The Quadratic Formula Explained

Functions versus Relations (page 1 of 2)
Sections: Functions versus relations, Domain and range There are different ways of looking at functions. We will consider a few. But first, we need to discuss some terminology. A "relation" is just a relationship between sets of information. Think of all the people in one of your classes, and think of their heights. The pairing of names and heights is a relation. In relations and functions, the pairs of names and heights are "ordered", which means one comes first and the other comes second. To put it another way, we could set up this pairing so that either you give me a name, and then I give you that person's height, or else you give me a height, and I give you the names of all the people who are that tall. The set of all the starting points is called "the domain" and the set of all the ending points is called "the range." The domain is what you start with; the range is what you end up with. The domain is the x's; the range is the y's. (I'll explain more on the subject of determining domains and ranges later.) A function is a "well-behaved" relation. Just as with members of your own family, some members of the family of pairing relationships are better behaved than other. (Warning: This means that, while all functions are relations, since they pair information, not all relations are functions. Functions are a subclassification of relations.) When we say that a function is "a well-behaved relation", we mean that, given a starting point, we know exactly where to go; given an x, we get only and exactly one y. Let's return to our relation of your classmates and their heights, and let's suppose that the domain is the set of everybody's heights. Let's suppose that there's a pizza-delivery guy waiting in the hallway. And all the delivery guy knows is that the pizza is for the student in your classroom who is five-footfive. Now let the guy in. Who does he go to? What if nobody is five-foot-five? What if there are six people in the room that are five-five? Do they all have to pay? What if you are five-foot-five? And what if you're out of cash? And allergic to anchovies? Are you still on the hook? Ack! What a mess! The relation "height indicates name" is not well-behaved. It is not a function. Given the relationship ( x, y) = (five-foot-five person, name), there might be six different possibilities for y = "name". For a relation to be a function, there must be only and exactly one y that corresponds to a given x. Here are some pictures of this: Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 1999-2011 All Rights Reserved
This is a function. You can tell by tracing from each x to each y. There is only one y for each x; there is only one arrow coming from each x.
Ha! Bet I fooled some of you on this one! This is a function! There is only one arrow coming from each x; there is only one y for each x. It just so happens that it's always the same y for each x, but it is only that one y. So this is a function; it's just an extremely boring function!
This one is not a function: there are two arrows coming from the number 1; the number 1 is associated with two different range elements. So this is a relation, but it is not a function.
Okay, this one's a trick question. Each element of the domain that has a pair in the range is nicely well-behaved. But what about that 16? It is in the domain, but it has no range element that corresponds to it! This won't work! So then this is not a function. Heck, it ain't even a relation!
Now YOU try!
The "Vertical Line Test"

Looking at this function stuff graphically, what if we had the relation that consists of a set containing just two points: {(2, 3), (2, 2)}? We already know that this is not a function, since x = 2 goes to each of y = 3 and y = 2.
If we graph this relation, it looks like:
Notice that you can draw a vertical line through the two points, like this:
This characteristic of non-functions was noticed by I-don't-know-who, and was codified in "The Vertical Line Test": Given the graph of a relation, if you can draw a vertical line that crosses the graph in more than one place, then the relation is not a function. Here are a couple examples:
This graph shows a function, because there is no vertical line that will cross this graph twice.
This graph does not show a function, because any number of vertical lines will intersect this oval twice. For instance, the y-axis intersects (crosses) the line twice. Now YOU try!
"Is it a function?" - Quick answer without the graph

Think of all the graphing that you've done so far. The simplest method is to solve for "y =", make a Tchart, pick some values for x, solve for the corresponding values of y, plot your points, and connect the dots, yadda, yadda, yadda. Not only is this useful for graphing, but this methodology gives yet another way of identifying functions: If you can solve for "y =", then it's a function. In other words, if you can enter it into your graphing calculator, then it's a function. The calculator can only handle functions. For example, 2y + 3x = 6 is a function, because you can solve for y:
2y + 3x = 6 2y = 3x + 6 y = (3/2)x + 3
On the other hand, y
2
+ 3x = 6 is not a function, because you can not solve for a unique y:
I mean, yes, this is solved for "y =", but it's not unique. Do you take the positive square root, or the negative? Besides, where's the "" key on your graphing calculator? So, in this case, the relation is not a function. (You can also check this by using our first definition from above. Think of " x = 1". 2 2 Then we get y 3 = 6, so y = 9, and then y can be either 3 or +3. That is, if we did an arrow chart, there would be two arrows coming from x = 1.)
Functions: Domain and Range (page 2 of 2)

Sections: Functions versus relations, Domain and range
Let's return to the subject of domains and ranges. When functions are first introduced, you will probably have some simplistic "functions" and relations to deal with, being just sets of points. These won't be terribly useful or interesting functions and relations, but your text wants you to get the idea of what the domain and range of a function are. For instance: State the domain and range of the following relation. Is the relation a function?
{(2, 3), (4, 6), (3, 1), (6, 6), (2, 3)}
The above list of points, being a relationship between certain x's and certain y's, is a relation. The domain is all the x-values, and the range is all the y-values. To give the domain and the range, I just list the values without duplication: domain: range:
{2, 3, 4, 6}
{3, 1, 3, 6}
(It is customary to list these values in numerical order, but it is not required. Sets are called "unordered lists", so you can list the numbers in any order you feel like. Just don't duplicate: technically, repetitions are okay in sets, but most instructors would count off for this.) While the given set does represent a relation (because x's and y's are being related to each other), they gave me two points with the same x-value: (2, 3) and (2, 3). Since x = 2 gives me two possible destinations, then this relation is not a function. Note that all I had to do to check whether the relation was a function was to look for duplicate x-values. If you find a duplicate x-value, then the different y-values mean that you do not have a function. State the domain and range of the following relation. Is the relation a function?
{(3, 5), (2, 5), (1, 5), (0, 5), (1, 5), (2, 5)}
I'll just list the x-values for the domain and the y-values for the range: domain: range:
{3, 2, 1, 0, 1, 2}
Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 1999-2011 All Rights Reserved
{5}
This is another example of a "boring" function, just like the example on the previous page: every last x-value goes to the exact same y-value. But each x-value is different, so, while boring, this relation is indeed a function. In point of fact, these points lie on the horizontal line y = 5. There is one other case for finding the domain and range of functions. They will give you a function and ask you to find the domain (and maybe the range, too). I have only ever seen (or can even think of) two things at this stage in your mathematical career that you'll have to check in order to determine the domain of the function they'll give you, and those two things are denominators and square roots. Determine the domain and range of the given function:
The domain is all the values that x is allowed to take on. The only problem I have with this function is that I need to be careful not to divide by zero. So the only values that x can not take on are those which would cause division by zero. So I'll set the denominator equal to zero and solve; my domain will be everything else.
x2 x 2 = 0 (x 2)(x + 1) = 0 x = 2 or x = 1
Then the domain is "all x not equal to 1 or 2".
The range is a bit trickier, which is why they may not ask for it. In general, though, they'll want you to graph the function and find the range from the picture. In this case:
As I can see from my picture, the graph "covers" all y-values (that is, the graph will go as low as I like, and will also go as high as I like). Since the graph will eventually cover all possible values of y, then the range is "all real numbers". Determine the domain and range of the given function:
The domain is all values that x can take on. The only problem I have with this function is that I cannot have a negative inside the square root. So I'll set the insides greater-than-or-equal-to zero, and solve. The result will be my domain: 2x + 3 > 0 2x > 3 2x < 3
x < 3/2 = 1.5

Then the domain is "all x
< 3/2".
The range requires a graph. I need to be careful when graphing radicals:
The graph starts at y = 0 and goes down from there. While the graph goes down very slowly, I know that, eventually, I can go as low as I like (by picking an x that is sufficiently big). Also, from my experience with graphing, I know that the graph will never start coming back up. Then the range is "y < 0". Determine the domain and range of the given function:
y = x4 + 4
This is just a garden-variety polynomial. There are no denominators (so no division-by-zero problems) and no radicals (so no square-root-of-a-negative problems). There are no problems with a polynomial. There are no values that I can't plug in for x. When I have a polynomial, the answer is always that the domain is "all x".
The range will vary from polynomial to polynomial, and they probably won't even ask, but when they do, I look at the picture:
The graph goes only as high as y = 4, but it will go as low as I like. Then: The range is "all
y < 4".
The Quadratic Formula Explained (page 1 of 3)

