### Radical Simplification - Not That Simple!

In the previous post I proved an identity in radicals:

which followed the method used in another post where another identity in radicals

has been derived. The latter post pointed to an earlier and perhaps a more exciting one where we established an unexpected identity

This was verified by simply taking the cube of the two sides of the equation. In a private correspondence related to the previous post Bruce Reznick suggested a different way of showing that

with rational and In Bruce Reznick's words:

So we look for that is, and Hard to solve directly, but we can multiply the first by and subtract times the second to get

which your friendly computer algebra system (otherwise useless) will tell you equals If then and so and and

Same with "". This method works quite generally.

And would not it? With the prior knowledge that the latter result seems not that surprising, one can think. Bruce continues to show with another example that expectations can be easily shuttered in mathematics.

Again, our previous experience may suggest the existence of rational and such that

If we proceed as before, but now squaring both sides of the equation, and equating rational and irrational components, we get and so

If then so This is not what we expected, but is at least true:

What about the other factor? If then so and This gives

Strangely, this reduces to exactly the result due to the first (and different) factor:

In terms of *quadratic fields*, , what we found may be expressed formally as but which, perhaps, helps enhance intuition of what goes on in Bruce's example but also adds to the mystery of or

Esto es posible con una serie de ejercicios guiados, entre

February 9th, 2015 at 2:18 amotras cosas, a robustecer sus mÃºsculos pubocoxigeos.

When someone writes an paragraph he/she maintains the idea of a user in his/her

February 10th, 2015 at 3:50 ambrain that how a user can know it. So that's why this piece of writing

is great. Thanks!