Not sure how to rearrange this formula.












0












$begingroup$


I have an equation in the form,
$$
z = k_1 cdot frac{k_2 xy}{left(x^2 - y^2right)^2}
$$

where $k_1$ and $k_2$ are constant. I need to rewrite it in terms of $y$ but the closest I've come is an equation in the form,
$$
x^4 - xyleft(2xy + frac{k_1 k_2}{z}right) + y^4 = 0
$$

but I can't use substitution to solve this. From another approach I get,
$$
frac{x^2 - y^2}{sqrt{y}} = sqrt{frac{k_1k_2}{z}}
$$

so I'm rather stuck...










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Do you have any reason to believe that it is even possible to rewrite the equation in such a way?
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:15










  • $begingroup$
    No I don't even know if you can, it's not a question from a textbook if that's what you're asking.
    $endgroup$
    – John Miller
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:17










  • $begingroup$
    When one solves for $y$ using computer algebra, you get a horrendously complex solution.
    $endgroup$
    – David G. Stork
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:17










  • $begingroup$
    Oh why is this that some equations cannot be rearranged?
    $endgroup$
    – John Miller
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:18










  • $begingroup$
    @JohnMiller That's, in a way, the wrong question to ask. The better question would be "why should all equations be such that they can be rearranged"?
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:19
















0












$begingroup$


I have an equation in the form,
$$
z = k_1 cdot frac{k_2 xy}{left(x^2 - y^2right)^2}
$$

where $k_1$ and $k_2$ are constant. I need to rewrite it in terms of $y$ but the closest I've come is an equation in the form,
$$
x^4 - xyleft(2xy + frac{k_1 k_2}{z}right) + y^4 = 0
$$

but I can't use substitution to solve this. From another approach I get,
$$
frac{x^2 - y^2}{sqrt{y}} = sqrt{frac{k_1k_2}{z}}
$$

so I'm rather stuck...










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Do you have any reason to believe that it is even possible to rewrite the equation in such a way?
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:15










  • $begingroup$
    No I don't even know if you can, it's not a question from a textbook if that's what you're asking.
    $endgroup$
    – John Miller
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:17










  • $begingroup$
    When one solves for $y$ using computer algebra, you get a horrendously complex solution.
    $endgroup$
    – David G. Stork
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:17










  • $begingroup$
    Oh why is this that some equations cannot be rearranged?
    $endgroup$
    – John Miller
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:18










  • $begingroup$
    @JohnMiller That's, in a way, the wrong question to ask. The better question would be "why should all equations be such that they can be rearranged"?
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:19














0












0








0





$begingroup$


I have an equation in the form,
$$
z = k_1 cdot frac{k_2 xy}{left(x^2 - y^2right)^2}
$$

where $k_1$ and $k_2$ are constant. I need to rewrite it in terms of $y$ but the closest I've come is an equation in the form,
$$
x^4 - xyleft(2xy + frac{k_1 k_2}{z}right) + y^4 = 0
$$

but I can't use substitution to solve this. From another approach I get,
$$
frac{x^2 - y^2}{sqrt{y}} = sqrt{frac{k_1k_2}{z}}
$$

so I'm rather stuck...










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I have an equation in the form,
$$
z = k_1 cdot frac{k_2 xy}{left(x^2 - y^2right)^2}
$$

where $k_1$ and $k_2$ are constant. I need to rewrite it in terms of $y$ but the closest I've come is an equation in the form,
$$
x^4 - xyleft(2xy + frac{k_1 k_2}{z}right) + y^4 = 0
$$

but I can't use substitution to solve this. From another approach I get,
$$
frac{x^2 - y^2}{sqrt{y}} = sqrt{frac{k_1k_2}{z}}
$$

so I'm rather stuck...







algebra-precalculus






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 12 '18 at 13:23







John Miller

















asked Dec 12 '18 at 10:13









John MillerJohn Miller

1557




1557












  • $begingroup$
    Do you have any reason to believe that it is even possible to rewrite the equation in such a way?
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:15










  • $begingroup$
    No I don't even know if you can, it's not a question from a textbook if that's what you're asking.
    $endgroup$
    – John Miller
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:17










  • $begingroup$
    When one solves for $y$ using computer algebra, you get a horrendously complex solution.
    $endgroup$
    – David G. Stork
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:17










