Mixing
Converting standard form to vertex form, parental homework help
$begingroup$
I'm trying to help my son with his homework but am having trouble feeling confident that I know what the assignment is asking for.
I've been learning (maybe relearning) about standard vs vertex form quadratic equations.
The first part of the homework states:
Rewrite the standard form $f(x) = ax^2 + bx + c$. Once you've done that set the vertex form equal to zero and solve for x. Show your work:
All of the examples I can find on how to convert a standard form to vertex are using actual numbers for $a$ and $b$. Because the steps involve converting to a perfect trinomial, I'm not sure how to "rewrite" the equation without using actual values as an example.
It then asks:
You've now discovered the ___ ____! Use it to solve this: $x^2 + 4x - 11 = 0$
I'm not sure what the underlines are asking for - "perfect trinomial"? I can figure out how to the solve the equation but I want to be sure I know how using the expected method.
quadratic-forms
edited Jan 9 at 1:07
Mark
310110
asked Jan 9 at 0:35
BotskoNetBotskoNet
1085
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm trying to help my son with his homework but am having trouble feeling confident that I know what the assignment is asking for.
I've been learning (maybe relearning) about standard vs vertex form quadratic equations.
The first part of the homework states:
Rewrite the standard form $f(x) = ax^2 + bx + c$. Once you've done that set the vertex form equal to zero and solve for x. Show your work:
All of the examples I can find on how to convert a standard form to vertex are using actual numbers for $a$ and $b$. Because the steps involve converting to a perfect trinomial, I'm not sure how to "rewrite" the equation without using actual values as an example.
It then asks:
You've now discovered the ___ ____! Use it to solve this: $x^2 + 4x - 11 = 0$
I'm not sure what the underlines are asking for - "perfect trinomial"? I can figure out how to the solve the equation but I want to be sure I know how using the expected method.
quadratic-forms
edited Jan 9 at 1:07
Mark
310110
asked Jan 9 at 0:35
BotskoNetBotskoNet
1085
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
If you can do it algorithmicly with numbers (i.e. a process not a guess) then you can write the steps algebraically in terms of the literal coefficients. For the second part, I think you're to recongize that you have derived the quadratic formula. (That may be a hint for the first part ...)
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
Jan 9 at 0:43
$begingroup$
Ok, I guess my question was how to "do it algebraically", but it sounds like I'm meant to derive the quadratic formula from the vertex form, which answers that question. Now I need to look up/learn how to do that.
$endgroup$
– BotskoNet
Jan 9 at 0:59
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm trying to help my son with his homework but am having trouble feeling confident that I know what the assignment is asking for.
I've been learning (maybe relearning) about standard vs vertex form quadratic equations.
The first part of the homework states:
Rewrite the standard form $f(x) = ax^2 + bx + c$. Once you've done that set the vertex form equal to zero and solve for x. Show your work:
All of the examples I can find on how to convert a standard form to vertex are using actual numbers for $a$ and $b$. Because the steps involve converting to a perfect trinomial, I'm not sure how to "rewrite" the equation without using actual values as an example.
It then asks:
You've now discovered the ___ ____! Use it to solve this: $x^2 + 4x - 11 = 0$
I'm not sure what the underlines are asking for - "perfect trinomial"? I can figure out how to the solve the equation but I want to be sure I know how using the expected method.
quadratic-forms
edited Jan 9 at 1:07
Mark
310110
asked Jan 9 at 0:35
BotskoNetBotskoNet
1085
$endgroup$
I'm trying to help my son with his homework but am having trouble feeling confident that I know what the assignment is asking for.
I've been learning (maybe relearning) about standard vs vertex form quadratic equations.
The first part of the homework states:
Rewrite the standard form $f(x) = ax^2 + bx + c$. Once you've done that set the vertex form equal to zero and solve for x. Show your work:
All of the examples I can find on how to convert a standard form to vertex are using actual numbers for $a$ and $b$. Because the steps involve converting to a perfect trinomial, I'm not sure how to "rewrite" the equation without using actual values as an example.
