life changing quadratic formula

There are different ways of solving a quadratic equation, such as by factoring, completing the square, or using the algebra 2 quadratic formula. But after watching this video, you will never use the quadratic formula ever again!
This method is pioneered by Prof. Po-Shen Loh at Carnegie Mellon University and has been invented by the Babylonians, but somehow forgotten with time. Enjoy this wonderful adventure into the wonders of mathematics.
Po-Shen Loh's webpage: www.math.cmu.edu/~ploh/cmu.shtml
Subscribe to my channel: / drpeyam
Check out my TikTok channel: / drpeyam
Follow me on Instagram: / peyamstagram
Follow me on Twitter: / drpeyam
Teespring merch: teespring.com/stores/dr-peyam

[@madomation7984]

During a math class, I accidently derived this method from scratch, I thought that this is a new method that no one knew, then realised this is the derivation of the quadratic formula that we were just not taught.

[@soumyadwipmondal2222]

Same bro!

[@aparnarai3708]

@@epc0003 it's quite possible Sometimes you just don't wanna go with the said method and try your best to find another way to achieve the answer One does not need to be Po- Shen Lo to come up with this

[@vanshkhatri8233]

I also derived the formula during my class and showed to my teacher but he said " the book does not say so and I'll deduct your marks if u use the".... nvm I am so happy now that I was correct

[@pradness]

@@epc0003 fr, it's really hard to derive this method from scratch as a student, how would someone come up with taking the midpoint of roots then using it as being equidistant from roots and calculating that distance to calculate roots, I always wondered why addition of roots and multiplication of roots was so easy compared to the quadratic formula but I would never imagine myself deriving this

[@e_pi_i_is_-1]

@@vanshkhatri8233 lmao, this actually happened with me.

[@mimithehotdog7836]

“Modern Problems Require Ancient Methods”

[@edgardojaviercanu4740]

a wonderful concept.

[@rahulrathod6770]

Absolutely right

[@hozesty]

E C 100%

[@jewzetto9492]

Ironic but sometimes true

[@trubobu]

Haha ancient chisel go brrr

[@ac281201]

When you simplify all the steps taken, it turns out that the _u_ is actually equal to √∆/2a, so this is quadratic formula but in multiple steps instead of single equation.

I just came to the same conclusion. This method basically derives the quadratic formula from "graphical" solution. Which I think, is actually quite educational.

[@leonardokeller5254]

My mathteacher used this “method”, well it’s actually common sense if you think it through, to explain us the abc formula

[@johnspence8141]

Yes of course. It’s not going to miraculously break away. But it is definitely an easier way to conceptualize the process. Most students just memorize the quadratic function instead of deriving it. Whereas this method fits nicely into the same method applied to whole number roots. Every student I’ve taught who just memorized formulas deprived themselves of seeing all the connections in math and as a result never become really good at math.

[@mathsman5219]

Perspective changed

[@johnholmes912]

@@johnspence8141 isn't the easiest way to just complete the square?

[@angelicbeast]

Peyam you kept me interested in math! You were my gsi for math 54 back at Berkeley. Since then I didn't continue past abstract algebra but I still love math and I love this channel!

[@drpeyam]

Ooooooh I remember you!!! Hope all is well 😁

[@blackpenredpen]

Ah!

[@bryantrandolph4693]

My math teacher is here too

[@amitavadass]

My inspiration is here too!!!!

[@spandanbarve1066]

Hii

[@konradkos1981]

Legend

[@TheRealThe]

L e g e n d

[@itsankur8745]

Its all fun and games until the roots are imaginary.

[@nexlord2036]

Lol

[@Amish0123]

do watch the video till end..he took that too!

[@akul2986]

@Guitarzen oh no😭

[@dororthyruth3045]

Make sure you are solving real problems

[@pafauk361]

Make sure you watch the video before you comment? Complex numbers change nothing

[@chriswasabii]

WOOOOOWWW!! My highschool teacher taught me a slightly different variant of this method that was harder to understand back then. This video is very clear, very useful and well done. Great job!

[@tomn.9987]

I find the quadratic formula in it's common version more practical. It's easy to remember and use.

[@shabbarvejlani]

Can relate the formula for roots more intuitively now. MID = -b/2a U= sqrt(b^2 - 4ac)/2a X1 = MID + U X2 = MID - U Thanks for sharing this.