Often, the simplest way to solve "ax + bx + c = 0" for the value of x is to factor the quadratic, set each factor equal to zero, and then solve each factor. But sometimes the quadratic is too messy, or it doesn't factor at all, or you just don't feel like factoring. While factoring may not always be successful, the Quadratic Formula can always find the solution. The Quadratic Formula uses the "a", "b", and "c" from "ax + bx + c", where "a", "b", and "c" are just numbers; they are the "numerical coefficients". The Formula is derived from the process of completing the square, and is formally stated as:
2 2 2
For ax
+ bx + c = 0, the value of x is given by:
For the Quadratic Formula to work, you must have your equation arranged in the form "(quadratic) = 0". Also, the "2a" in the denominator of the Formula is underneath everything above, not just the square root. And it's a "2a" under there, not just a plain "2". Make sure that you are careful not to drop the square root or the "plus/minus" in the middle of your calculations, or I can guarantee that you will 2 forget to "put them back" on your test, and you'll mess yourself up. Remember that "b " means "the 2 square of ALL of b, including its sign", so don't leave b being negative, even if b is negative, because the square of a negative is a positive. In other words, don't be sloppy and don't try to take shortcuts, because it will only hurt you in the long run. Trust me on this!
Here are some examples of how the Quadratic Formula works: Solve
x2 + 3x 4 = 0
This quadratic happens to factor:
x2 + 3x 4 = (x + 4)(x 1) = 0
...so I already know that the solutions are x = 4 and x = 1. How would my solution look in the Quadratic Formula? Using a = 1, b = 3, and c = 4, my solution looks like this:
Then, as expected, the solution is x
= 4, x = 1.
Suppose you have ax + bx + c = y, and you are told to plug zero in for y. The corresponding x2 values are the x-intercepts of the graph. So solving ax + bx + c = 0 for x means, among other things, 2 that you are trying to find x-intercepts. Since there were two solutions for x + 3x 4 = 0, there must then be two x-intercepts on the graph. Graphing, we get the curve below:
As you can see, the x-intercepts match the solutions, crossing the x-axis at x = 4 and x = 1. This shows the connection between graphing and solving: When you are solving "(quadratic) = 0", you are finding the x-intercepts of the graph. This can be useful if you have a graphing calculator, because you can use the Quadratic Formula (when necessary) to solve a quadratic, and then use your graphing calculator to make sure that the displayed x-intercepts have the same decimal values as do the solutions provided by the Quadratic Formula. Note, however, that the calculator's display of the graph will probably have some pixel-related roundoff error, so you'd be checking to see that the computed and graphed values were reasonably close; don't expect an exact match. Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2000-2011 All Rights Reserved Solve 2x
2
4x 3 = 0. Round your answer to two decimal places, if necessary.
There are no factors of (2)(3) = 6 that add up to 4, so I know that this quadratic cannot be factored. I will apply the Quadratic Formula. In this case, a = 2, b = 4, and c = 3:
Then the answer is x
= 0.58, x = 2.58, rounded to two decimal places.
Warning: The "solution" or "roots" or "zeroes" of a quadratic are usually required to be in the "exact" form of the answer. In the example above, the exact form is the one with the square roots of ten in it. You'll need to get a calculator approximation in order to graph the x-intercepts or to simplify the final answer in a word problem. But unless you have a good reason to think that the answer is supposed to be a rounded answer, always go with the exact form.
Compare the solutions of 2x intercepts of the graph:
4x 3 = 0 with the x-
Remember: The "solutions" of an equation are also the xintercepts of the corresponding graph.
Completing the Square: Quadratic Examples & Deriving the Quadratic Formula (page 2 of 2)
Solve x
2
+ 6x + 10 = 0.
Apply the same procedure as on the previous page: This is the original equation. Move the loose number over to the other side. Take half of the coefficient on the x-term (that is, divide it by two, and keeping the sign), and square it. Add this squares value to both sides of the equation. Convert the left-hand side to squared form. Simplify the right-hand side. Note: If you don't know about complex numbers yet, then you have to stop at this step, because a square can't equal a negative number! Otherwise, proceed... Square-root both sides. Remember to put the on the right-hand side. Solve for "x =", and simplify as necessary.
x2 + 6x + 10 = 0 x2 + 6x = 10
(x + 3)2 = 1
"" x = 3 i
If you don't yet know about complex numbers (the numbers with "i" in them), then you would say that the above quadratic has "no solution". If you do know about complexes, then you would say that this quadratic has "no real solution" or that is has a "complex solution". Since solving "(quadratic) = 0" for x is the same as finding the x-intercepts (assuming the solutions are real numbers), it stands to reason that this quadratic should not intersect the x-axis (since xintercepts are "real" numbers). As you can see below, the graph does not in fact cross the x-axis.
This relationship is always true. If you come up with a real value on the right-hand side of the equation (a zero value is real, by the way; the square root of zero is just zero), then the quadratic will have two x-intercepts (or only one, if you get plus/minus of zero on the right side); if you get a negative on the right-hand side, then the quadratic will not cross the x-axis.
Completing the Square: Solving Quadratic Equations (page 1 of 2)

Some quadratics are fairly simple to solve because they are of the form "something-with-x squared equals some number", and then you take the square root of both sides. An example would be:
(x 4)2 = 5 x 4 = sqrt(5) x = 4 sqrt(5) x = 4 sqrt(5) and x = 4 + sqrt(5)

Unfortunately, most quadratics don't come neatly squared like this. For your average everyday quadratic, you first have to use the technique of "completing the square" to rearrange the quadratic into the neat "(squared part) equals (a number)" format demonstrated above. For example: Find the x-intercepts of
y = 4x2 2x 5.
First off, remember that finding the x-intercepts means setting y equal to zero and solving for 2 the x-values, so this question is really asking you to "Solve 4x 2x 5 = 0".
This is the original problem. Move the loose number over to the other side. Divide through by whatever is multiplied on the squared term. Take half of the coefficient (don't forget the sign!) of the x-term, and square it. Add this square to both sides of the equation. Convert the left-hand side to squared form, and simplify the right-hand side. (This is where you use that sign that you kept track of earlier. You plug it into the middle of the parenthetical part.) Square-root both sides, remembering the "" on the right-hand side. Simplify as necessary. Solve for "x =". Remember that the "" means that you have two values for x. The answer can also be written in rounded form as
4x2 2x 5 = 0 4x2 2x = 5
You will need rounded form for "real life" answers to word problems, and for graphing. But (warning!) in most other cases, you should assume that the answer should be in "exact" form, complete with all the square roots. When you complete the square, make sure that you are careful with the sign on the x-term when you multiply by one-half. If you lose that sign, you can get the wrong answer in the end, because you'll forget what goes inside the parentheses. Also, don't be sloppy and wait to do the plus/minus sign until the very end. On your tests, you won't have the answers in the back, and you will likely forget to put the plus/minus into the answer. Besides, there's no reason to go ticking off your instructor by doing something wrong when it's so simple to do it right. On the same note, make sure you draw in the square root sign, as necessary, when you square root both sides. Don't wait until the answer in the back of the book "reminds" you that you "meant" to put the square root symbol in there. If you get in the habit of being sloppy, you'll only hurt yourself!
Solve x
+ 6x 7 = 0 by completing the square.
Do the same procedure as above, in exactly the same order. (Study tip: Always working these problems in exactly the same way will help you remember the steps when you're taking your tests.) Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 1999-2009 All Rights Reserved
This is the original equation. Move the loose number over to the other side. Take half of the x-term (that is, divide it by two) (and don't forget the sign!), and square it. Add this square to both sides of the equation. Convert the left-hand side to squared form. Simplify the right-hand side. Square-root both sides. Remember to do "" on the right-hand side. Solve for "x =". Remember that the "" gives you two solutions. Simplify as necessary.
x2 + 6x 7 = 0 x2 + 6x =7
(x + 3)2 = 16 x+3=4 x=34 = 3 4, 3 + 4 = 7, +1
If you are not consistent with remembering to put your plus/minus in as soon as you square-root both sides, then this is an example of the type of exercise where you'll get yourself in trouble. You'll write your answer as "x = 3 + 4 = 1", and have no idea how they got "x = 7", because you won't have a square root symbol "reminding" you that you "meant" to put the plus/minus in. That is, if you're sloppy, these easier problems will embarrass you! I'll do one last "example". It has become somewhat fashionable to have students derive the Quadratic 2 Formula themselves; this is done by completing the square for the generic quadratic equation ax + bx + c = 0. While I can understand the impulse (showing students how the Formula was invented, and thereby giving an example of the usefulness of symbolic manipulation), the computations involved are often a bit beyond the average student at this point. Here is what the instructor is looking for: Derive the Quadratic Formula by solving ax
2
+ bx + c = 0.
This is the original equation. Move the loose number to the other side. Divide through by whatever is multiplied on the squared term. Take half of the x-term, and square it. Add the squared term to both sides. Simplify on the right-hand side; in this case, simplify by converting to a common denominator.
ax2 + bx + c = 0 ax2 + bx = c
Convert the left-hand side to square form (and do a bit more simplifying on the right). Square-root both sides, remembering to put the "" on the right. Solve for "x =", and simplify as necessary. Whether you're working symbolically (as in the last example) or numerically (which is the norm), the key to solving by completing the square is to practice, practice, practice. By so doing, the process will become a bit more "automatic", and you'll remember the steps when you're taking the test.
Systems of Linear Equations: Definitions (page 1 of 7)

Sections: Definitions, Solving by graphing, Substitition, Elimination/addition, Gaussian elimination.
A "system" of equations is a set or collection of equations that you deal with all together at once. Linear equations (ones that graph as straight lines) are simpler than non-linear equations, and the simplest linear system is one with two equations and two variables. Think back to linear equations. For instance, consider the linear equation y = 3x 5. A "solution" to this equation was any x, y-point that "worked" in the equation. So (2, 1) was a solution because, plugging in 2 for x:
3x 5 = 3(2) 5 = 6 5 = 1 = y
On the other hand, (1,
2) was not a solution, because, plugging in 1 for x:
3x 5 = 3(1) 5 = 3 5 = 2
...which did not equal y (which was 2, for this point). Of course, in practical terms, you did not find solutions to an equation by picking random points, plugging them in, and checking to see if they "work" in the equation. Instead, you picked x-values and then calculated the corresponding y-values. And you used this same procedure to graph the equation. This points out an important fact: Every point on the graph was a solution to the equation, and any solution to the equation was a point on the graph. Now consider the following two-variable system of linear equations:
y = 3x 2 y = x 6
Since the two equations above are in a system, we deal with them together at the same time. In particular, we can graph them together on the same axis system, like this:
A solution for a single equation is any point that lies on the line for that equation. A solution for a system of equations is any point that lies on each line in the system. For example, the red point at right is not a solution to the system, because it is not on either line:
The blue point at right is not a solution to the system, because it lies on only one of the lines, not on both of them:
The purple point at right is a solution to the system, because it lies on both of the lines:
In particular, this purple point marks the intersection of the two lines. Since this point is on both lines, it thus solves both equations, so it solves the entire system of equation. And this relationship is always true: For systems of equations, "solutions" are "intersections". You can confirm the solution by plugging it into the system of equations, and confirming that the solution works in each equation. Determine whether either of the points (1, system of equations.
5) and (0, 2) is a solution to the given
y = 3x 2 y = x 6
To check the given possible solutions, I just plug the x- and y-coordinates into the equations, and check to see if they work. Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2003-2011 All Rights Reserved checking
(1, 5):
(5) ?=? 3(1) 2 5 ?=? 3 2 5 = 5 (solution checks) (5) ?=? (1) 6 5 ?=? 1 6 5 = 5 (solution checks)
Since the given point works in each equation, it is a solution to the system. Now I'll check the other point (which we already know, from looking at the graph, is not a solution): checking (0,
2):
(2) ?=? 3(0) 2 2 ?=? 0 2 2 = 2 (solution checks)

So the solution works in one of the equations. But to solve the system, it has to work in both equations. Continuing the check:
(2) ?=? (0) 6 2 ?=? 0 6 2 ?=? 6

But 2 does not equal 6, so this "solution" does not check. Then the answer is: only the point (1,
5) is a solution to the system
Systems of Linear Equations: Graphing (page 2 of 7)