  • $begingroup$
    Oh why is this that some equations cannot be rearranged?
    $endgroup$
    – John Miller
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:18










  • $begingroup$
    @JohnMiller That's, in a way, the wrong question to ask. The better question would be "why should all equations be such that they can be rearranged"?
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:19


















  • $begingroup$
    Do you have any reason to believe that it is even possible to rewrite the equation in such a way?
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:15










  • $begingroup$
    No I don't even know if you can, it's not a question from a textbook if that's what you're asking.
    $endgroup$
    – John Miller
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:17










  • $begingroup$
    When one solves for $y$ using computer algebra, you get a horrendously complex solution.
    $endgroup$
    – David G. Stork
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:17










  • $begingroup$
    Oh why is this that some equations cannot be rearranged?
    $endgroup$
    – John Miller
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:18










  • $begingroup$
    @JohnMiller That's, in a way, the wrong question to ask. The better question would be "why should all equations be such that they can be rearranged"?
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:19
















$begingroup$
Do you have any reason to believe that it is even possible to rewrite the equation in such a way?
$endgroup$
– 5xum
Dec 12 '18 at 10:15




$begingroup$
Do you have any reason to believe that it is even possible to rewrite the equation in such a way?
$endgroup$
– 5xum
Dec 12 '18 at 10:15












$begingroup$
No I don't even know if you can, it's not a question from a textbook if that's what you're asking.
$endgroup$
– John Miller
Dec 12 '18 at 10:17




$begingroup$
No I don't even know if you can, it's not a question from a textbook if that's what you're asking.
$endgroup$
– John Miller
Dec 12 '18 at 10:17












$begingroup$
When one solves for $y$ using computer algebra, you get a horrendously complex solution.
$endgroup$
– David G. Stork
Dec 12 '18 at 10:17




$begingroup$
When one solves for $y$ using computer algebra, you get a horrendously complex solution.
$endgroup$
– David G. Stork
Dec 12 '18 at 10:17












$begingroup$
Oh why is this that some equations cannot be rearranged?
$endgroup$
– John Miller
Dec 12 '18 at 10:18




$begingroup$
Oh why is this that some equations cannot be rearranged?
$endgroup$
– John Miller
Dec 12 '18 at 10:18












$begingroup$
@JohnMiller That's, in a way, the wrong question to ask. The better question would be "why should all equations be such that they can be rearranged"?
$endgroup$
– 5xum
Dec 12 '18 at 10:19




$begingroup$
@JohnMiller That's, in a way, the wrong question to ask. The better question would be "why should all equations be such that they can be rearranged"?
$endgroup$
– 5xum
Dec 12 '18 at 10:19










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$


$x^4 - 2xyleft(xy + frac{k_1 k_2}{z}right) + y^4 = 0$




Rewriting a bit more:
$$color{blue}{y^4}-2x^2color{blue}{y^2}-2xfrac{k_1 k_2}{z}color{blue}{y}+x^4=0$$
This is a quartic equation in $y$ and in general, that's not easy to solve. Note that the term in $color{blue}{y^3}$ is missing and that makes it slightly better, you can take a look at Ferrari's solution (see depressed quartic equation for the equation without the third degree term) but it will get (very) ugly...



The question is, do you really need (want?) to symbolically solve this for $y$?






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    The equation is for a magnet and I'm trying to find $y$ as that is the distance between, if they exist, the monopoles of a magnet.
    $endgroup$
    – John Miller
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:24










  • $begingroup$
    If you're not interested in an explicit formula for $y$ (which doesn't really give you a lot of insight anyway, if the formula is too ugly), you would typically use software te solve for $y$ with numerical methods.
    $endgroup$
    – StackTD
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:25










  • $begingroup$
    Yes I figured that would be easier, was just hoping I wouldn't have to ressort to that as it does not give as much insight as I wanted.
    $endgroup$
    – John Miller
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:27










  • $begingroup$
    You can always hope for a pretty solution :-). Now you know that sometimes that's not possible, sometimes it's ugly (too ugly to be useful?) and if you're lucky, you can get a nice explicit formula. I'd say you're in the middle case with this one.
    $endgroup$
    – StackTD
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:29










  • $begingroup$
    I've never heard of Ferrari's solution so I'll look into that for a bit, perhaps I'll get some inspiration but for a physical phenomenon it shouldn't be this 'ugly', at least it seems.
    $endgroup$
    – John Miller
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:34












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
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3036498%2fnot-sure-how-to-rearrange-this-formula%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









3












$begingroup$


$x^4 - 2xyleft(xy + frac{k_1 k_2}{z}right) + y^4 = 0$




Rewriting a bit more:
$$color{blue}{y^4}-2x^2color{blue}{y^2}-2xfrac{k_1 k_2}{z}color{blue}{y}+x^4=0$$
This is a quartic equation in $y$ and in general, that's not easy to solve. Note that the term in $color{blue}{y^3}$ is missing and that makes it slightly better, you can take a look at Ferrari's solution (see depressed quartic equation for the equation without the third degree term) but it will get (very) ugly...