[@yeet6074]

Hey, thanks for compiling this!!

[@pinkex6119]

thanks for comenting us ew

[@mullaert]

Called the pq-formula. Used for students in German school who don’t want to use the quadric formula. The approach to explain the method is nicely done in this video. I really liked it.

[@NotBroihon]

Ja man pq Formel Gang amk

[@mxchronos3642]

@@NotBroihon vallah☝🏻

[@livaja27]

​@@mxchronos3642Jesus loves YOU. He died so YOU can have an eternal life in heaven. True joy, life love, peace and fulfilment is found in God. REPENT of your sins & TURN TO CHRIST 🧡 Accept Him as Lord and Saviour and be saved. Btw, I'm not a bot. There is a person behind their screen praying for you and wishing you joy and heaven that only God can give.

[@bigbro5089]

All things aside, Dr.Peyam seems to be so good of heart. He seems to be a sweet,simple and composed person 💙.... People like him change the bad inside of a person and fill them with positivity 😎💞

[@sohilkumar1218]

My thoughts exactly 😀

[@HypnosisBear]

What?

[@subhojitchatterjee9920]

Teacher : This is the simplest method. Middle term factor : "I don't even exist"

[@adityagarg9988]

Westerners be like: that's cheating😭😭

[@adityagarg9988]

x^2 - 9 = 0 : idk😂😂

[@LLT_MATHEMATICAL_FLUID]

The name of the formula is middle term factor, so by its name you have to factories the middle term coefficient of the given equation by the help of initial and terminal terms. Here( -6) is the middle term coefficient and -6 = (-4)+(-2) . ( where { -4}×{ -2}= 8). So the Answer will be (x-4) (x-2).

[@subhojitchatterjee9920]

@@LLT_MATHEMATICAL_FLUID kehna kya chahte ho??

[@HarshHit]

@@adityagarg9988 x=+-3

[@PrinceZuko]

If every teacher in Austria's art school back then was as cheerful as you, the world might potentially be a better place.

[@TheChaosBeat]

Lol

[@accidentallyaj5138]

This is a very specific joke, i am surprised people got this

[@obyvatel]

Ever heard of being cheerfully refused admission?

[@brittonporter5063]

Is this a Hitler joke? Just want to make sure I’m right

[@accidentallyaj5138]

@@brittonporter5063 yes

[@theTHwa3tes11]

Math Teacher: You weren't supposed to do that!

[@lxna5889]

Grrrrr

[@zaheerkhan9236]

Imagine someone considering this a scientific breakthrough and u applied it on high-school maths on a daily basis

[@kumnalkhati2243]

Lol

[@whisper7879]

True😂

[@gouharmaquboolnitp]

You are a unacademian?

[@gouharmaquboolnitp]

Ashwani Tyagi's students right?

[@x0cx102]

search up po shen loh. He does a lot more real mathematics research (in graph theory and combinatorics) as a professor at carnegie mellon, as well as coach the usa IMO team. this is hardly a breakthrough or a new method in any means. not sure why he's calling it that.

[@sssilky3317]

I just started my new job as a math tutor and I'm going to try using this to help my students better understand quadratics, Thank you Dr. Peyam

[@drpeyam]

Awesome!!!

[@gabrielasr9744]

This guy just seems so happy teaching ❤️ This can really change a lecture for the better

[@RorychattInc]

As russians we were taught this in like 5th grade. We call this формула Виета (Vieta's formulas), as they exist not only for quadratic equations UPD: yes, you can use them for cubic too

[@mathadventuress]

oh so you can use them for cubic?

[@aryadebchatterjee5028]

@@mathadventuress yupp

[@aryadebchatterjee5028]

@@mathadventuress The formula states that for any equation of degree N which has roots A_i where i={1,2,3...} the sum of the roots is the coefficient of the term which has N-1 as power divided by the coefficient of the term which has Nth power TIMES -1... and just like this when the roots are taken two at a time and multiplied and then added like a series (to clear things up e.g (A1*A2)+(A2*A3)+(A3*A4)+....+(A_N-1 *A_N) )IS JUST THE THIRD COEFFICIENT divided by the the first one and and like so on I would suggest you to look it up on some good book like Hall and knight

[@hybmnzz2658]

Vietas formulas should be a must learn for polynomials of any degree. Sad it is not taught to many before university (not even a glimpse).