When you are solving systems, you are, graphically, finding intersections of lines. For two-variable systems, there are then three possible types of solutions: Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
The first graph above, "Case 1", shows two distinct non-parallel lines that cross at exactly one point. This is called an "independent" system of equations, and the solution is always some x,y-point. Independent system: one solution point
Case 2
Case 3
The second graph above, "Case 2", shows two distinct lines that are parallel. Since parallel lines never cross, then there can be no intersection; that is, for a system of equations that graphs as parallel lines, there can be no solution. This is called an "inconsistent" system of equations, and it has no solution. Independent system: one solution and one intersection point Inconsistent system: no solution and no intersection point
Case 3
The third graph above, "Case 3", appears to show only one line. Actually, it's the same line drawn twice. These "two" lines, really being the same line, "intersect" at every point along their length. This is called a "dependent" system, and the "solution" is the whole line. Independent system: one solution and one intersection point Inconsistent system: no solution and no intersection point Dependent system: the solution is the whole line
This shows that a system of equations may have one solution (a specific x,y-point), no solution at all, or an infinite solution (being all the solutions to the equation). You will never have a system with two or three solutions; it will always be one, none, or infinitely-many.
Probably the first method you'll see for solving systems of equations will be "solving by graphing". Warning: You have to take these problems with a grain of salt. The only way you can find the solution from the graph is IF you draw a very neat axis system, IF you draw very neat lines, IF the solution happens to be a point with nice neat whole-number coordinates, and IF the lines are not close to being parallel. Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2003-2011 All Rights Reserved
For instance, if the lines cross at a shallow angle it can be just about impossible to tell where the lines cross.
And if the intersection point isn't a neat pair of whole numbers, all bets are off.
(Can you tell by looking that the displayed solution has coordinates of (4.3, 0.95)? No? Then you see my point.)
On the plus side, since they will be forced to give you nice neat solutions for "solving by graphing" problems, you will be able to get all the right answers as long as you graph very neatly. For instance: Solve the following system by graphing.
2x 3y = 2 4x + y = 24
I know I need a neat graph, so I'll grab my ruler and get started. First, I'll solve each equation for "y=", so I can graph easily:
2x 3y = 2 2x + 2 = 3y (2/3)x + (2/3) = y 4x + y = 24 y = 4x + 24
The second line will be easy to graph using just the slope and intercept, but I'll need a T-chart for the first line.
x 4 1 2 5 8
y = (2/3)x + (2/3) 8/3 + 2/3 = 6/3 = 2 2/3 + 2/3 = 0 4/3 + 2/3 = 6/3 = 2 10/3 + 2/3 = 12/3 = 4 16/3 + 2/3 = 18/3 = 6
y = 4x + 24 16 + 24 = 40 4 + 24 = 28 8 + 24 = 16 20 + 24 = 4 32 + 24 = 8
(Sometimes you'll notice the intersection right on the T-chart. Do you see the point that is in both equations above? Check the gray-shaded row above.)
Now that I have some points, I'll grab my ruler and graph neatly, and look for the intersection:
Even if I hadn't noticed the intersection point in the T-chart, I can certainly see it from the picture.
solution:
(x, y) = (5, 4
Systems of Linear Equations: Warnings (page 3 of 7)

Most "solving by graphing" problems work nicely, but sometimes they'll give you an inconsistent system (that is, two parallel lines) or a dependent system (that is, two forms of the same line equation). This is what these cases will look like: Solve the following system by graphing.
y = 36 9x 3x + y/3 = 12
As usual, I'll first solve the equations for "y =". The first equation, in this case, is already solved, so now I'll solve the second one: Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2003-2011 All Rights Reserved
3x + y/3 = 12 9x + y = 36 y = 36 9x
With both equations solved for "y =", I can see that these two equations are really both the same line! So the algebra tells me that this is a dependent system, and the solution is the whole line. Of course, this is a "solving by graphing" problem, so I still have to do the graph, but I already know the answer.
solution:
y = 36 9x
The solution to this system is the whole line, so, in my classes, you could give the answer as being "y = 36 9x". However, most books do something like this: You are looking for an x,y-solution, and, in this case, x = x and y = 36 9x, so the solution "point" is of the form (x, 36 9x). But then the book does this weird thing with "a" (or "t" or "s" or some other variable). Instead of using x, which is a perfectly good variable, they pull out this new variable from behind their left ear and give the solution as being "(a, 36 9a)". I have no idea why they do this, but if your book does this, then (Warning!) that is the format that your teacher will want on the test. Make sure you memorize the variable that your particular book uses (which was "a" in this example).
Solve the following system by graphing.
7x + 2y = 16 21x 6y = 24
As usual, I'll first solve each equation for "y =":
7x + 2y = 16 2y = 7x + 16 y = ( 7/2 )x + 8 21x 6y = 24 21x 24 = 6y ( 21/6 )x 4 = y ( 7/2 )x 4 = y

These lines have the same slope (m = /2 ) but different y-intercepts, so they are parallel. Since parallel lines never cross, the algebra tells me that this is an inconsistent system; that is, there is no solution. But this is a "solving by graphing" problem, so I still have to draw the picture.
7
solution: no solution (inconsistent system) Warning: When the algebra tells you that you have two parallel lines, for heaven's sake, draw the lines on your graph so they look parallel!
Note: The solution to a dependent system, being all the points along the line, contains infinitely-many points. But don't make the mistake of thinking that "infinitely-many" means "all". Any point off the line is not a solution; only the infinity of points actually on the line will solve the dependent system.
Also note: The pictures on the first page of this lesson are very useful for explaining "what's going on" with linear systems, but pictures are not terribly useful for finding actual solutions to systems. For instance, in the picture at right, is the solution point at (3, 2), or at (3.15, 1.97)?
You can't tell!
Or, in the picture at right, are the lines really parallel, so there's no solution? Or are you just looking at an un-useful portion of the graph?
You can't tell!
In this case, zooming out shows that the lines in the previous picture do indeed cross, at the point (450, 449.5). But this was not at all apparent in the "standard" viewing window shown above.
So you can see that the pictures can be useful, especially for the concepts, but you should take "solving by graphing" with a grain of salt, and should keep in mind that the algebraic techniques (rather than mere pictures) are the tools you need for solid answers.
The above discussion was specific to the two-equation, two-variable case, because you can draw pictures of the two-variable case to illustrate what is going on. But the terminology and basic concepts are the same, no matter how many variables you have. You could have four equations in four variables or twelve equations in twelve variables, and you would still be looking for where the "lines" "intersect" you just couldn't draw a picture of it. Formatting note: For reasons which will become apparent when you start working with matrices, equations in systems of equation are generally written with the variables on the left-hand side of the "equals" sign and the numbers on the right-hand side. Sometimes you'll find a question formatted differently, but variables-on-the-left will be the norm.
Systems of Linear Equations: Solving by Substitution (page 4 of 7)

The method of solving "by substitution" works by solving one of the equations (you choose which one) for one of the variables (you choose which one), and then plugging this back into the other equation, "substituting" for the chosen variable and solving for the other. Then you back-solve for the first variable. Here is how it works. (I'll use the same systems as were in a previous page.) Solve the following system by substitution.
2x 3y = 2 4x + y = 24
The idea here is to solve one of the equations for one of the variables, and plug this into the other equation. It does not matter which equation or which variable you pick. There is no right or wrong choice; the answer will be the same, regardless. But some choices may be better than others. For instance, in this case, can you see that it would probably be simplest to solve the second equation for "y =", since there is already a y floating around loose in the middle there? I could solve the first equation for either variable, but I'd get fractions, and solving the second equation for x would also give me fractions. It wouldn't be "wrong" to make a different choice, but it would probably be more difficult. Being lazy, I'll solve the second equation for y:
4x + y = 24 y = 4x + 24
Now I'll plug this in ("substitute it") for "y" in the first equation, and solve for x:
2x 3(4x + 24) = 2 2x + 12x 72 = 2 14x = 70 x = 5 Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2003-2011 All Rights Reserved
Now I can plug this x-value back into either equation, and solve for y. But since I already have an expression for "y =", it will be simplest to just plug into this:
y = 4(5) + 24 = 20 + 24 = 4
Then the solution is (x,
y) = (5, 4).
Warning: If I had substituted my "4x + 24" expression into the same equation as I'd used to solve for "y =", I would have gotten a true, but useless, statement:
4x + (4x + 24) = 24 4x 4x + 24 = 24 24 = 24
Twenty-four does equal twenty-four, but who cares? So when using substitution, make sure you substitute into the other equation, or you'll just be wasting your time. Solve the following system by substitution.
y = 36 9x 3x + y/3 = 12
We already know (from the previous lesson) that these equations are actually both the same line; that is, this is a dependent system. We know what this looks like graphically: we get two identical line equations, and a graph with just one line displayed. But what does this look like algebraically? The first equation is already solved for y, so I'll substitute that into the second equation:
3x + (36 9x)/3 = 12 3x + 12 3x = 12 12 = 12
Well, um... yes, twelve does equal twelve, but so what? I did substitute the first equation into the second equation, so this unhelpful result is not because of some screw-up on my part. It's just that this is what a dependent system looks like when you try to find a solution. Remember that, when you're trying to solve a system, you're trying to use the second equation to narrow down the choices of points on the first equation. You're trying to find the one single point that works in both equations. But in a dependent system, the "second" equation is really just another copy of the first equation, and all the points on the one line will work in the other line. In other words, I got an unhelpful result because the second line equation didn't tell me anything new. This tells me that the system is actually dependent, and that the solution is the whole line: solution:
y = 36 9x
This is always true, by the way. When you try to solve a system and you get a statement like " 12 = 12" or "0 = 0" something that's true, but unhelpful (I mean, duh!, of course twelve equals twelve!) then you have a dependent system. We already knew, from the previous lesson, that this system was dependent, but now you know what the algebra looks like.
(Keep in mind that your text may format the answer to look something like "(t, 36 9t)", or something similar, using some variable, some "parameter", other than "x". But this "parametrized" form of the solution means the exact same thing as "the solution is the line y = 36 9x".) Solve the following system by substitution.
7x + 2y = 16 21x 6y = 24
Neither of these equations is particularly easier than the other for solving. I'll get fractions, no matter which equation and which variable I choose. So, um... I guess I'll take the first equation, and I'll solve it for, um, y, because at least the 2 (from the "2y") will divide evenly into the 16.
7x + 2y = 16 2y = 7x + 16 y = ( 7/2 )x + 8
Now I'll plug this into the other equation:
21x 6(( 7/2 )x + 8) = 24 21x + 21x 48 = 24 48 = 24

Um... I don't think so.... In this case, I got a nonsense result. All my math was right, but I got an obviously wrong answer. So what happened? Keep in mind that, when solving, you're trying to find where the lines intersect. What if they don't intersect? Then you're going to get some kind of wrong answer when you assume that there is a solution (as I did when I tried to find that solution). We knew, from the previous lesson, that this system represents two parallel lines. But I tried, by substitution, to find the intersection point anyway. And I got a "garbage" result. Since there wasn't any intersection point, my attempt led to utter nonsense. solution: no solution (inconsistent system) This is always true, by the way. When you get a nonsense result, this is the algebraic indication that the system of equations is inconsistent. Note that this is quite different from the previous example. Warning: A true-but-useless result (like "12 = 12") is quite different from a nonsense "garbage" result (like "48 = 24"), just as two identical lines are quite different from two parallel lines. Don't confuse the two. A useless result means a dependent system which has a solution (the whole line); a nonsense result means an inconsistent system which has no solution of any kind.
Systems of Linear Equations: Solving by Addition / Elimination (page 5 of 7)