It then asks:
You've now discovered the ___ ____! Use it to solve this: $x^2 + 4x - 11 = 0$
I'm not sure what the underlines are asking for - "perfect trinomial"? I can figure out how to the solve the equation but I want to be sure I know how using the expected method.
quadratic-forms
quadratic-forms
edited Jan 9 at 1:07
Mark
310110
asked Jan 9 at 0:35
BotskoNetBotskoNet
1085
edited Jan 9 at 1:07
Mark
310110
asked Jan 9 at 0:35
BotskoNetBotskoNet
1085
edited Jan 9 at 1:07
Mark
310110
edited Jan 9 at 1:07
Mark
310110
edited Jan 9 at 1:07
Mark
310110
310110
asked Jan 9 at 0:35
BotskoNetBotskoNet
1085
asked Jan 9 at 0:35
BotskoNetBotskoNet
1085
asked Jan 9 at 0:35
BotskoNetBotskoNet
1085
1085
$begingroup$
If you can do it algorithmicly with numbers (i.e. a process not a guess) then you can write the steps algebraically in terms of the literal coefficients. For the second part, I think you're to recongize that you have derived the quadratic formula. (That may be a hint for the first part ...)
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
Jan 9 at 0:43
$begingroup$
Ok, I guess my question was how to "do it algebraically", but it sounds like I'm meant to derive the quadratic formula from the vertex form, which answers that question. Now I need to look up/learn how to do that.
$endgroup$
– BotskoNet
Jan 9 at 0:59
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If you can do it algorithmicly with numbers (i.e. a process not a guess) then you can write the steps algebraically in terms of the literal coefficients. For the second part, I think you're to recongize that you have derived the quadratic formula. (That may be a hint for the first part ...)
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
Jan 9 at 0:43
$begingroup$
Ok, I guess my question was how to "do it algebraically", but it sounds like I'm meant to derive the quadratic formula from the vertex form, which answers that question. Now I need to look up/learn how to do that.
$endgroup$
– BotskoNet
Jan 9 at 0:59
$begingroup$
If you can do it algorithmicly with numbers (i.e. a process not a guess) then you can write the steps algebraically in terms of the literal coefficients. For the second part, I think you're to recongize that you have derived the quadratic formula. (That may be a hint for the first part ...)
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
Jan 9 at 0:43
$begingroup$
If you can do it algorithmicly with numbers (i.e. a process not a guess) then you can write the steps algebraically in terms of the literal coefficients. For the second part, I think you're to recongize that you have derived the quadratic formula. (That may be a hint for the first part ...)
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
Jan 9 at 0:43
$begingroup$
Ok, I guess my question was how to "do it algebraically", but it sounds like I'm meant to derive the quadratic formula from the vertex form, which answers that question. Now I need to look up/learn how to do that.
$endgroup$
– BotskoNet
Jan 9 at 0:59
$begingroup$
Ok, I guess my question was how to "do it algebraically", but it sounds like I'm meant to derive the quadratic formula from the vertex form, which answers that question. Now I need to look up/learn how to do that.
$endgroup$
– BotskoNet
Jan 9 at 0:59
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This is not entirely straightforward, but we'll walk through it.
You start with an equation in standard form: $y = ax^2 + bx + c$. To convert this to 'vertex form' we must complete the square.
$$y = ax^2 + bx + c$$
$$y - c = ax^2 + bx$$
$$y - c = a(x^2 + frac{b}{a}x)$$
$$y - c + a(frac{b^2}{4a^2}) = a(x^2 + frac{b}{a}x + frac{b^2}{4a^2}) = a (x + frac{b}{2a})^2$$
Hence we get,
$$y = a(x + frac{b}{2a})^2 + (c - frac{b^2}{4a})$$
If unfamiliar with the process of completing the square as above see here. (You can also always multiply this out and check that it is, indeed, the same as $y = ax^2 + bx + c$).
Now, the problem is telling you to set this equal to 0 and solve for $x$. It is much easier to solve for $x$ from vertex form (hence the conversion) as we will see:
$$0 = a(x + frac{b}{2a})^2 + (c - frac{b^2}{4a})$$
$$(x + frac{b}{2a})^2 = frac{-c + frac{b^2}{4a}}{a} = frac{-4ac + b^2}{4a^2}$$
Take the square root of both sides and we get,
$$x + frac{b}{2a} = pm frac{sqrt{b^2 - 4ac}}{2a}$$
which becomes the familiar quadratic equation:
$$x = frac{-b pm sqrt{b^2 - 4ac}}{2a}$$
answered Jan 9 at 1:12
T. FoT. Fo
466311
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Your answer is almost exactly what I see from tutorials I've found on "deriving the quadratic formula from the vertex form". I've found this video which I'll have him watch because I feel like it's a good explanation of this process.