[@DRMath]

I learned it in 6th grade, and my teacher use to say if you want to learn math or science learn from Russian and one of my professor (one of the smartest person i met in my life yet)here is US proved it.

[@sonalikakade3484]

Dude, we learnt this method in school!!

[@whatdoiputhere5089]

Wahi lmao

[@blueb0y980]

Indians are faster than this 😅

[@blueb0y980]

@shubh Yes, You are right he is better than that of tiktok jokers

[@avishek438]

He is not “dude”.. learn some manners..

[@bait5257]

@@avishek438 that's true too. Dude is little disrespecting

[@faysal...]

1 year on and Dr.Peyam is still giving hearts

[@leickrobinson5186]

If **Dr. Peyam** says that he’s the nicest guy he ever met, that’s really saying something!!!

[@KokeBeast23]

Truly!

[@abderzakchebbi1339]

yes, because probably the professor taught him something new.

[@aryamannsrivastava7279]

Gay??

[@abderzakchebbi1339]

@@aryamannsrivastava7279 no!...we cnnot juge like every nice person is gay thats very wrong...instead in general poeple with a higher education like him are nice bc their are not in the level of juck kids who are looking for trouble or bulliying instead of mind themselves.

[@aryamannsrivastava7279]

@@abderzakchebbi1339 I am sorry for my words .actually I myself found sir to be very useful and informative

[@remopellegrino8961]

If every math teacher was as cheerful as you, everyone would understand math!

[@tmjcbs]

Cheerfulness has very little influence on understanding math...

[@remopellegrino8961]

@@tmjcbs it makes your audience be more interested, hence they will be more focussed and they will learn a lot more

[@teddylandefeld6380]

I didn’t understand shit from this vid

[@amigosdocarro4600]

@@tmjcbs No

[@centralprocessingunit2564]

@Nawfal. wns excuses. enthusiasm of the teacher doesnt matter. the actual content is more important. if enthusiasm has an effect on a student then thats just because that student is lazy and doesnt want to do the hard work part on their own.

[@priyankaaggarwal1982]

Everyone gangsta here untill complex roots enters 😂

[@souls5180]

Oh no guess I have to change my name now 😅

[@souls5180]

@@MKD1101 pehle mera naam Gangster Sharma tha then i changed it .

[@souls5180]

@@MKD1101 please bhai , yeh mat karo .. ruk jao .

[@anitakajala7799]

Please don't comment without having a prior knowledge of complex no.s

[@priyankaaggarwal1982]

@@anitakajala7799 Expert in it bro mind your own work 😏

[@owenbrowne9288]

Props to my algebra teacher from 2 years ago for teaching us this method when it was first discovered

[@sheikhk.s.sarian2594]

"Y'all already didn't know that?" - This comment was made by Asian Gang

[@u.v.s.5583]

It is also standard, I believe, in most of Eastern Europe.

[@kartik5876]

This was so basic... I didn't know this method had a name. We were taught this before quadratic formula.

[@bhabeshkumar8804]

Being an asian indian I didn't know this method, although I know some different easy methods to solve this equation. Always happy to learn more.🥰

[@elonmusk2157]

Meet any CAT or CGL aspirent of india

[@AnuarLife]

I m from Russia and we use this formula and name of this “ the theorem of Viet” (Теорема Виета)😂😂😂

[@deltaman2283]

You're an incredible maths teacher and a human. We need more people like you sir. You're so cheerful. You earned a subscriber here...keep uploading interesting mathematics stuffs here...love your content. I'm gonna use this method for quick solving in MCQs. Lot's of love and respect from the world. Thankyou very much for this valuable information.

[@subwaymirdif]

It already changed my life in the first 30 seconds.

[@robinsakofske9975]

I absolutely LOVE your enthusiasm!

[@xy9439]

I call this "completing the square" in a fancy way

[@aditya2781]

🙂🙂🤣🤣

[@RedRad1990]

The equations at the beginning are called Vieta's formulas

[@ruanlslima]

I call it "Bhaskara formula with geometrical intuition" hahaha Completing the square is my go-to though

[@richardfredlund3802]

completing the square doesn't use symmetry in the same way. This is slightly different.