The question is, do you really need (want?) to symbolically solve this for $y$?






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    The equation is for a magnet and I'm trying to find $y$ as that is the distance between, if they exist, the monopoles of a magnet.
    $endgroup$
    – John Miller
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:24










  • $begingroup$
    If you're not interested in an explicit formula for $y$ (which doesn't really give you a lot of insight anyway, if the formula is too ugly), you would typically use software te solve for $y$ with numerical methods.
    $endgroup$
    – StackTD
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:25










  • $begingroup$
    Yes I figured that would be easier, was just hoping I wouldn't have to ressort to that as it does not give as much insight as I wanted.
    $endgroup$
    – John Miller
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:27










  • $begingroup$
    You can always hope for a pretty solution :-). Now you know that sometimes that's not possible, sometimes it's ugly (too ugly to be useful?) and if you're lucky, you can get a nice explicit formula. I'd say you're in the middle case with this one.
    $endgroup$
    – StackTD
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:29










  • $begingroup$
    I've never heard of Ferrari's solution so I'll look into that for a bit, perhaps I'll get some inspiration but for a physical phenomenon it shouldn't be this 'ugly', at least it seems.
    $endgroup$
    – John Miller
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:34
















3












$begingroup$


$x^4 - 2xyleft(xy + frac{k_1 k_2}{z}right) + y^4 = 0$




Rewriting a bit more:
$$color{blue}{y^4}-2x^2color{blue}{y^2}-2xfrac{k_1 k_2}{z}color{blue}{y}+x^4=0$$
This is a quartic equation in $y$ and in general, that's not easy to solve. Note that the term in $color{blue}{y^3}$ is missing and that makes it slightly better, you can take a look at Ferrari's solution (see depressed quartic equation for the equation without the third degree term) but it will get (very) ugly...



The question is, do you really need (want?) to symbolically solve this for $y$?






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    The equation is for a magnet and I'm trying to find $y$ as that is the distance between, if they exist, the monopoles of a magnet.
    $endgroup$
    – John Miller
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:24










  • $begingroup$
    If you're not interested in an explicit formula for $y$ (which doesn't really give you a lot of insight anyway, if the formula is too ugly), you would typically use software te solve for $y$ with numerical methods.
    $endgroup$
    – StackTD
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:25










  • $begingroup$
    Yes I figured that would be easier, was just hoping I wouldn't have to ressort to that as it does not give as much insight as I wanted.
    $endgroup$
    – John Miller
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:27










  • $begingroup$
    You can always hope for a pretty solution :-). Now you know that sometimes that's not possible, sometimes it's ugly (too ugly to be useful?) and if you're lucky, you can get a nice explicit formula. I'd say you're in the middle case with this one.
    $endgroup$
    – StackTD
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:29










  • $begingroup$
    I've never heard of Ferrari's solution so I'll look into that for a bit, perhaps I'll get some inspiration but for a physical phenomenon it shouldn't be this 'ugly', at least it seems.
    $endgroup$
    – John Miller
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:34














3












3








3





$begingroup$


$x^4 - 2xyleft(xy + frac{k_1 k_2}{z}right) + y^4 = 0$




Rewriting a bit more:
$$color{blue}{y^4}-2x^2color{blue}{y^2}-2xfrac{k_1 k_2}{z}color{blue}{y}+x^4=0$$
This is a quartic equation in $y$ and in general, that's not easy to solve. Note that the term in $color{blue}{y^3}$ is missing and that makes it slightly better, you can take a look at Ferrari's solution (see depressed quartic equation for the equation without the third degree term) but it will get (very) ugly...



The question is, do you really need (want?) to symbolically solve this for $y$?