$endgroup$
– BotskoNet
Jan 9 at 1:21
$begingroup$
+1 Next timne learn about mathjax large( ... large) to get big parentheses.
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
Jan 9 at 1:26
$begingroup$
That make sense, and is inline with other comments. I've found a video that talks about deriving the quadratic formula from a vertex form and it helps.
$endgroup$
– BotskoNet
Jan 9 at 1:37
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Now that you've seen the standard way to derive the formula, it might be interesting to see how you can do it "backwards."
That is, convert the vertex form into the standard form, then figure out how to reverse that procedure so that you start with the standard form and end up with the vertex form.
You can get a sense of how this works from the second half of this answer. We just need to avoid plugging in actual numbers so that we get the quadratic formula.
Let's write the vertex form this way:
$$ f(x) = a(x - h)^2 + k. $$
Expanding the square and collecting terms we find that this is the same function as
$$ f(x) = ax^2 − 2ah x + ah^2 + k. $$
What we wanted was something in the form $ax^2 + bx + c.$ Fortunately we already have $ax^2$ in both formulas, so we just need to match the $bx$ and $c,$ which we can do by letting
begin{align}
b &= -2ah, \ c &= ah^2 + k.
end{align}
If we stipulate those conditions for $b$ and $c$ then indeed
$a(x - h)^2 + k = ax^2 + bx + c$ and we have found how to turn the vertex form into the standard form.
Now to reverse the process, we already know the coefficient $a$ in the standard form is the same as the coefficient $a$ in the vertex form.
Next we can use the equation $b = -2ah$ to solve for $h$ in terms of the known coefficients $a$ and $b$:
$$ h = -frac{b}{2a}.$$
Finally we want the value of $k,$ which we can get by solving for $k$
in $c = ah^2 + k$:
$$ k = c - ah^2 = c - aleft(-frac{b}{2a}right)^2
= c - frac{b^2}{4a}.
$$
And now we have found how to get the vertex form from the standard form:
$$
f(x) = ax^2 + bx + c
= aleft(x - left(-frac{b}{2a}right)right)^2 + left(c - frac{b^2}{4a}right),
$$
which, apart from trivial differences in the formulas such as whether to
write $x - left(-frac{b}{2a}right)$ or $x + frac{b}{2a}$,
is the same result we get from "completing the square."
T. Ford's answer gets us the rest of the way to the quadratic formula, so I see no need to repeat those steps.
I just think it's neat how different approaches to the same problem can work together in mathematics.
answered Jan 9 at 1:51
David KDavid K
53.9k342116
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3066922%2fconverting-standard-form-to-vertex-form-parental-homework-help%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This is not entirely straightforward, but we'll walk through it.
You start with an equation in standard form: $y = ax^2 + bx + c$. To convert this to 'vertex form' we must complete the square.
$$y = ax^2 + bx + c$$
$$y - c = ax^2 + bx$$
$$y - c = a(x^2 + frac{b}{a}x)$$
$$y - c + a(frac{b^2}{4a^2}) = a(x^2 + frac{b}{a}x + frac{b^2}{4a^2}) = a (x + frac{b}{2a})^2$$
Hence we get,
$$y = a(x + frac{b}{2a})^2 + (c - frac{b^2}{4a})$$
If unfamiliar with the process of completing the square as above see here. (You can also always multiply this out and check that it is, indeed, the same as $y = ax^2 + bx + c$).
Now, the problem is telling you to set this equal to 0 and solve for $x$. It is much easier to solve for $x$ from vertex form (hence the conversion) as we will see:
$$0 = a(x + frac{b}{2a})^2 + (c - frac{b^2}{4a})$$
$$(x + frac{b}{2a})^2 = frac{-c + frac{b^2}{4a}}{a} = frac{-4ac + b^2}{4a^2}$$
Take the square root of both sides and we get,
$$x + frac{b}{2a} = pm frac{sqrt{b^2 - 4ac}}{2a}$$
which becomes the familiar quadratic equation:
$$x = frac{-b pm sqrt{b^2 - 4ac}}{2a}$$
answered Jan 9 at 1:12
T. FoT. Fo
466311
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Your answer is almost exactly what I see from tutorials I've found on "deriving the quadratic formula from the vertex form". I've found this video which I'll have him watch because I feel like it's a good explanation of this process.