The addition method of solving systems of equations is also called the method of elimination. This method is similar to the method you probably learned for solving simple equations. If you had the equation "x + 6 = 11", you would write "6" under either side of the equation, and then you'd "add down" to get "x = 5" as the solution.
x + 6 = 11 6 6 x = 5
You'll do something similar with the addition method. Solve the following system using addition.
2x + y = 9 3x y = 16
Note that, if I add down, the y's will cancel out. So I'll draw an "equals" bar under the system, and add down:
2x + y = 9 3x y = 16 5x = 25
Now I can divide through to solve for x = 5, and then back-solve, using either of the original equations, to find the value of y. The first equation has smaller numbers, so I'll back-solve in that one:
2(5) + y = 9 10 + y = 9 y = 1
y) = (5, 1).
It doesn't matter which equation you use for the backsolving; you'll get the same answer either way. If I'd used the second equation, I'd have gotten:
3(5) y = 16 15 y = 16 y = 1 y = 1
...which is the same result as before. Solve the following system using addition.
x 2y = 9 x + 3y = 16
Note that the x-terms would cancel out if only they'd had opposite signs. I can create this cancellation by multiplying either one of the equations by 1, and then adding down as usual. It doesn't matter which equation I choose, as long as I am careful to multiply the 1 through the entire equation. (That means both sides of the "equals" sign!) I'll multiply the second equation.
The "1R2" notation over the arrow indicates that I multiplied row 2 by 1. Now I can solve the equation "5y = 25" to get y = 5. Back-solving in the first equation, I get:
x 2(5) = 9 x 10 = 9 x=1
y) = (1, 5).
A very common temptation is to write the solution in the form "(first number I found, second number I found)". Sometimes, though, as in this case, you find the y-value first and then the x-value second, and of course in points the x-value comes first. So just be careful to write the coordinates for your solutions correctly. Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2003-2011 All Rights Reserved Solve the following system using addition.
2x y = 9 3x + 4y = 14
Nothing cancels here, but I can multiply to create a cancellation. I can multiply the first equation by 4, and this will set up the y-terms to cancel.
Solving this, I get that x are smaller.
= 2. I'll use the first equation for backsolving, because the coefficients
2(2) y = 9 4y=9 y = 5 y = 5
The solution is (x,
y) = (2, 5).
Solve the following system using addition.
4x 3y = 25 3x + 8y = 10
Hmm... nothing cancels. But I can multiply to create a cancellation. In this case, neither variable is the obvious choice for cancellation. I can multiply to convert the x-terms to 12x's or the y-terms to 24y's. Since I'm lazy and 12 is smaller than 24, I'll multiply to cancel the xterms. (I would get the same answer in the end if I set up the y-terms to cancel. It's not that how I'm doing it is "the right way"; it was just my choice. You could make a different choice, and that would be just as correct.) I will multiply the first row by 3 and the second row by 4; then I'll add down and solve.
Solving, I get that y = 5. Neither equation looks particularly better than the other for backsolving, so I'll flip a coin and use the first equation.
4x 3(5) = 25 4x 15 = 25 4x = 40 x = 10
Remembering to put the x-coordinate first in the solution, I get:
(x, y) = (10, 5)
Usually when you are solving "by addition", you will need to create the cancellation. Warning: The most common mistake is to forget to multiply all the way through the equation, multiplying on both sides of the "equals" sign. Be careful of this. Solve the following using addition.
12x 13y = 2 6x + 6.5y = 2

I think I'll multiply the second equation by 2; this will at least get rid of the decimal place.
Oops! This result isn't true! So this is an inconsistent system (two parallel lines) with no solution (with no intersection point).
no solution Solve the following using addition.
12x 3y = 6 4x y = 2
I think it'll be simplest to cancel off the y-terms, so I'll multiply the second row by 3.
Well, yes, but...? I already knew that zero equals zero. So this is a dependent system, and, solving for "y =", the solution is:
y = 4x 2
(Your text may format the answer as "(s,
4s 2)", or something like that.)
Remember the difference: a nonsense answer (like "0 = 2" in the previous problem) means an inconsistent system with no solution; a useless answer (like "0 = 0" above) means a dependent system where the whole line is the solution. Some books use only "x" and "y" for their variables, but many use additional variables. When you write the solution for an x,y-point, you know that the x-coordinate goes first and the y-coordinate goes second. When you are dealing with other variables, assume (unless explicitly told otherwise) that those variables are written in alphabetical order. For instance, if the variables in a given system are a and b, the solution point would be (a, b); it would not be (b, a). Unless otherwise specified, the variables are written in alphabetical order
Systems of Linear Equations: Solving by Gaussian Elimination (page 6 of 7)

Solving three-variable, three-equation linear systems is more difficult, at least initially, than solving the two-variable systems, because the computations involved are more messy. You will need to be very neat in your working, and you should plan to use lots of scratch paper. The method for solving these systems is an extension of the two-variable solving-by-addition method, so make sure you know this method well and can use it consistently correctly. Though the method of solution is based on addition/elimination, trying to do actual addition tends to get very messy, so there is a systematized method for solving the three-or-more-variables systems. This method is called "Gaussian elimination" (with the equations ending up in what is called "rowechelon form"). Let's start simple, and work our way up to messier examples.
Solve the following system of equations.
5x + 4y z = 0 10y 3z = 11 z=3
It's fairly easy to see how to proceed in this case. I'll just back-substitute the z-value from the third equation into the second equation, solve the result for y, and then plug z and y into the first equation and solve the result for x.
10y 3(3) = 11 10y 9 = 11 10y = 20 y=2 5x + 4(2) (3) = 0 5x + 8 3 = 0 5x + 5 = 0 5x = 5 x = 1

Then the solution is
(x, y, z) = (1, 2, 3).
The reason this system was easy to solve is that the system was "triangular"; this refers to the equations having the form of a triangle, because of the lower equations containing only the later variables.
The point is that, in this format, the system is simple to solve. And Gaussian elimination is the method we'll use to convert systems to this upper triangular form, using the row operations we learned when we did the addition method. Solve the following system of equations using Gaussian elimination.
3x + 2y 6z = 6 5x + 7y 5z = 6 x + 4y 2z = 8
No equation is solved for a variable, so I'll have to do the multiplication-and-addition thing to simplify this system. In order to keep track of my work, I'll write down each step as I go. But I'll do my computations on scratch paper. Here is how I did it: The first thing to do is to get rid of the leading x-terms in two of the rows. For now, I'll just look at which rows will be easy to clear out; I can switch rows later to get the system into "upper triangular" form. There is no rule that says I have to use the x-term from the first row, and, in this case, I think it will be simpler to use the x-term from the third row, since its coefficient is simply "1". So I'll multiply the third row by 3, and add it to the first row. I do the computations on scratch paper:
...and then I write down the results:
(When we were solving two-variable systems, we could multiply a row, rewriting the system off to the side, and then add down. There is no space for this in a three-variable system, which is why we need the scratch paper.) Warning: Since I didn't actually do anything to the third row, I copied it down, unchanged, into the new matrix of equations. I used the third row, but I didn't actually change it. Don't confuse "using" with "changing". To get smaller numbers for coefficients, I'll multiply the first row by one-half:
Now I'll multiply the third row by 5 and add this to the second row. I do my work on scratch paper:
...and then I write down the results: Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2003-2011 All Rights Reserved
I didn't do anything with the first row, so I copied it down unchanged. I worked with the third row, but I only worked on the second row, so the second row is updated and the third row is copied over unchanged. Okay, now the x-column is cleared out except for the leading term in the third row. So next I have to work on the y-column. Warning: Since the third equation has an x-term, I cannot use it on either of the other two equations any more (or I'll undo my progress). I can work on the equation, but not with it.
If I add twice the first row to the second row, this will give me a leading 1 in the second row. I won't have gotten rid of the leading y-term in the second row, but I will have converted it (without getting involved in fractions) to a form that is simpler to deal with. (You should keep an eye out for this sort of simplification.) First I do the scratch work:
Now I can use the second row to clear out the y-term in the first row. I'll multiply the second row by 7 and add. First I do the scratch work:
I can tell what z is now, but, just to be thorough, I'll divide the first row by rearrange the rows to put them in upper-triangular form:
43. Then I'll
Now I can start the process of back-solving:
y 7(1) = 4 y 7 = 4 y=3 x + 4(3) 2(1) = 8 x + 12 2 = 8 x + 10 = 8 x = 2
(x, y, z) = (2, 3, 1).
Note: There is nothing sacred about the steps I used in solving the above system; there was nothing special about how I solved this system. You could work in a different order or simplify different rows, and still come up with the correct answer. These systems are sufficiently complicated that there is unlikely to be one right way of computing the answer. So don't stress over "how did she know to do that next?", because there is no rule. I just did whatever struck my fancy; I did whatever seemed simplest or whatever came to mind first. Don't worry if you would have used completely different steps. As long as each step along the way is correct, you'll come up with the same answer.
In the above example, I could have gone further in my computations and been more thorough-going in my row operations, clearing out all the y-terms other than that in the second row and all the z-terms other than that in the first row. This is what the process would then have looked like:
This way, I can just read off the values of x, y, and z, and I don't have to bother with the backsubstitution. This more-complete method of solving is called "Gauss-Jordan elimination" (with the equations ending up in what is called "reduced-row-echelon form"). Many texts only go as far as Gaussian elimination, but I've always found it easier to continue on and do Gauss-Jordan. Note that I did two row operations at once in that last step before switching the rows. As long as I'm not working with and working on the same row in the same step, this is okay. In this case, I was working with the first row and working on the second and third rows.
Systems of Linear Equations: Examples (page 7 of 7)

Solve the following system of equations using Gaussian elimination:
2x + y + 3z = 1 2x + 6y + 8z = 3 6x + 8y + 18z = 5
I think I'll use the first row to clear out the x-terms from the second and third rows:
Technically, I should now divide the first row by 2 to get a leading 1, but that will give me fractions, and I'd like to avoid that for as long as possible. Instead, I'll move on to using the second row to clear out the y-term from the third row:
I can divide the third row by 4:
To be technically correct, I'll now divide the second row by
5 and the first row by 2:
(You might want to check with your instructor regarding how particular he's going to be about proper form. Do you "have" to show all 1's for the leading coefficients, or it is acceptable to avoid fractions?) Back-solving, I get:
y + (0) = 2/5 y = 2 /5
x + ( 1/2 )( 2/5 ) + ( 3/2 )(0) = 1/2 x + 1/5 = 1/2 x = 3/10

