Quick description
Linear equations in one variable, also known as first-degree equations, are the simplest kind of equations. A typical example is the equation
More generally, we will be concerned with any equation of the form
where
,
, and
are known numbers and we are trying to find
One can often solve such equations by trial and error, but there is also a straightforward method of solving them systematically. We will also describe the Egyptian method, which can be thought of as a simple instance of the Newton's method.
Method 1: Simple trial and error
First, however, we discuss a different approach. Suppose that our equation is
We can try some numbers, adjust them, and see if we manage to hit the right answer. For example, trying
as our
we get
and with
we get
As we increase our
it seems that we increase our result, so if we want to get
then we will want to try an even higher
If we try a considerably higher
such as
then we get
which has passed the mark a little. Coming down to
we find that it does the trick, since
.
But what happens if the equation is instead
say? From the previous calculations we see that our
must be between
and
so it cannot be a whole number. We could try decimals such as
but then our trials and errors start to take longer and longer, and in fact no terminating decimal will give the right answer: it will only ever approximate the exact solution.
General discussion
What can we do about this problem? Well, in any kind of equation we are trying to find an object that satisfies some equality. In our case we are trying to find a number "x" that makes two expressions such as
and
equal to each other. The main idea that underlies the usual approach to this problem is that if the two expressions really do give the same number, then if we do the same thing to both of them (such as, say, subtracting
), then they will still give the same number. If we can somehow manage to transform one expression into
and the other into a number, then we have shown that if
is a solution, then it has to be that number. Let us see how this can be turned into a systematic method for solving linear equations in one variable.
Method 2: Operating on both sides of the equation
Let us take the equation
As just noted, we can add to or subtract from both sides any number we want and the equality will be maintained. For instance, if
then
which allows us to say that
However, this equation doesn't seem any easier to solve than the original one. However, there is one way in which the left-hand side can be simplified: if we subtract
from it. So let us subtract
from both sides. Now we get
which tells us that
This looks like an easier equation, but if we add or subtract anything then we will not simplify it further, so if we want to use the general idea of doing the same to both sides, then we will have to do something else. What are we trying to simplify? Well, we were hoping to get
on the left-hand side, and we can do that easily if we turn to division: to get rid of the
all we have to do is divide by it. So let us divide by
on both sides: we get
which tells us that
.
This method is both practical and failsafe: an equation of the form
will have the solution
.
Method 3: Egyptian Method
Again, we illustrate the method with an example. Let us take the equation
This method starts with some trial: let us take
This gives us
but to get to
we are still missing
Since our
is multiplied by
every
that we add to the
will give
more to the total. Therefore, to get the extra
we will need to add
to our
And indeed, if we take
then we get
.
This method always works too and in fact is an instance of Newton's Method for approximating solutions of more general equations. In our case this method always gives the correct answer in the first step. Newton's method usually continues indefinitely, or until one gets a good enough approximation to a solution, which is often the best we can hope for anyway.
Tricki
Comments
Do you really want to use
Sun, 10/05/2009 - 14:19 — wiltonDo you really want to use
here for multiplication? Seems a little odd to me. Why not
?
This article is should not be
Sat, 18/07/2009 - 22:16 — Anonymous (not verified)This article is should not be part of the Tricki.
Very good but it would be
Wed, 02/09/2009 - 16:14 — Dia Sharma (not verified)Very good but it would be nice if variable seperation method would be included.
Post new comment
(Note: commenting is not possible on this snapshot.)