[@LeoBrooks03]

Yes, this is essentially finding a turning point and completing the square.

[@augf6354]

I've never seen a man this excited over teaching, congrats :D

[@yatinnargotra2834]

I feel this method should be included in our books .

[@pratyushpro9060]

Thankyou very much for such a awesome video. am going to use it from now onwards

[@mattpyth5151]

Actually after watching Prof. Loh's video, I tried to solve one problem myself. I used an odd coeff in the middle term to have fraction solving and to my amazement, it works! Now, I am excited to teach this to my students! :)

[@drpeyam]

Wonderful!!! :)

[@GeoffCanyon]

Pretty sure this *is* the quadratic formula, just with a factored out.

[@BrightBlueJim]

That is correct. In fact, he SAYS that if a isn't 1, you have to factor it out first. If you factor a quadratic using this method, and then using the quadratic formula, you find yourself doing all the same arithmetic. The difference is that if you are good at remembering sequences of operations, this will seem easier, while if you are better at remembering formulas, the quadratic formula will seem easier. They all break down to different rearrangements of the prototypical quadratic, ax^2 + bx + c = 0, to solve for x.

[@valentinidk6101]

Lmao yea it is

[@Austin1990]

To be fair, it will all be algebraically equivalent no matter what you do. This is just a different way of thinking about it. The equation becomes: for a=1, x=(-b)/2 ± √[ (b/2)^2 - c ] Honestly, this would be an easier way of evaluating the quantity underneath the root if b is divisible by 2. But, most importantly, it gives a better conceptual understanding which can save you if you forget the quadratic equation.

[@dr.weirdbeard6054]

Thought so too!

[@ricardofraser4243]

when we complete the square its the same... the turning point -b/2a x-coordinate is the midpoint of the root ... the rest follows

[@MadScientyst]

In the old GCE Additional Mathematics course, a large part of this was taught as the Product/Sum-of-Roots Method to solve Quadratics. Typical notation usually used 'Alpha & Beta' terminology. The (+/-) extension makes an interesting addition to finding/testing the Roots too.

[@kip741]

Still taught in my additional maths with roots of polynomials

[@WontTrout]

Great video! Worth mentioning that this is really just the quadratic formula, from an understanding perspective rather than a "plug and play" perspective.

[@davidseed2939]

i was taught almost this method in 1965. rearrange the original equation as x² +2hx +d. then x= -h +/-√(h² - d)

[@BrightBlueJim]

This is correct, but I'd like to point out that you would get the quadratic equation once you're rearranged the original equation to factor out the x^2 coefficient. So you end up doing exactly the same arithmetic either way, but the method you are showing splits it into two steps. What makes the quadratic equation nice is that once you have it memorized, it's just one step. So really it's a matter of whether you want to remember one equation, or a slightly simpler equation and another step. What I like about the method shown in the video is that you don't have to memorize anything, and even if you forget the exact process, it takes only a minute to go through the same derivation the describes.

[@-ClerzZ-]

I'm pretty sure I was taught a formula as x^2 +2ab + b

[@BrightBlueJim]

@@-ClerzZ- I'm pretty sure you weren't, because that would not have given you the correct answers. In fact, it doesn't even solve for x.

[@sasoblazic]

I agree. This video really does not add anything new to the solution of the famous equation. But how could it? Everything here is completely known for centuries.

[@BrightBlueJim]

@@sasoblazic It gives students another option. The math is what it is. Whether you are plugging a, b, and c into the quadratic equation, or you're factoring by completing the square, or you're using this method, the actual arithmetic you are doing is identical. But different people remember things in different ways, so for someone who has no trouble remembering complicated equations, the quadratic equation may be the best way, while for people for whom remembering the steps in a process is easier, then this method or completing the square may be easier. You are right: this method that David Seed describes doesn't add anything to the mathematics, because just as what is described in the video is actually one derivation of the quadratic equation, and completing the squares is another, this is just preparing your polynomial a bit before crunching the coefficients through a simplified version of the quadratic equation. But for every student, ONE of these methods will click better in their mind. There are also cases, though, that are easier to do with one method than another. For example, if the x^2 coefficient is 1, David Seed's formula is slightly easier to use than the more general quadratic equation, and if your coefficients are all integers, completing the square or the method in the video may be easier to apply.