(x, y, z) = ( 3/10, 2/5, 0).
Warning: While I didn't show my scratch work on this last problem, I did have to do the scratch work. Please use scratch paper and write things out; don't try to do this stuff in your head; there are just way too many opportunities for errors. (Ya wanna know how many mistakes I made while writing this lesson? Don't even get me started!) Here's another example: Solve the following system:
3x + y 6z = 10 2x + y 5z = 8 6x 3y + 3z = 0
I think I'll use the second row to work on the x-terms in the first and third rows. I'll be able to clear out the third row, and I'll be able to produce a 1x as the leading term in the first row. This will let me finish the job of clearing out the x-column, and I'll be able to do it without having to deal with fractions:
(Many instructors would teach you always to divide through on one of the rows to get a leading coefficient of 1, but I would rather take an extra step or two and use addition to get a leading 1. That's just a personal preference, but I'm sure you can see the advantage of avoiding fractions for as long as possible. It can really cut down on computational errors.) Now I'll use that nice leading x in the first row to clear out the leading term in the second row. While I'm at it, I'll also divide the third row by 6, to get smaller numbers:
Hm... The second and third rows are the same. I can use the second row to clear out the third row entirely: Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2003-2011 All Rights Reserved
Thinking back to the two-variable case, getting a line like "0 = 0" (which is true, but unhelpful) means that this is a dependent system, and the solution is going to have variables in it. If you
get into linear algebra much, you will learn that the answer above means that the solution is a line in three-dimensional space rather than a single point. For now, all you need to know is how to write the solution. To find the solution, I have to solve the two remaining equations for x and y in terms of z:
x z = 2 x=z2 y 3z = 4 y = 3z 4 (x, y, z) = (t 2, 3t 4, t)
Remember that your book may use some variable other than "t", and that t is just standing in for z. This form of the solution just says that z is whatever value you chose, and then x is two less than that and y is four less than three times as much as z. Solve the following system of equations:
x +z=1 x+y+z=2 xy+z=1

You should be getting the hang of things by now, so I'll just show the steps that I used:
As soon as I get a nonsense row (like "0 I can quit.
= 1"), I know that this is an inconsistent system, and
inconsistent system: no solution Remember the difference between the two special cases: A trivial row (such as " 0 = 0") means you have a dependent system with a solution that contains variables; a nonsensical row (such as "0 = 1") means you have an inconsistent system with no solution whatsoever. Don't confuse these; they are (Warning!) common trick questions on tests. Depending on the course, you might now move on to using matrices for solving systems of equations. If you do, the techniques you'll be learning for matrices will likely be very similar to what you have seen in this lesson.
Straight-Line Equations: Slope-Intercept Form (page 1 of 3)

Sections: Slope-intercept form, Point-slope form, Parallel and perpendicular lines
Straight-line equations, or "linear" equations, graph as straight lines, and have simple variable expressions with no exponents on them. If you see an equation with only x and y as opposed to, 2 say x or sqrt(y) then you're dealing with a straight-line equation. There are different types of "standard" formats for straight lines; the particular "standard" format your book refers to may differ from that used in some other books. (There is, ironically, no standard definition of "standard form".) The various "standard" forms are often holdovers from a few centuries ago, when mathematicians couldn't handle very complicated equations, so they tended to obsess about the simple cases. Nowadays, you likely needn't worry too much about the "standard" forms; this lesson will only cover the more-helpful forms.
I think the most useful form of straight-line equations is the "slope-intercept" form:
y = mx + b
This is called the slope-intercept form because "m" is the slope and "b" gives the y-intercept. (For a review of how this equation is used for graphing, look at slope and graphing.) I like slope-intercept form the best. It is in the form "y=", which makes it easiest to plug into, either for graphing or doing word problems. Just plug in your x-value; the equation is already solved for y. Also, this is the only format you can plug into your (nowadays obligatory) graphing calculator; you have to have a "y=" format to use a graphing utility. But the best part about the slope-intercept form is that you can read off the slope and the intercept right from the equation. This is great for graphing, and can be quite useful for word problems. Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2000-2011 All Rights Reserved
Common exercises will give you some pieces of information about a line, and you will have to come up with the equation of the line. How do you do that? You plug in whatever they give you, and solve for whatever you need, like this: Find the equation of the straight line that has slope and passes through the point (1, 6).
m=4
Okay, they've given me the value of the slope; in this case, m = 4. Also, in giving me a point on the line, they have given me an x-value and a y-value for this line: x = 1 and y = 6. In the slope-intercept form of a straight line, I have y, m, x, and b. So the only thing I don't have so far is a value for is b (which gives me the y-intercept). Then all I need to do is plug in what they gave me for the slope and the x and y from this particular point, and then solve for b:
y = mx + b (6) = (4)(1) + b 6 = 4 + b 2 = b
Then the line equation must be "y = What if they don't give you the slope? Find the equation of the line that passes through the points
4x 2".
(2, 4) and (1, 2).
Well, if I have two points on a straight line, I can always find the slope; that's what the slope formula is for.
Now I have the slope and two points. I know I can find the equation (by solving first for " b") if I have a point and the slope. So I need to pick one of the points (it doesn't matter which one), and use it to solve for b. Using the point (2, 4), I get:
y = mx + b 4 = ( 2/3)(2) + b 4 = 4 /3 + b 4 4/3 = b 12/3 4/3 = b b = 8/3

...so
y = ( 2/3 ) x + 8/3. (1, 2), I get:
On the other hand, if I use the point
y = mx + b 2 = ( 2/3)(1) + b 2 = 2 /3 + b 2 + 2 /3 = b 6 /3 + 2/3 = b b = 8 /3
So it doesn't matter which point I choose. Either way, the answer is the same:
y = ( 2/3)x + 8/3
As you can see, once you have the slope, it doesn't matter which point you use in order to find the line equation. The answer will work out the same either way.
Straight-Line Equations: Point-Slope Form (page 2 of 3)

The other format for straight-line equations is called the "point-slope" form. For this one, they give you a point (x1, y1) and a slope m, and have you plug it into this formula:
y y1 = m(x x1)
Don't let the subscripts scare you. They are just intended to indicate the point they give you. You have the generic "x" and generic "y" that are always in your equation, and then you have the specific x and y from the point they gave you; the specific x and y are what is subscripted in the formula. Here's how you use the point-slope formula: Find the equation of the straight line that has slope the point (1, 6).
m = 4 and passes through
This is the same line that I found on the previous page, so I already know what the answer is (namely, y = 4x 2). But let's see how the process works with the point-slope formula. They've given me m = 4, x1 form, and solve for "y=":
= 1, and y1 = 6. I'll plug these values into the point-slope
y y1 = m(x x1) y (6) = (4)(x (1)) y + 6 = 4(x + 1) y + 6 = 4x + 4 y = 4x + 4 6 y = 4x 2 Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2000-2011 All Rights Reserved
This matches the result I got when I plugged into the slope-intercept form. This shows that it really doesn't matter which method you use (unless the text or teacher specifies). You can get the same answer either way, so use whichever method works more comfortably for you. You can find the straight-line equation using the point-slope form if they just give you a couple points: Find the equation of the line that passes through the points
(2, 4) and (1, 2).
I've already answered this one, but let's look at the process. I should get the same result 2 8 (namely, y = ( /3 ) x + /3 ). Given two points, I can always find the slope:
Then I can use either point as my (x1, y1), along with this slope Ive just calculated, and plug in to the point-slope form. Using (2, 4) as the (x1, y1), I get:
y y1 = m(x x1) y (4) = ( 2/3 )(x (2)) y 4 = ( 2/3 )(x + 2) y 4 = ( 2/3 ) x 4/3 y = ( 2/3 ) x 4/3 + 4 y = ( 2/3 ) x 4/3 + 12/3 y = ( 2/3 ) x + 8/3
This is the same answer I got when I plugged into the slope-intercept form. So, unless your text or teacher specifies the method or format to use, you should use whichever format suits your taste, because you'll get the same answer either way.
Straight-Line Equations: Parallel and Perpendicular Lines (page 3 of 3)

Sections: Slope-intercept form, Point-slope form, Parallel and perpendicular lines
There is one other consideration for straight-line equations: finding parallel and perpendicular lines. Here is the usual format for the question: Given the line 2x 3y = 9 and the point (4, 1), find lines through the point that are (a) parallel to the given line and (b) perpendicular to it. In other words, they've given me a reference line 2x 3y = 9 that I'll be comparing to, and some point somewhere else on the plane namely, (4, 1). Then they want me to find the line through (4, 1) that is parallel to (that has the same slope as) 2x 3y = 9. On top of that, they then want me to find the line through (4, 1) that is perpendicular to (that has a slope that is the negative reciprocal of the slope of) 2x 3y = 9. Clearly, the first thing I need to do is solve "2x 3y = 9" for "y=", so that I can find my reference slope: Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2000-2011 All Rights Reserved
2x 3y = 9 3y = 2x + 9 y = ( 2/3)x 3
So the reference slope from the reference line is
m = 2/3.
Since a parallel line has an identical slope, then the parallel line through (4, 1) will have 2 slope m = /3. Hey, now I have a point and a slope! So I'll use the point-slope form to find the line:
y (1) = ( 2/3 )(x 4) y + 1 = ( 2/3 ) x 8/3 y = ( 2/3 ) x 8/3 3/3 y = ( 2/3 ) x 11/3
This is the parallel line that they asked for. For the perpendicular line, I have to find the perpendicular slope. The reference slope is m = 2 /3, and, for the perpendicular slope, I'll flip this slope and change the sign. Then the 3 perpendicular slope is m = /2. So now I can do the point-slope form. Note that the only change from the calculations I just did is that the slope is different now.
y (1) = ( 3/2 )(x 4) y + 1 = ( 3 /2 ) x + 6 y = ( 3 /2 ) x + 5

Then the full solution to this exercise is: parallel: y = ( /3 ) x /3 3 perpendicular: y = ( /2 ) x
2 11
+5
Warning: If a question asks you whether two given lines are "parallel, perpendicular, or neither", you must answer that question by finding their slopes, not by drawing a picture! Pictures can only give you a rough idea of what is going on, but you cannot tell "by looking" that lines with slopes of, say, m1 = 1.00 and m2 = 0.99 are NOT parallel, because they'll sure look parallel on their graphs. But since 1.00 does not equal 0.99, the lines are not parallel. Find the slopes; don't just draw the pictures.
Solving One-Step Linear Equations (page 2 of 4)