$endgroup$
– BotskoNet
Jan 9 at 1:21
$begingroup$
+1 Next timne learn about mathjax large( ... large) to get big parentheses.
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
Jan 9 at 1:26
$begingroup$
That make sense, and is inline with other comments. I've found a video that talks about deriving the quadratic formula from a vertex form and it helps.
$endgroup$
– BotskoNet
Jan 9 at 1:37
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is not entirely straightforward, but we'll walk through it.
You start with an equation in standard form: $y = ax^2 + bx + c$. To convert this to 'vertex form' we must complete the square.
$$y = ax^2 + bx + c$$
$$y - c = ax^2 + bx$$
$$y - c = a(x^2 + frac{b}{a}x)$$
$$y - c + a(frac{b^2}{4a^2}) = a(x^2 + frac{b}{a}x + frac{b^2}{4a^2}) = a (x + frac{b}{2a})^2$$
Hence we get,
$$y = a(x + frac{b}{2a})^2 + (c - frac{b^2}{4a})$$
If unfamiliar with the process of completing the square as above see here. (You can also always multiply this out and check that it is, indeed, the same as $y = ax^2 + bx + c$).
Now, the problem is telling you to set this equal to 0 and solve for $x$. It is much easier to solve for $x$ from vertex form (hence the conversion) as we will see:
$$0 = a(x + frac{b}{2a})^2 + (c - frac{b^2}{4a})$$
$$(x + frac{b}{2a})^2 = frac{-c + frac{b^2}{4a}}{a} = frac{-4ac + b^2}{4a^2}$$
Take the square root of both sides and we get,
$$x + frac{b}{2a} = pm frac{sqrt{b^2 - 4ac}}{2a}$$
which becomes the familiar quadratic equation:
$$x = frac{-b pm sqrt{b^2 - 4ac}}{2a}$$
answered Jan 9 at 1:12
T. FoT. Fo
466311
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Your answer is almost exactly what I see from tutorials I've found on "deriving the quadratic formula from the vertex form". I've found this video which I'll have him watch because I feel like it's a good explanation of this process.
$endgroup$
– BotskoNet
Jan 9 at 1:21
$begingroup$
+1 Next timne learn about mathjax large( ... large) to get big parentheses.
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
Jan 9 at 1:26
$begingroup$
That make sense, and is inline with other comments. I've found a video that talks about deriving the quadratic formula from a vertex form and it helps.
$endgroup$
– BotskoNet
Jan 9 at 1:37
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is not entirely straightforward, but we'll walk through it.
You start with an equation in standard form: $y = ax^2 + bx + c$. To convert this to 'vertex form' we must complete the square.
$$y = ax^2 + bx + c$$
$$y - c = ax^2 + bx$$
$$y - c = a(x^2 + frac{b}{a}x)$$
$$y - c + a(frac{b^2}{4a^2}) = a(x^2 + frac{b}{a}x + frac{b^2}{4a^2}) = a (x + frac{b}{2a})^2$$
Hence we get,
$$y = a(x + frac{b}{2a})^2 + (c - frac{b^2}{4a})$$
If unfamiliar with the process of completing the square as above see here. (You can also always multiply this out and check that it is, indeed, the same as $y = ax^2 + bx + c$).
Now, the problem is telling you to set this equal to 0 and solve for $x$. It is much easier to solve for $x$ from vertex form (hence the conversion) as we will see:
$$0 = a(x + frac{b}{2a})^2 + (c - frac{b^2}{4a})$$
$$(x + frac{b}{2a})^2 = frac{-c + frac{b^2}{4a}}{a} = frac{-4ac + b^2}{4a^2}$$
Take the square root of both sides and we get,
$$x + frac{b}{2a} = pm frac{sqrt{b^2 - 4ac}}{2a}$$
which becomes the familiar quadratic equation:
$$x = frac{-b pm sqrt{b^2 - 4ac}}{2a}$$
answered Jan 9 at 1:12
T. FoT. Fo
466311
$endgroup$
This is not entirely straightforward, but we'll walk through it.