[@ceres8494]

Everyone:Using this method Me: nEgaTiVe Beeeeeeee pLus oR mInuS tHe SqUaRe rOoT oF....

[@ndakeren8673]

FFFFFFFFFFF

[@Fakipo]

It also tells you if the roots are real or not. For me its a lot quicker to solve using that formula. The only problem is remembering it by heart.

[@bonnieb7608]

Omg now I have that song stuck in my head again 🤦🤣

[@ceres8494]

@@Fakipo join the cult kzbin.info/www/bejne/e2PIh418rp6ssM0

[@ceres8494]

@@bonnieb7608 yes

[@ayubjikani5401]

I can summarise, If u²>0, Eq. Has two real roots. u²=0, Eq. Has only one real root. u²

[@aayushtripathi3799]

I love your enthusiasm

[@imnotarobot6927]

Following along with this made me realize where the rule "If a polynomial has integer roots, they evenly divide the constant term of the polynomial" comes from because if you expand (x - x1)(x - x2)(x - x3)... the last/constant term will always be x1*x2*x3*... I was always just told, "if you want to guess integer roots, guess all the factors of the constant term" and never questioned it. yay, learning

[@BrightBlueJim]

Yeah. This lets you guess the roots when they are integers. Which is fine for passing math tests, but doesn't come up so much in the real world.

[@karlstephenevallo6543]

Definitey I want a professor like him because he has that kind of amazing aura that relaxes the mind of students listening, he has that kind of smile that lets you chill with the process making it look easy and last thing is his voice its so mesmerizing that you may not know your subject relates to math. Last thing, the method you used is very easy to understand and way more beneficial to do irrational or the complex root without using that much of calculations. Thank you for discussing and here I am hitting that subscribe button and ringing that bell icon sir. God bless us all.

[@caurixportal1332]

But in real life, and nature, the coefficients could be ANYTHING, not so nice and simple. You need a repettive method that works fir ever single situation. Does this one do it.?

[@apodsilvaticus6489]

Learn this from my dad when I was 12. Very old and practical. Mostly for quadratic equations this is the master key to finish simple by head calculation.

[@daco54]

Thank you ,i did not know this method and it gave me more knowledge about quadratic equations.

[@colinbrash]

This is cool, I’d never seen it before. Another way to think about it: you convert the polynomial to the form x^2 - 2bx + c, and then the quadratic formula reduces to just b +/- sqrt(b^2 - c)

[@GG4EVA623]

Wait so do I use the one you suggested? Instead of quadratic equation

[@interiorcrocodile4297]

@@GG4EVA623 not always valid

[@paradoxicallyexcellent5138]

This is my preferred method when doing physics and dealing with a bunch of physical constants. I find it quite clean.

[@sillasaram9121]

@@interiorcrocodile4297 When is it not valid? It is valid for all cases since new definition of "b" is now 1/2 of old b.

[@muffin_____]

Me looking at the title, "I bet this has something to do with viete's theorem" sure enough it does! Just learned about this in class this semester

[@sanjayagarwal920]

THIS IS ABSOLUTELY WORKING ! KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK

[@VIJEAR]

Thanks for the video. This is the first time I see this method of solving quadratic formula.

[@mayaghazy391]

Love the fact that this got recommended to me when I’m about to have my exam in 2 weeks 😀

[@shaikabdurrehmanh1506]

I too.

[@martinj.montag.amritapuri8208]

Careful, in exams it can be equally important that you're examiner recognises you go a "working" way to the solution. Then, if you make a mistake they may give you marks for the way to the solution. (Still, I agree it's a wonderful way, especially because it always goes with understanding of how the solution works.)

[@KayOScode]

How did it go?

[@mayaghazy391]

@@KayOScode it was extremely easy actually

[@KayOScode]

@@mayaghazy391 I love it when theyre easy. Hoping my compilers midterm is easy this Wednesday lol

[@arunkumarcs9191]

I thank KZbin algorithm for showing me this videos in my recommendation. And thank you sir.

[@wannadieirl6155]

Lmaooo

[@HelloConure]

This is, in fact, putting a=1 in the long quadratic formula that everyone had learned. Interesting way of interpretation, involving mid-points, etc. Thanks.