Sections: One-step equations, Multi-step equations, "No solution" and "all x" equations
The "undo" of multiplication is division. If something is multiplied on the x, you undo it by dividing both sides (that is, dividing each term on both sides) of the equation by whatever is multiplied on the x: Solve 2x
=5
Since the x is multiplied by 2, I need to divide both sides by 2:
Then the solution is x
= 5/2 or x = 2.5.
Warning: Usually the fractional form is the preferred form for your answers, rather than the decimal form; usually texts (and teachers) will prefer the "five-halves" answer over the "2.5" answer. If in doubt, check with your instructor. The "undo" of division is multiplication: Solve
x
/5 = 6
Since the x is divided by 5, I'll want to multiply both sides by 5:
= 30.
In the above solution (displayed in the animation), I multiplied by 5 on the right-hand side of the equation, and by 5/1 on the left-hand side. Since 5 = 5/1, this was a legitimate thing to do; I was being "fair" and doing the same thing to both sides of the equation. But why did I do it? Because it is often easier to keep track of what you're doing, when working with fractions, if all the numbers involved are in fractional form. Since I was needing to cancel a 1/5 on the left-hand side, it was useful to multiply by 5 in the form 5/1. Most students find this habit to be helpful, so try to cultivate it now.
There is one very important point to make now: The solution to an equation is the value that makes the equation "true". This fact allows you to check your solutions. All you have to do is plug them back into the original equation, and make sure that you end up with a true statement. The first equation above was x + 6 back in, and see if it works: Check x
= 3, and our solution was x = 9. To verify this solution, plug it
= 9 as a solution for x + 6 = 3:
x + 6 = 3 [9] + 6 ?=? 3 9 + 6 ?=? 3 6 9 ?=? 3 3 = 3 Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2002-2011 All Rights Reserved
The last line above, 3 = 3, is a true statement, so the solution "checks", and the answer is verified as being correct. The other solutions above can be checked in the same way:
Check x
= 2 for x 3 = 5:
x 3 = 5 [2] 3 ?=? 5 2 3 ?=? 5 2 + (3) ?=? 5 5 = 5

Check x
= 2.5 for 2x = 5:
2x = 5 2[2.5] ?=? 5 5 = 5
Check x
= 30 for x / 5 = 6:
x / 5 = 6 [30] / 5 ?=? 6 6 = 6
So all of the solutions "check".
There is one "special case" related to the "undoing multiplication" case above: When x is multiplied by a fraction, you "undo" this multiplication by dividing both sides of the equation by that fraction. To divide by a fraction, you flip-n-multiply. To isolate a variable that is multiplied by a fraction, just multiply both sides of the equation by the flip ("reciprocal") of that fraction. For example: Solve
3
/5 x = 10
3 5
Since x is multiplied by /5, I'll want to multiply both sides by /3, to cancel off the fraction on the x. Many students find it helpful to also turn the 10 into a fraction, by putting it over 1.
= 50/3.
Usually, you'll have to solve more complicated equations...
Solving Multi-Step Linear Equations (page 3 of 4)

Most linear equations require more than one step for their solution. For instance:
Solve 7x
+ 2 = 54
I need to undo the "times seven" and the "plus two". There is no rule about which "undo" I should do first. However, if I first divide through by 7, I'm going to have fractions. Personally, I prefer to avoid fractions if possible, so I almost always do any plus / minus before any times / divide:
= 8.
Formatting your homework and showing your work in the manner I have done above is, in my experience, fairly universally acceptable. However (warning!), it is also a good idea to clearly rewrite your final answer at the end of each exercise, as shown (in purple) above. Don't expect your grader to take the time to dig through your work and try to figure out what you probably meant your answer to be. Format your work so as to make your meaning clear! Solve 5x
7 = 108
Then the solution is Solve 3x
x = 23.
9 = 33 Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2002-2011 All Rights Reserved
x = 14.
+ 7x = 72
First, I need to combine like terms on the left; then I can solve:
x = 6.
6 = 6x
I need to move all the x's over to one side or the other. To avoid negative coefficients on my variables, I usually move the smaller x; in this case, I'll subtract the 4x over to the other side:
= 3.
In the above exercise, note that it is perfectly okay to have the " x=" be on the right. The variable is not "required" to be on the left; we're just used to seeing it there. It's alright if your solution works out with the variable on the right. However (warning!), I have heard of some instructors who insist that the variable be placed on the left-hand side in the final answer. (No, I'm not making that up.) If you have any doubts about your instructor's formatting preferences, ask now. Solve 8x
1 = 23 4x
Then the solution is Solve 5
x = 2.
+ 4x 7 = 4x 2 x
Before I can solve, I need to combine like terms:
= 0.
It is perfectly fine for x to have a value of zero. Zero is a valid solution. Do not say that this equation has "no solution"; it does indeed have a solution, that solution being x = 0. Solve 0.2x
+ 0.9 = 0.3 0.1x
This equation solves just like all the other linear equations. It just looks worse because of the decimals. But that's easy to fix: however many decimal places I have, I can multiply by " 1" followed by that number of zeroes. In this case, I'll multiply through by 10:
10(0.2x) + 10(0.9) = 0(0.3) 10(0.1x) 2x + 9 = 3 1x

Then I solve as usual:
2x + 1x + 9 9 = 3 9 1x + 1x 3x = 6 x = 2
If one of the decimals had had two decimal places, then I'd have multiplied through by 100; for three, I'd have multiplied through by 1000.
Solve To simplify my computations for equations with fractions, I can first multiply through by the common denominator. For this equation, the common denominator is 12:
3x + 12 = 2x + 6 3x 2x + 12 12 = 2x 2x + 6 12
Solving Linear Equations with Parentheses; Solving "No Solution" Equations and "All Real Numbers" Equations (page 4 of 4)
Sections: One-step equations, Multi-step equations, "No solution" and "all x" equations
Solve 11
+ 3x 7 = 6x + 5 3x
First, combine like terms; then solve:
Then the "solution" is "no solution". When you try to solve an equation, you are starting from the (unstated) assumption that there actually is a solution. When you end up with nonsense (like the nonsensical equation "4 = 5" above), this says that your initial assumption (that there was a solution) was wrong; in fact, there is no solution. Since the statement "4 = 5" is utterly false, and since there is no value of x that ever could make it true, then this equation has no solution. Advisory: This answer is entirely unlike the answer to the previous exercise, where there was a value of x that would work. Don't confuse these two very different situations: "the solution exists and has the value of zero" is not in any manner the same as "no solution value exists at all". And don't confuse the "no solution" type of equation above with the following type: Solve 6x
+ 5 2x = 4 + 4x + 1
First, I'll combine like terms; then I'll solve:
Is there any value of x that would make the above statement false? Isn't 5 always going to equal 5? In fact, since there is no "x" in the solution, the value of x is irrelevant: x can be anything I want. So the solution is "all x". This solution could also be stated as "all real numbers" or "all reals" or "the whole number line"; expect some variation in lingo from one text to the next. Note that, if I had solved the equation by subtracting a 5 from either side of 5 + 4x = 5 + 4x to get "4x = 4x", I would have ended up with nothing other than another trivially-true statement. I could also have subtracted both 4x and 5 from both sides to get "0 = 0", but the solution would still be the same: "all x". Don't be surprised if, for "all real numbers" or "no solution" equations, you don't necessarily have the exact same steps as some of your fellow students. Since there are infinitely-many always-true equations (like "0 = 0") and infinitelymany nonsensical equations (like "3 = 4"), there will be many ways of arriving at these answers.
Solve 9
= 3(5x 2)
First, I have to multiply through the parentheses on the right. Then I can proceed in the usual way:
x = 1.
(3x + 8) = 16
Be careful with taking negatives through parentheses. If it helps you to put a "1" in front of the parentheses, then do so. Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2002-2011 All Rights Reserved I"ll simplify on the left-hand side first; then I'll solve in the usual way:
Then the solution is Solve 7(5x
x = 8.
2) = 6(6x 1)
I have to be sure to take the 7 and the 6 all the way through their respective parentheses.
x = 8.
For this type of problem, take your time and write out all of your steps. Don't try to do everything in your head.
Solve 13
(2x + 2) = 2(x + 2) + 3x
Multiply through the parentheses (a minus sign on the left, and a two on the right), combine like terms, simplify, and solve:
x = 1.
Don't forget: There is never any reason to be unsure of your solution: you can always check your answer to any equation-solving exercise! The point of a solution is that it is the x-value that makes the equation true. To check your answer, plug your solution back into the original equation, and make sure that the equation "works". For instance, in the last exercise above, my solution was x = 1. Here's the check:
13 (2x + 2) = 2(x + 2) + 3x 13 (2[1] + 2) ?=? 2([1] + 2) + 3[1] 13 (2 + 2) ?=? 2(1 + 2) + 3 13 (4) ?=? 2(3) + 3 13 4 ?=? 6 + 3 9 = 9
So the solution "checks", and I know that my answer is correct. Advisory: This ability to check your answers can come in handy on tests. Once you've completed all the questions, go back and plug in your solutions. If the solution "checks", then you know you got that question right. If it doesn't check, then you have the chance to correct your mistake before you hand in the test!
x = 6
Solving Logarithmic Equations: Solving from the Definition (page 1 of 3)

Sections: Solving from the definition, Solving with exponentials, Calculator Considerations
The first type of logarithmic equation has two logs, each having the same base, set equal to each other, and you solve by setting the insides (the "arguments") equal to each other. For example: Solve log2(x)
= log2(14).
Since the logarithms on either side of the equation have the same base ("2", in this case), then the only way these two logs can be equal is for their arguments to be equal. In other words, the log expressions being equal says that the arguments must be equal, so I have:
x = 14
And that's the solution: x Solve logb(x
2
= 14
) = logb(2x 1).
Since the bases of the logs are the same (the unknown value "b", in this case), then the insides must be equal. That is:
x2 = 2x 1
Then I can solve the log equation by solving this quadratic equation:
x2 2x + 1 = 0 (x 1)(x 1) = 0
= 1.
Logarithms cannot have non-positive arguments, but quadratics and other equations can have negative solutions. So it is generally a good idea to check the solutions you get for log equations:
logb(x2) = logb(2x 1) logb([1]2) ?=? logb(2[1] 1) logb(1) ?=? logb(2 1) logb(1) = logb(1)
The value of the base of the log is irrelevant here. Each log has the same base, each log ends up with the same argument, and that argument is a positive value, so the solution "checks". Solve logb(x
2
30) = logb(x).
Since the logs have the same base, I can set the arguments equal and solve:
x2 30 = x x2 x 30 = 0
(x 6)(x + 5) = 0 x = 6, 5 Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2002-2011 All Rights Reserved

Since I cannot have a negative inside a logarithm, the quadratic-equation solution "x = 5" can not be a valid solution to the original logarithmic equation (in particular, this negative value won't work in the right-hand side of the original equation). The solution is x Solve 2logb(x)
= 6.
= logb(4) + logb(x 1).
All of these logs have the same base, but I can't solve yet, because I don't yet have "log equals log". So first I'll have to apply log rules:
2logb(x) = logb(4) + logb(x 1) logb(x2) = logb((4)(x 1)) logb(x2) = logb(4x 4)

Then:
x2 = 4x 4 x2 4x + 4 = 0 (x 2)(x 2) = 0
The solution is x Solve ln( e
x
= 2.
) = ln( e3 ) + ln( e5 ).
Remember the defintion of logarithms. Logarithms are powers. Specifically, "logb(a)" is the power that, when put on the base "b", gives you "a". In this case, the base of the log is e. The argument of "ln(
ex )" is "ex". That is, "ln( ex )" is "the power that, when put on e, gives you ex.
x x
Well, what power do you have to put on e to get e ? Why, x, of course! So ln( e ) = x. 3 5 Similarly, ln( e ) = 3 and ln( e ) = 5. So the given equation simplifies quite nicely:
ln( ex ) = ln( e3 ) + ln( e5 ) x=3+5 x=8

