... Fav maths guy😋😋😋

[@salimcharikh6238]

Why the coefficients should be integers ?

[@Noam_.Menashe]

Just for it to be nice. It was constructed to be.

[@holyshit922]

(x+phi)(x-1/phi) (x^2+(phi-1/phi)x - 1)=0 phi^2-phi-1=0 phi - 1 - 1/phi = 0 phi - 1/phi = 1 (x^2 + x - 1) is a factor

[@bugsfudd8295]

Another great video. Around 24 minutes shouldn't the quadratic have a 2(-1)=-2 in the denominator?

[@goblinzombie3249]

Tôi chỉ biết dùng đạo hàm để xét được nghiệm thuộc khoảng nào và hình dạng đồ thị thôi. Anh thật tuyệt vời.

[@Unidentifying]

Wow, amazing trick

[@nerdgonewild]

I'm doing pretty well, thanks

[@General12th]

I love these adventures!

[@blackpenredpen]

Thank you!