[@gurjindersingh8820]

Need a math and physics teacher as excited as you are

[@matiassantacruz5487]

I love how he says “it’s a nightmare” 😂 5:18

[@lxna5889]

LMAO

[@srchillout4848]

-b+-√b²-4ac/2a : am I a nightmare 😤

[@7rgrov198]

I always thought of it like: how can i factor the last coefficient and sum/subtract those terms together to make the second coefficient.

[@BrightBlueJim]

That was how they taught us to factor quadratics first, but I kept asking, "but what if the factors aren't nice, round numbers", to which I was told, "don't worry, we'll get to that", and that turned out to be the quadratic equation, which always works. I think they only made us learn to figure out pairs that multiplied to b and added to c, was so that we would learn to recognize the easy cases, and avoid using the full formula.

[@BrightBlueJim]

That was how they taught us to factor quadratics first, but I kept asking, "but what if the factors aren't nice, round numbers", to which I was told, "don't worry, we'll get to that", and that turned out to be the quadratic equation, which always works. I think they only made us learn to figure out pairs that multiplied to b and added to c, was so that we would learn to recognize the easy cases, and avoid using the full formula.

[@7rgrov198]

@@BrightBlueJim sure, but for almost all cases that you are likely to encounter, the coefficients arent fractions

[@BrightBlueJim]

@@7rgrov198 That may be the case when you're taking an algebra test in high school, but when you are solving for the poles in an electrical circuit, the coefficients come from some combination of multiple electric component values, the coefiicients are almost never integers. This is just one example. Every place I've seen where I've actually had to solve a real world problem (as opposed to a problem in a textbook), I've had non-integer coefficients to deal with. I've come to realize that it's far easier to just plug the numbers into the quadratic formula, than to use one of these "shortcuts".

[@janvisagie231]

I like the fact that you explicitly wrote the implicit explanation for why Po-Shen Loh's method (yeah I just watched his vid beforehand) works. However I have one question, shouldn't this equation be equally valid if you use (x+x1)(X+x2) instead of (x-x1)(X-x2)...that way you won't have to keep changing the sign of the second term in the original equation e.g. in the equation at 2:08 the midpoint will be -3 instead of 3. I know you will have to change the sign of x1 and x2 to eventually get the roots though when using the form (x+x1)(X+x2), which is likely why you are using the form (x-x1)(X-x2).

[@coldlogiccrusader365]

TY, I cam to the same conclusion how can the sum of the roots be < 0 yet they are both positive.

[@edu-meter574]

Great work.. Saw that today. Thank you😍

[@rishabhasthana1936]

Thank you sir! Very insightful, makes me want to play with maths with a different perspective....wow truly eye opening

[@jabunapg1387]

Everybody learns this formula in school in Germany. It's called Vieta's Formula or p-q-Formula (the general solution formula).

[@pizzamidhead2183]

also in Italy, it is considered the basis of second degree equations, you learn in the first grade

[@stepanosipenko5032]

Also in Russia, it is one of the basic formulas

[@cyto3338]

Never studied it as a part of curriculum in India

[@yagnapatel3912]

@@pizzamidhead2183 I knew Italians were smart, but how do you teach quadratics to 6 year olds. That’s crazy

[@alenlivai]

@@yagnapatel3912 Probably first-grade high school students.

[@isi2973]

That honestly reminds me alot of the p-q-Formular wivh is a simplified version of the quadratic formula.

[@anshik.k.t]

I just realized this is quadratic equation but ofc can't deny it is in more simpler form here. Your voice is so good as teacher just subscribed.

[@goofygoober6211]

im in Calculus BC in my senior year of high school in the United States and I've never been taught this!! so cool

[@hridoysarkar050]

Legend: Uses the quadratic formula. Ultra Legend: Uses this method. Me: I use my calculator.

[@amitavadass]

West Bengal naki Bangladesh???? INDIA te to calculator allow kore na wbjee &jee main etc te!

[@DANTE-kv7mv]

@@amitavadass maybe he's in a college

[@amitavadass]

@@DANTE-kv7mv hoyto!

[@labib1782]

@@amitavadass Bangladesh eo korena dada

[@sumonsohailbnc2059]

@@amitavadass jee 2021 or 2022

[@ThePiMan0903]

Nice video sir! Thanks for this one.