The solution is x
= 8.
Note: This could also have been solved using log rules:
ln( ex ) = ln( e3 ) + ln( e5 ) ln( ex ) = ln(( e3 )( e5 )) ln( ex ) = ln( e3 + 5 ) ln( ex ) = ln( e8 )

Comparing the arguments:
ex = e8 x=8
Solving Logarithmic Equations: Solving with Exponentials (page 2 of 3)

The second type of log equation requires the use of The Relationship:
The Relationship y = bx
..............is equivalent to............... (means the exact same thing as)
logb(y) = x
Note that the base in both the exponential form of the equation and the logarithmic form of the equation (above) is "b", but that the x and y switch sides when you switch between the two equations. If you can remember this that whatever had been the argument of the log becomes the "equals" and whatever had been the "equals" becomes the exponent in the exponential, and vice versa then you should not have too much trouble with solving log equations. Solve log2(x)
= 4.
Since this is "log equals a number", rather than "log equals log", I can solve by using The Relationship:
log2(x) = 4 24 = x 16 = x
Solve log2(8) = x. I can solve this by converting the logarithmic statement into its equivalent exponential form, using The Relationship:
log2(8) = x 2x=8
But 8
= 23, so: 2 x = 23 x=3
Note that this could also have been solved by working directly from the definition of a logarithm: What power, when put on "2", would give you an 8? The power 3, of course! If you wanted to give yourself a lot of work, you could also do this one in your calculator, using the change-of-base formula:
log2(8) = ln(8) / ln(2)

Plug this into your calculator, and you'll get "3" as your answer. While this change-of-base technique is not particularly useful in this case, you can see that it does work. (Try it on your calculator, if you haven't already, so you're sure you know which keys to punch, and in which order.) You will need this technique in later problems. Solve log2(x)
+ log2(x 2) = 3
I can't do anything yet, because I don't yet have "log equals a number". So I'll need to use log rules to combine the two terms on the left-hand side of the equation:
log2(x) + log2(x 2) = 3 log2((x)(x 2)) = 3 log2(x2 2x) = 3

Then I'll use The Relationship to convert the log form to the corresponding exponential form, and then I'll solve the result:
log2(x2 2x) = 3 23 = x2 2x 8 = x2 2x 0 = x2 2x 8 0 = (x 4)(x + 2) x = 4, 2

But if x = 2, then "log2(x)", from the original logarithmic equation, will have a negative number for its argument (as will the term "log2(x 2)"). Since logs cannot have zero or negative arguments, then the solution to the original equation cannot be x = 2. The solution is x
= 4.
Keep in mind that you can check your answers to any "solving" exerice by plugging those answers back into the original equation and checking that the solution "works":
log2(x) + log2(x 2) = 3 log2(4) + log2(4 2) ?=? 3 log2(4) + log2(2) ?=? 3

Since the power that turns "2" into "4" is 2 and the power that turns "2" into "2" is "1", then we have:
log2(4) + log2(2) ?=? 3 log2(22) + log2(21) ?=? 3 2 + 1 ?=? 3 3=3

The solution checks.
Solve log2(log2(x))
= 1.
This may look overly-complicated, but it's just another log equation. To solve this, I'll need to apply The Relationship twice:
log2(log2(x)) = 1 21 = log2(x) 2 = log2(x) x = 22 x=4

Then the solution is x Solve log2(x
2
= 4.
) = (log2(x))2.
First, I'll write out the square on the right-hand side:
log2(x2) = (log2(x))2 log2(x2) = (log2(x)) (log2(x))

Then I'll apply the log rule to move the "squared", from inside the log on the left-hand side of the equation, out in front of that log as a multiplier. Then I'll move that term to the right-hand side:
2log2(x) = [log2(x)] [log2(x)] 0 = [log2(x)] [log2(x)] 2log2(x)

This may look bad, but it's nothing more than a factoring exercise at this point. So I'll factor, and then I'll solve the factors by using The Relationship:
[log2(x) 2] log2(x) = 0 or log2(x) 2 = 0 20 = x or log2(x) = 2 1 = x or 22 = x 1 = x or 4 = x

0 = [log2(x)] The solution is x
= 1, 4.
Solving Logarithmic Equations: Calculator Considerations (page 3 of 3)

The next level of this type of log equation may require a calculator to solve. An example would be: Solve ln(x)
= 3.
The base of the natural logarithm is the number "e" (with a value of about 2.7). To solve this, I'll use The Relationship, and I'll keep in mind that the base is " e":
ln(x) = 3 e3 = x
This is a valid solution, and may be all that your books wants for the answer. However, if you need to graph this value or if this is the answer to a word problem, then a decimal approximation may be more useful. In that case, the answer is x = 20.086, rounded to three decimal places. Note that this decimal form is not "better" than "e "; actually, "e " is the exact, and therefore the more 3 correct, answer. But whereas something like 2 can be simplified to a straight-forward 8, the irrational 3 value of e can only be approximated in the calculator. Make sure you know how to operate your calculator for finding this type of solution. Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2002-2011 All Rights Reserved Solve log2(x)
3 3
= 4.5.
First I'll convert the log equation to the corresponding exponential form, using The Relationship:
log2(x) = 4.5 24.5 = x

This requires a calculator for finding the approximate decimal value. The answer is x
= 24.5 = 22.63, rounded to two decimal places.
Solving this sort of equation usually works this way: You use The Relationship to convert the log equation into the corresponding exponential equation, and then you may or may not need to use your calculator to find an approximation of the exact form of the answer. By the way, when finding approximations with your calculator, don't round as you go along. Instead, do all the solving and simplification algebraically; then, at the end, do the decimal approximation as one (possibly long) set of commands in the calculator. Round-off error can get really big really fast with logs, and you don't want to lose points because you rounded too early and thus too much. Solve log2(3x)
= 4.5.
I'll use The Relationship, followed by some algebra:
log2(3x) = 4.5 24.5 = 3x (24.5) 3 = x x = 7.54247233266...

The answer is x
= (24.5) / 3, or x = 7.54, rounded to two decimal places.
If you try to check your solution by plugging "7.54" into the calculator for "x" in the original equation, you will get a result that is close to 4.5, but not exact. This will be due to round-off error. Keep this round-off-error difficulty in mind when checking your solutions; when you plug the decimal into the original equation, just make sure that the result is close enough to be reasonable. For instance, to check the solution of the equation log2(3x) = 4.5, I'll plug 7.54 in for x:
log2(3x) = 4.5 log2(3(7.54)) ?=? 4.5 log2(22.62) ?=? 4.5 ln(22.62) ln(2) ?=? 4.5 4.49952702422... ?=? 4.5
Solving Exponential Equations: Solving from the Definition (page 1 of 3)

Sections: Solving from the definition, Solving using logarithms, Calculators
To solve exponential equations without logarithms, you need to have equations with comparable exponential expressions on either side of the "equals" sign, so you can compare the powers and solve. In other words, you have to have "(some base) to (some power) equals (the same base) to (some other power)", where you set the two powers equal to each other, and solve the resulting equation. For example: Solve 5
x
= 53.
Since the bases ("5" in each case) are the same, then the only way the two expressions could be equal is for the powers also to be the same. That is:
x=3
This solution demonstrates how this entire class of equation is solved: if the bases are the same, then the powers must also be the same, in order for the two sides of the equation to be equal to each other. Since the powers must be the same, then you can set the two powers equal to each other, and solve the resulting equation. Solve 10
1x
= 104
Since the bases are the same, I can equate the powers and solve:
1x=4 14=x 3 = x
Sometimes you'll first need to convert one side or the other (or both) to some other base before you can set the powers equal to each other. For example: Solve 3 Since 9
x
= 9. Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2002-2011 All Rights Reserved
= 32, this is really asking me to solve: 3x = 32
By converting the 9 to a 3 , I've converted the right-hand side of the equation to having the same base as the left-hand side. Since the bases are now the same, I can set the two powers equal to each other:
x=2
Solve 3
2x1
= 27.
In this case, I have an exponential on one side of the "equals" and a number on the other. I 3 can solve the equation if I can express the "27" as a power of 3. Since 27 = 3 , then I can convert and proceed with the solution:
32x1 = 27 32x1 = 33 2x 1 = 3 2x = 4 x=2

As you can probably tell, you will need to get good with your powers of numbers, such as the powers 6 5 4 of 2 up through 2 = 64, the powers of 3 up through 3 = 243, the powers of 4 up through 4 = 256, 4 3 the powers of 5 up through 5 = 625, the powers of 6 up through 6 = 216, and all the squares. Warning: Don't plan to depend on your calculator for everything, because having to find every value in your calculator can waste a lot of time. You'll want to have a certain degree of facility, of familiarity and speed, by the time you reach the test, so familiarize yourself with the smaller powers now. Solve 3
x^23x
= 81.
Formatting note: HTML doesn't generally "like" nested superscripts, so the above uses the "carat" notation to denote the exponent. This exercise works just like the previous one:
3x^23x = 81 3x^23x = 34 x2 3x = 4 x2 3x 4 = 0 (x 4)(x + 1) = 0 x = 1, 4

Solve 4
2x^2+2x
= 8. 8 is not a
This equation is similar to the previous two but is not quite the same, because power of 4. However, both 8 and 4 are powers of 2, so I can convert:
4 = 22 8 = 23 42x^2+2x = (22)2x^2+2x = 2(2)(2x^2+2x) = 24x^2+4x

Now I can solve:
4 =8 4x^2+4x 2 = 23 2 4x + 4x = 3 4x2 + 4x 3 = 0 (2x 1)(2x + 3) = 0 x = 1/2 , 3/2

Solve 4
x+1
2x^2+2x
= 1/64.
Negative exponents can be used to indicate that the base belongs on the other side of the 3 fraction line. Since 64 = 4 , then I can use negative exponents to convert the fraction to an 1 3 1 3 exponential expression: /64 = (4 ) = 4 . Using this, I can solve the equation:
4x+1 = 1/64 4x+1 = 43 x + 1 = 3 x = 4

Solve 8
x2
= sqrt[8]
I need to recall that square roots are the same as one-half powers, and convert the radical to exponential form. Then I can solve the equation:
8 x2 = sqrt[8] 8 x2 = 8 1/2 x 2 = 1/2 x = 2 1/2 = 5/2

Warning: The following is an example of a common type of trick question: Solve 2
x
= 4
Think about it: What power on the positive number "2" could possibly yield a negative number? A number can never go from positive to negative by taking powers; I can never turn a positive two into a negative anything, four or otherwise, by multiplying two by itself, regardless of the number of times I do the multiplication. Exponentiation simply doesn't work that way. So the answer here is:
Solving Exponential Equations: Solving by Using Logarithms (page 2 of 3)