You start with an equation in standard form: $y = ax^2 + bx + c$. To convert this to 'vertex form' we must complete the square.
$$y = ax^2 + bx + c$$
$$y - c = ax^2 + bx$$
$$y - c = a(x^2 + frac{b}{a}x)$$
$$y - c + a(frac{b^2}{4a^2}) = a(x^2 + frac{b}{a}x + frac{b^2}{4a^2}) = a (x + frac{b}{2a})^2$$
Hence we get,
$$y = a(x + frac{b}{2a})^2 + (c - frac{b^2}{4a})$$
If unfamiliar with the process of completing the square as above see here. (You can also always multiply this out and check that it is, indeed, the same as $y = ax^2 + bx + c$).
Now, the problem is telling you to set this equal to 0 and solve for $x$. It is much easier to solve for $x$ from vertex form (hence the conversion) as we will see:
$$0 = a(x + frac{b}{2a})^2 + (c - frac{b^2}{4a})$$
$$(x + frac{b}{2a})^2 = frac{-c + frac{b^2}{4a}}{a} = frac{-4ac + b^2}{4a^2}$$
Take the square root of both sides and we get,
$$x + frac{b}{2a} = pm frac{sqrt{b^2 - 4ac}}{2a}$$
which becomes the familiar quadratic equation:
$$x = frac{-b pm sqrt{b^2 - 4ac}}{2a}$$
answered Jan 9 at 1:12
T. FoT. Fo
466311
answered Jan 9 at 1:12
T. FoT. Fo
466311
answered Jan 9 at 1:12
T. FoT. Fo
466311
answered Jan 9 at 1:12
T. FoT. Fo
466311
466311
$begingroup$
Your answer is almost exactly what I see from tutorials I've found on "deriving the quadratic formula from the vertex form". I've found this video which I'll have him watch because I feel like it's a good explanation of this process.
$endgroup$
– BotskoNet
Jan 9 at 1:21
$begingroup$
+1 Next timne learn about mathjax large( ... large) to get big parentheses.
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
Jan 9 at 1:26
$begingroup$
That make sense, and is inline with other comments. I've found a video that talks about deriving the quadratic formula from a vertex form and it helps.
$endgroup$
– BotskoNet
Jan 9 at 1:37
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Your answer is almost exactly what I see from tutorials I've found on "deriving the quadratic formula from the vertex form". I've found this video which I'll have him watch because I feel like it's a good explanation of this process.
$endgroup$
– BotskoNet
Jan 9 at 1:21
$begingroup$
+1 Next timne learn about mathjax large( ... large) to get big parentheses.
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
Jan 9 at 1:26
$begingroup$
That make sense, and is inline with other comments. I've found a video that talks about deriving the quadratic formula from a vertex form and it helps.
$endgroup$
– BotskoNet
Jan 9 at 1:37
$begingroup$
Your answer is almost exactly what I see from tutorials I've found on "deriving the quadratic formula from the vertex form". I've found this video which I'll have him watch because I feel like it's a good explanation of this process.
$endgroup$
– BotskoNet
Jan 9 at 1:21
$begingroup$
Your answer is almost exactly what I see from tutorials I've found on "deriving the quadratic formula from the vertex form". I've found this video which I'll have him watch because I feel like it's a good explanation of this process.
$endgroup$
– BotskoNet
Jan 9 at 1:21
$begingroup$
+1 Next timne learn about mathjax large( ... large) to get big parentheses.
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
Jan 9 at 1:26
$begingroup$
+1 Next timne learn about mathjax large( ... large) to get big parentheses.
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
Jan 9 at 1:26
$begingroup$
That make sense, and is inline with other comments. I've found a video that talks about deriving the quadratic formula from a vertex form and it helps.
$endgroup$
– BotskoNet
Jan 9 at 1:37
$begingroup$
That make sense, and is inline with other comments. I've found a video that talks about deriving the quadratic formula from a vertex form and it helps.
$endgroup$
– BotskoNet
Jan 9 at 1:37
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Now that you've seen the standard way to derive the formula, it might be interesting to see how you can do it "backwards."
That is, convert the vertex form into the standard form, then figure out how to reverse that procedure so that you start with the standard form and end up with the vertex form.
You can get a sense of how this works from the second half of this answer. We just need to avoid plugging in actual numbers so that we get the quadratic formula.
Let's write the vertex form this way:
$$ f(x) = a(x - h)^2 + k. $$
Expanding the square and collecting terms we find that this is the same function as
$$ f(x) = ax^2 − 2ah x + ah^2 + k. $$
What we wanted was something in the form $ax^2 + bx + c.$ Fortunately we already have $ax^2$ in both formulas, so we just need to match the $bx$ and $c,$ which we can do by letting
begin{align}
b &= -2ah, \ c &= ah^2 + k.
end{align}
If we stipulate those conditions for $b$ and $c$ then indeed
$a(x - h)^2 + k = ax^2 + bx + c$ and we have found how to turn the vertex form into the standard form.