[@gbeziuk]

It's Vieta formula's extension. They taught it in schools in USSR.

[@francescopiccolo2000]

Minchia in Russia siete fortissimi

[@shorge37]

In russia too

[@infinixgaming1791]

well in india too.. we are taught vieta formula.. x^2 - (sum of roots) x + (product of roots)

[@heyman9078]

@@infinixgaming1791 it's a bit different. i learned that 3 years ago, but the loh's method use de discriminant for quadratic equations in a ''indirect'' form the ∆=b^2-4ac is equal to u. since there are many equations that cannot use x^2-sum+product.

[@mimzim7141]

Give 20 second degree equations with random coefficients to a person and let him solve 10 with usual quadratic and 10 with this method and see which is faster.

[@hungryplate400]

@Left and Right Troll For a Computer, the quadratic formula is better, because, it doesn't have to "think", rather input values in a pre defined formula

[@Tyns19]

work the method shown in the video symbolically and you will find that it reduces to the usual quadratic formula. The method shown is only another way to derive the conventional quadratic formula that we are all familiar with. just start with: x^2+bx+c=0, and follow steps in the video.

[@adrien8572]

@Left and Right Troll Yeah like when i was in high school we had the right to use a calculator and we had a program calculating the solutions instantly...

[@mimzim7141]

i understand it is equivalent to the usual formula. And if you think of it has to be since it gives the correct solutions. Now i tried a few times and it is not as slow as i first thought, with some practice it could become a viable computational option. Another test to do is wether that method increases or decreases your percentage of calculation mistakes.

[@rayray6548]

@@adrien8572 so your calculator got the school degree, not you. son..

[@MiroslawHorbal]

Only took me 32 years of my life to stop using the quadratic formula. TY. I know what I'll be teaching my kids when they are studying quadratics in school!

[@chocolateangel8743]

If they're more visual math learners, like me, they might prefer to Complete The Square, using an area model (the same thing).

[@d6853]

No, don’t do that. They are taught the formula for a reason, most questions will require the formula, you get marks for working, if you do that you will confuse them and they will lose marks

[@yili3339]

gosh! you are really good at make things complex. this is a question can be solved in less than 2 second.

[@ichigo8631]

Im fascinated im going to try that out and learn it

[@vasilisgrekas4225]

They have literally told us in school but now I understand where it comes from

[@riddhimanbanerjee6556]

When we think, we know it all, still there's so much to discover in maths! Great method!!

[@josephperera1318]

this has actually changed my life ♥

[@stephanweaver1960]

So nice to get back to college math in a fresh way!!!

[@alakas706]

This is just the quadratic formula done as an algorithm. Very nice

[@Metalhammer1993]

yup more exactly the variation of the quadratic used in Germany and India. The Pq-formula. (way less of a headache than the American formula and all you really do is divide by a)

[@alakas706]

@@Metalhammer1993 Yeah, can belive so. remaber when I first learned the formula, was a headice to memorice

[@Metalhammer1993]

@@alakas706 the american one really is a monster. the PQ one is a bit simpler

[@m.m.2341]

My God, the rest of the world uses the ABC formula? I hate that monster.

[@Metalhammer1993]

@@m.m.2341 yup. I at least only know Germany and India

[@i_am_me1238]

I'm not gonna lie, his accent made me watch the the whole video! 😐

[@september1683]

Oh, he really has an accent? I didn't notice that! :-)

[@PauloRicardo-fc4li]

WOW! Promised and delivered! Awesome to discover a nice, new and useful Idea like this one!

[@lakshmikalyanaraman3645]

Amazing concept!!

[@neyrenbharali2489]

Awesooooooooomeeeeeee Why did someone not taught me this in my childhoood.

[@Icenri]

It's so smart! Why is it not taught everywhere?!

[@fullfungo]

Because it actually IS taught. It is based on completing the square, which is a method used in deriving the standard quadratic formula. If you recall its derivation, you can clearly see how they are identical.

[@Icenri]

@@fullfungo Yes, I know that this is how the Greeks worked it out as well, but schools just sit down you in front of the equation.

[@leif1075]

@@fullfungo then why is he touting it's different if it's the same?