Most exponential equations do not solve neatly; in solving these more-complicated equations, you will need to use logarithms. For instance: Solve 2
x
= 30.
x
If this equation had asked me to "Solve 2 = 32", it would have been easy, because I could 5 have converted the 32 to 2 , set the exponents equal, and solved for "x = 5". But 30 is not a power of 2, so I can't set powers equal to each other. I need some other method of getting at the x, because I can't solve with the equation with the variable floating up there above the 2; I need it back down on the ground where it belongs. And I'll have to use logarithms to get at it. When dealing with equations, I can do whatever I like to the equation, as long as I do the same thing to both sides. And, to solve an equation, I have to get the variable by itself on one side of the "equals" sign; to isolate the variable, I have to "undo" whatever has been done to it.
In this case, the variable x has been put in the exponent. The backwards (technically, the "inverse") of exponentials are logarithms, so I'll need to undo the exponent by taking the log of both sides of the equation. This is useful to me because of the log rule that says that exponents inside a log can be turned into multipliers in front of the log:
logb(mn) = n logb(m)
When I take the log of both sides of an equation, I can use any log I like (base-10 log, base-2 log, natural log, etc), but some are sometimes more useful than others. Since the base in the x equation "2 = 30" is "2", I might try log-base-2:
log2(2x) = log2(30) xlog2(2) = log2(30) x(1) = log2(30) x = log2(30)

But I can't evaluate this in my calculator unless I apply the change-of-base formula:
x = log2(30) = ln(30)/ln(2)
What would happen if I just used the natural log in the first place?
2x = 30 ln(2x) = ln(30) xln(2) = ln(30) x = ln(30)/ln(2)

Either way, I get the same answer, but taking natural log in the first place was simpler and shorter. Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2002-2011 All Rights Reserved Note: I could have used the common (base-10) log instead of the natural (base-e) log, and still come up with the same value (when evaluated in the calculator).
Since science uses the natural log so much, and since it is one of the two logs that calculators can evaluate, I tend to take the natural log of both sides when solving exponential equations. This is not (generally) required, but is often more useful than other options. Solve 5
x
= 212.
Since 212 is not a power of 5, then I will have to use logs to solve this equation. I could take base-5 log of each side, solve, and then apply the change-of-base formula, but I think I'd rather just use the natural log in the first place:
5x = 212 x ln(5 ) = ln(212) xln(5) = ln(212) x = ln(212)/ln(5)
...or about 3.328, rounded to three decimal places. Solve 10

2x
= 52.
Since 52 is not a power of 10, I will have to use logs to solve this. In this particular instance, since the base is 10 and since base-10 logs can be done on the calculator, I will use the common log instead of the natural log to solve this equation:
102x = 52 log(102x) = log(52) 2xlog(10) = log(52) 2x(1) = log(52) 2x = log(52) x = log(52)/2

...or about 0.858, rounded to three decimal places. Solve 3(2
x+4
) = 350.
Before I can start looking at the exponential, I first have to get rid of the 3, so I'll divide that off to get:
2x+4 = 350/3
Since
350
/3 is not a power of 2, I will have to use logs. I will use the natural log in this case:
...or about 2.866, rounded to three decimal places. Note: You could also solve the above by using exponent rules to break apart the power on the 2:
2x+4 = (2x)(24) = (2x)(16)
Then divide through by the 16 and simplify to get 175/24. Then take the log of each side. You'll get an answer in the form ln(175/24)/ln(2). When you evaluate this, you'll get the same decimal equivalent, 2.866, in your calculator. Don't be shy about being flexible!
Solving Exponential Equations: Calculators and Other Considerations (page 3 of 3)

You should not reduce expressions to decimal values until the very end of your computations, and then only if the decimal approximation is needed. For instance, in the last exercise on the previous 350 page, you should not evaluate "ln( /3)" until the very end of the exercise. You should do as much of your work as possible symbolically and "exactly"; this will go a long way toward avoiding round-off error, which (warning!) can get vary large when dealing with logarithms. Also, be sure to "carry" as much as possible within the calculator's memory. Don't find all the values of the individual logs, write them down, re-enter them into your calculator, and then simplify; the roundoff error will very likely be too large for your answer to be counted "correct". Instead, get in the habit of doing as many steps as you can at all once within the calculator's memory. If you use a graphing calculator, typeset the entire expression at once, being careful with your parentheses. If you typeset without parentheses, as shown at right:
...then you will get the wrong value, because the calculator thought you meant "divide the natural log of 350 by 3, and then divide this by the log of 2, and then subtract 4"
What you need to enter is this:
...which is "the natural log of the quotient of 350 and 3, divided by the natural log of 2, and then subtracting 4 from this". Parentheses can make a big difference on graphing calculators! Solve 2e
x
+ 5 = 115. 5 and divide the 2 to the other side.
I need to isolate the variable, so first I have to subtract the Then I can solve by taking logs:
2ex + 5 = 115 2ex = 110 ex = 55 ln(ex) = ln(55) xln(e) = ln(55) x(1) = ln(55) x = ln(55)
...or about 4.007, rounded to three decimal places. Solve 1000
0.12x
= 25,000.
Don't try to divide both sides by 1000; the 1000 is the base, not a multiplier. Since the base in this case is 1000, which is a power of 10, I will use the common log to solve. The natural log would have given the same answer (eventually, after some manipulation), but the base-10 log will be simpler in this case:
10000.12x = 25,000 log(10000.12x) = log(25,000) 0.12xlog(1000) = log(25,000) 0.12xlog(103) = log(25,000) 0.12x(3) = log(25,000) 0.36x = log(25,000) x = log(25,000)/0.36
...or about 12.217, rounded to three decimal places. Note that the expression could have been simplified differently, by using log properties and rules) before entering it into the calculator: Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2002-2011 All Rights Reserved
0.36x = log(25,000) 0.36x = log(25 1,000) 0.36x = log(25) + log(1,000) 0.36x = log(25) + log(103) 0.36x = log(25) + 3 x = [ log(25) + 3 ] / 0.36
This is equivalent to the previous form of the answer. I am pointing this out because you may need to be flexible with the form of your final answer. For instance, if you had come up with the first form of the answer, but the back of the book gave the second form of the answer, then you would need to be able to recognize that the two forms are actually the same thing. The same goes for multiple-choice tests, where your form of the answer might be different in form from, but equivalent in value to, one of the given choices. Solve 250(1.04)
x
= 1000.
You might recognize this as being the equation that stands for an initial investment of $250 at four percent interest, compounded annually, and asking how many years x the money should be invested in order to have $1000 in the account. To solve, I'll have to get the x by itself, so I'll divide off the 250, and then use logs:
250(1.04)x = 1000 (1.04)x = 4 ln((1.04)x) = ln(4) xln(1.04) = ln(4) x = ln(4)/ln(1.04)

...or about 35.346, rounded to three decimal places. If this question had been stated in terms of interest rates and investments, the above answer would have stood for "35.346 years", or about thirty-five years and four months. As long as you do your steps clearly and completely, and keep your log rules in mind, along with the definitions of exponentials and logs, you shouldn't have too much trouble in solving these equations. Just remember to keep your work as "exact" as you can for as long as you can; wait to approximate things in your calculator until the very end, if at all possible.

The Quadratic Formula Explained

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Quadratic Formula Explained

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Functions versus Relations (page 1 of 2)

Now YOU try!

The "Vertical Line Test"

If we graph this relation, it looks like:

"Is it a function?" - Quick answer without the graph

+ 3x = 6 is not a function, because you can not solve for a unique y:

Functions: Domain and Range (page 2 of 2)

x < 3/2 = 1.5

The range requires a graph. I need to be careful when graphing radicals:

The Quadratic Formula Explained (page 1 of 3)

+ bx + c = 0, the value of x is given by:

This quadratic happens to factor:

Then, as expected, the solution is x

4x 3 = 0. Round your answer to two decimal places, if necessary.

Then the answer is x

= 0.58, x = 2.58, rounded to two decimal places.

Compare the solutions of 2x intercepts of the graph:

Completing the Square: Solving Quadratic Equations (page 1 of 2)

(x 4)2 = 5 x 4 = sqrt(5) x = 4 sqrt(5) x = 4 sqrt(5) and x = 4 + sqrt(5)

+ 6x 7 = 0 by completing the square.

(x + 3)2 = 16 x+3=4 x=34 = 3 4, 3 + 4 = 7, +1

Systems of Linear Equations: Definitions (page 1 of 7)

2) was not a solution, because, plugging in 1 for x:

5) and (0, 2) is a solution to the given

(2) ?=? 3(0) 2 2 ?=? 0 2 2 = 2 (solution checks)

(2) ?=? (0) 6 2 ?=? 0 6 2 ?=? 6

5) is a solution to the system

Systems of Linear Equations: Graphing (page 2 of 7)

Systems of Linear Equations: Warnings (page 3 of 7)

Solve the following system by graphing.

7x + 2y = 16 2y = 7x + 16 y = ( 7/2 )x + 8 21x 6y = 24 21x 24 = 6y ( 21/6 )x 4 = y ( 7/2 )x 4 = y

You can't tell!

You can't tell!

Systems of Linear Equations: Solving by Substitution (page 4 of 7)

21x 6(( 7/2 )x + 8) = 24 21x + 21x 48 = 24 48 = 24

Systems of Linear Equations: Solving by Addition / Elimination (page 5 of 7)

Solving this, I get that x are smaller.

Solve the following system using addition.

12x 13y = 2 6x + 6.5y = 2

no solution Solve the following using addition.

4s 2)", or something like that.)

Systems of Linear Equations: Solving by Gaussian Elimination (page 6 of 7)

Solve the following system of equations.

10y 3(3) = 11 10y 9 = 11 10y = 20 y=2 5x + 4(2) (3) = 0 5x + 8 3 = 0 5x + 5 = 0 5x = 5 x = 1

(x, y, z) = (1, 2, 3).

...and then I write down the results:

...and then I write down the results:

...and then I write down the results:

43. Then I'll

Now I can start the process of back-solving:

y 7(1) = 4 y 7 = 4 y=3 x + 4(3) 2(1) = 8 x + 12 2 = 8 x + 10 = 8 x = 2

Then the solution is

(x, y, z) = (2, 3, 1).

Systems of Linear Equations: Examples (page 7 of 7)

I can divide the third row by 4:

To be technically correct, I'll now divide the second row by

5 and the first row by 2:

x + ( 1/2 )( 2/5 ) + ( 3/2 )(0) = 1/2 x + 1/5 = 1/2 x = 3/10

(x, y, z) = ( 3/10, 2/5, 0).

x +z=1 x+y+z=2 xy+z=1

As soon as I get a nonsense row (like "0 I can quit.

= 1"), I know that this is an inconsistent system, and

Straight-Line Equations: Slope-Intercept Form (page 1 of 3)