Now to reverse the process, we already know the coefficient $a$ in the standard form is the same as the coefficient $a$ in the vertex form.
Next we can use the equation $b = -2ah$ to solve for $h$ in terms of the known coefficients $a$ and $b$:
$$ h = -frac{b}{2a}.$$
Finally we want the value of $k,$ which we can get by solving for $k$
in $c = ah^2 + k$:
$$ k = c - ah^2 = c - aleft(-frac{b}{2a}right)^2
= c - frac{b^2}{4a}.
$$
And now we have found how to get the vertex form from the standard form:
$$
f(x) = ax^2 + bx + c
= aleft(x - left(-frac{b}{2a}right)right)^2 + left(c - frac{b^2}{4a}right),
$$
which, apart from trivial differences in the formulas such as whether to
write $x - left(-frac{b}{2a}right)$ or $x + frac{b}{2a}$,
is the same result we get from "completing the square."
T. Ford's answer gets us the rest of the way to the quadratic formula, so I see no need to repeat those steps.
I just think it's neat how different approaches to the same problem can work together in mathematics.
answered Jan 9 at 1:51
David KDavid K
53.9k342116
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Now that you've seen the standard way to derive the formula, it might be interesting to see how you can do it "backwards."
That is, convert the vertex form into the standard form, then figure out how to reverse that procedure so that you start with the standard form and end up with the vertex form.
You can get a sense of how this works from the second half of this answer. We just need to avoid plugging in actual numbers so that we get the quadratic formula.
Let's write the vertex form this way:
$$ f(x) = a(x - h)^2 + k. $$
Expanding the square and collecting terms we find that this is the same function as
$$ f(x) = ax^2 − 2ah x + ah^2 + k. $$
What we wanted was something in the form $ax^2 + bx + c.$ Fortunately we already have $ax^2$ in both formulas, so we just need to match the $bx$ and $c,$ which we can do by letting
begin{align}
b &= -2ah, \ c &= ah^2 + k.
end{align}
If we stipulate those conditions for $b$ and $c$ then indeed
$a(x - h)^2 + k = ax^2 + bx + c$ and we have found how to turn the vertex form into the standard form.
Now to reverse the process, we already know the coefficient $a$ in the standard form is the same as the coefficient $a$ in the vertex form.
Next we can use the equation $b = -2ah$ to solve for $h$ in terms of the known coefficients $a$ and $b$:
$$ h = -frac{b}{2a}.$$
Finally we want the value of $k,$ which we can get by solving for $k$
in $c = ah^2 + k$:
$$ k = c - ah^2 = c - aleft(-frac{b}{2a}right)^2
= c - frac{b^2}{4a}.
$$
And now we have found how to get the vertex form from the standard form:
$$
f(x) = ax^2 + bx + c
= aleft(x - left(-frac{b}{2a}right)right)^2 + left(c - frac{b^2}{4a}right),
$$
which, apart from trivial differences in the formulas such as whether to
write $x - left(-frac{b}{2a}right)$ or $x + frac{b}{2a}$,
is the same result we get from "completing the square."
T. Ford's answer gets us the rest of the way to the quadratic formula, so I see no need to repeat those steps.
I just think it's neat how different approaches to the same problem can work together in mathematics.
answered Jan 9 at 1:51
David KDavid K
53.9k342116
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Now that you've seen the standard way to derive the formula, it might be interesting to see how you can do it "backwards."
That is, convert the vertex form into the standard form, then figure out how to reverse that procedure so that you start with the standard form and end up with the vertex form.
You can get a sense of how this works from the second half of this answer. We just need to avoid plugging in actual numbers so that we get the quadratic formula.
Let's write the vertex form this way:
$$ f(x) = a(x - h)^2 + k. $$
Expanding the square and collecting terms we find that this is the same function as
$$ f(x) = ax^2 − 2ah x + ah^2 + k. $$
What we wanted was something in the form $ax^2 + bx + c.$ Fortunately we already have $ax^2$ in both formulas, so we just need to match the $bx$ and $c,$ which we can do by letting
begin{align}
b &= -2ah, \ c &= ah^2 + k.
end{align}
If we stipulate those conditions for $b$ and $c$ then indeed
$a(x - h)^2 + k = ax^2 + bx + c$ and we have found how to turn the vertex form into the standard form.