[@KaiHenningsen]

@@Icenri They do? I don't recall that ever happening for me. Maybe it's just some places where it's taught worse?

[@fullfungo]

@@leif1075 Having different methods to obtain the same result may seem pointless. However, some of them may be more intuitive for a human, while others are more efficient for a computer. There are of course other reasons, but these two are usually the ones that help us make the choice when presented with one.

[@Adnan.khan..]

Cool sir. You taught finding complex roots in very simple manner.👏👏👏

[@nyxarisa]

i very recently noticed it’s a lot like complete the square method but shorter and simpler. it’s really interesting

[@iSustainnn]

Oh my, i wish i learned this when i was on 9th grade. Thank you Dr. Peyam!

[@kimutaiboit8516]

‘The Good Doctor ‘ Peyem

[@mrmexicano64]

I find The logic to be pretty similar to Mohr's circle

[@gonta2gonta195]

Wow! Very nice . I like this point of view. Really interesting!!!

[@eckhardtdom]

This is actually useful. Thank you! 8)

[@carterwoodson8818]

This is basically depressing a polynomial no? This is related to an important step in solving the general cubic equation.

[@easymathematik]

Yes it is.

[@LKRaider]

That’s harsh, we should be nice to the polynomial to help it overcome its depressive roots

[@easymathematik]

Depressing a quadratic is equivalent to "completing the square".

[@pedramkeshavarz6212]

It is in Iran's education system and we are taught in h_school this kinda stuff for our big test called "konkor".

[@ballybunion9]

It's been decades since I had to factor a quadratic equation but I still know that one is super-easy.

[@palaksharma493]

Exactly!

[@cjmq1970]

I’m a half century, first time in my freaking life I see this method, I was always taught to “use your instincts’ basically instead of the midpoint and the minus sign before the second term of the equation. Well, I thunk that after 25 years of obtaining my university degree, my certified professional title and 27 years of labor experience (yes, I started working on my career two years prior to license and degree), it’s never too late to learn something.

[@788home]

Thank you for sharing this easily understood and accessible method of determining the roots or a quadratic. I always disliked memorizing something if I couldn't derive it and if, instead of using numerical coefficients, I use this method on ax^2 +bx +c = 0 the "Quadratic Equation" I had to memorize just falls out. (As it should!) Thank you.

[@drpeyam]

Thanks so much!

[@Numidium_]

I didn’t click for this. I just lost my last brain cell.

[@danielsarkar1565]

Amazing Video just loved it.

[@bg7987]

complex one was very helpful. Thanks!!!

[@samonterolanjayp.8229]

I thought we just have to find pair of factors of the c, and if that pair's sum is the value of the b, then those are roots (in ax²+bx+c). Isn't this simplified factor method easier than the video? We can even calculate using this mentally on our 7th

[@drpeyam]

In general if the roots are irrational, then no

[@brucesing2089]

Rolan Samonte this kind of vidoes could save you much time looking for the correct answers

[@fuiijutsushikifuujin9413]

For irrational roots, it's hard, it may take time.. It's possible but it ain't easy.

[@Juliasn68]

I was acctually able to find a bit more primitive method of this by myself when I was 15 yrs. but this method is way more helpful, because I can find x_1 and x_2 even if they're surds.

[@aavalos163]

It was fun to watch!

[@Khan_Ustad]

My life changed after watching this video, now I drive a lambo and live in a castle. Thanx dude.

[@theengineeringstudent2678]

If everyone spoke English as you do, life would be better.

[@m.a.y.u.k.h]

Correct

[@DouglasHPlumb]

I like his enthusiasm, he is very good at this, but Yikes.

[@Manu-Alpha]

Yes

[@imposteristixx6877]

The way he talks and moves is adorable

[@AAAAAA-gj2di]

and the way he derives and then uses the discriminant formula in every quadratic equation

[@Majestic469]

@@AAAAAA-gj2di lol

[@rajakumari3716]

@@deelakayahaladeniya4472 ur gay

[@gibbogle]

Not to me.

[@miak5929]

Its hay

[@dmitrychirkov9519]

Nice method. Thank you very much!

[@devankitshukla1370]

This method is derived from Sridhar Acharya formula sum of roots -b/a and product of root is c/a in quadratic ax²+bx+c

[@drpeyam]

It’s the other way around, your formula follows from this method