Now to reverse the process, we already know the coefficient $a$ in the standard form is the same as the coefficient $a$ in the vertex form.
Next we can use the equation $b = -2ah$ to solve for $h$ in terms of the known coefficients $a$ and $b$:
$$ h = -frac{b}{2a}.$$
Finally we want the value of $k,$ which we can get by solving for $k$
in $c = ah^2 + k$:
$$ k = c - ah^2 = c - aleft(-frac{b}{2a}right)^2
= c - frac{b^2}{4a}.
$$
And now we have found how to get the vertex form from the standard form:
$$
f(x) = ax^2 + bx + c
= aleft(x - left(-frac{b}{2a}right)right)^2 + left(c - frac{b^2}{4a}right),
$$
which, apart from trivial differences in the formulas such as whether to
write $x - left(-frac{b}{2a}right)$ or $x + frac{b}{2a}$,
is the same result we get from "completing the square."
T. Ford's answer gets us the rest of the way to the quadratic formula, so I see no need to repeat those steps.
I just think it's neat how different approaches to the same problem can work together in mathematics.
answered Jan 9 at 1:51
David KDavid K
53.9k342116
$endgroup$
Now that you've seen the standard way to derive the formula, it might be interesting to see how you can do it "backwards."
That is, convert the vertex form into the standard form, then figure out how to reverse that procedure so that you start with the standard form and end up with the vertex form.
You can get a sense of how this works from the second half of this answer. We just need to avoid plugging in actual numbers so that we get the quadratic formula.
Let's write the vertex form this way:
$$ f(x) = a(x - h)^2 + k. $$
Expanding the square and collecting terms we find that this is the same function as
$$ f(x) = ax^2 − 2ah x + ah^2 + k. $$
What we wanted was something in the form $ax^2 + bx + c.$ Fortunately we already have $ax^2$ in both formulas, so we just need to match the $bx$ and $c,$ which we can do by letting
begin{align}
b &= -2ah, \ c &= ah^2 + k.
end{align}
If we stipulate those conditions for $b$ and $c$ then indeed
$a(x - h)^2 + k = ax^2 + bx + c$ and we have found how to turn the vertex form into the standard form.
Now to reverse the process, we already know the coefficient $a$ in the standard form is the same as the coefficient $a$ in the vertex form.
Next we can use the equation $b = -2ah$ to solve for $h$ in terms of the known coefficients $a$ and $b$:
$$ h = -frac{b}{2a}.$$
Finally we want the value of $k,$ which we can get by solving for $k$
in $c = ah^2 + k$:
$$ k = c - ah^2 = c - aleft(-frac{b}{2a}right)^2
= c - frac{b^2}{4a}.
$$
And now we have found how to get the vertex form from the standard form:
$$
f(x) = ax^2 + bx + c
= aleft(x - left(-frac{b}{2a}right)right)^2 + left(c - frac{b^2}{4a}right),
$$
which, apart from trivial differences in the formulas such as whether to
write $x - left(-frac{b}{2a}right)$ or $x + frac{b}{2a}$,
is the same result we get from "completing the square."
T. Ford's answer gets us the rest of the way to the quadratic formula, so I see no need to repeat those steps.
I just think it's neat how different approaches to the same problem can work together in mathematics.
answered Jan 9 at 1:51
David KDavid K
53.9k342116
answered Jan 9 at 1:51
David KDavid K
53.9k342116
answered Jan 9 at 1:51
David KDavid K
53.9k342116
answered Jan 9 at 1:51
David KDavid K
53.9k342116
53.9k342116
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3066922%2fconverting-standard-form-to-vertex-form-parental-homework-help%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
If you can do it algorithmicly with numbers (i.e. a process not a guess) then you can write the steps algebraically in terms of the literal coefficients. For the second part, I think you're to recongize that you have derived the quadratic formula. (That may be a hint for the first part ...)
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
Jan 9 at 0:43
$begingroup$
Ok, I guess my question was how to "do it algebraically", but it sounds like I'm meant to derive the quadratic formula from the vertex form, which answers that question. Now I need to look up/learn how to do that.
$endgroup$
– BotskoNet
Jan 9 at 0:59