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$




$x^4 - 2xyleft(xy + frac{k_1 k_2}{z}right) + y^4 = 0$




Rewriting a bit more:
$$color{blue}{y^4}-2x^2color{blue}{y^2}-2xfrac{k_1 k_2}{z}color{blue}{y}+x^4=0$$
This is a quartic equation in $y$ and in general, that's not easy to solve. Note that the term in $color{blue}{y^3}$ is missing and that makes it slightly better, you can take a look at Ferrari's solution (see depressed quartic equation for the equation without the third degree term) but it will get (very) ugly...



The question is, do you really need (want?) to symbolically solve this for $y$?







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Dec 12 '18 at 10:22









StackTDStackTD

24.3k2254




24.3k2254












  • $begingroup$
    The equation is for a magnet and I'm trying to find $y$ as that is the distance between, if they exist, the monopoles of a magnet.
    $endgroup$
    – John Miller
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:24










  • $begingroup$
    If you're not interested in an explicit formula for $y$ (which doesn't really give you a lot of insight anyway, if the formula is too ugly), you would typically use software te solve for $y$ with numerical methods.
    $endgroup$
    – StackTD
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:25










  • $begingroup$
    Yes I figured that would be easier, was just hoping I wouldn't have to ressort to that as it does not give as much insight as I wanted.
    $endgroup$
    – John Miller
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:27










  • $begingroup$
    You can always hope for a pretty solution :-). Now you know that sometimes that's not possible, sometimes it's ugly (too ugly to be useful?) and if you're lucky, you can get a nice explicit formula. I'd say you're in the middle case with this one.
    $endgroup$
    – StackTD
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:29










  • $begingroup$
    I've never heard of Ferrari's solution so I'll look into that for a bit, perhaps I'll get some inspiration but for a physical phenomenon it shouldn't be this 'ugly', at least it seems.
    $endgroup$
    – John Miller
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:34


















  • $begingroup$
    The equation is for a magnet and I'm trying to find $y$ as that is the distance between, if they exist, the monopoles of a magnet.
    $endgroup$
    – John Miller
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:24










  • $begingroup$
    If you're not interested in an explicit formula for $y$ (which doesn't really give you a lot of insight anyway, if the formula is too ugly), you would typically use software te solve for $y$ with numerical methods.
    $endgroup$
    – StackTD
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:25










  • $begingroup$
    Yes I figured that would be easier, was just hoping I wouldn't have to ressort to that as it does not give as much insight as I wanted.
    $endgroup$
    – John Miller
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:27










  • $begingroup$
    You can always hope for a pretty solution :-). Now you know that sometimes that's not possible, sometimes it's ugly (too ugly to be useful?) and if you're lucky, you can get a nice explicit formula. I'd say you're in the middle case with this one.
    $endgroup$
    – StackTD
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:29










  • $begingroup$
    I've never heard of Ferrari's solution so I'll look into that for a bit, perhaps I'll get some inspiration but for a physical phenomenon it shouldn't be this 'ugly', at least it seems.
    $endgroup$
    – John Miller
    Dec 12 '18 at 10:34
















$begingroup$
The equation is for a magnet and I'm trying to find $y$ as that is the distance between, if they exist, the monopoles of a magnet.
$endgroup$
– John Miller
Dec 12 '18 at 10:24




$begingroup$
The equation is for a magnet and I'm trying to find $y$ as that is the distance between, if they exist, the monopoles of a magnet.
$endgroup$
– John Miller
Dec 12 '18 at 10:24












$begingroup$
If you're not interested in an explicit formula for $y$ (which doesn't really give you a lot of insight anyway, if the formula is too ugly), you would typically use software te solve for $y$ with numerical methods.
$endgroup$
– StackTD
Dec 12 '18 at 10:25




$begingroup$
If you're not interested in an explicit formula for $y$ (which doesn't really give you a lot of insight anyway, if the formula is too ugly), you would typically use software te solve for $y$ with numerical methods.
$endgroup$
– StackTD
Dec 12 '18 at 10:25












$begingroup$
Yes I figured that would be easier, was just hoping I wouldn't have to ressort to that as it does not give as much insight as I wanted.
$endgroup$
– John Miller
Dec 12 '18 at 10:27




$begingroup$
Yes I figured that would be easier, was just hoping I wouldn't have to ressort to that as it does not give as much insight as I wanted.
$endgroup$
– John Miller
Dec 12 '18 at 10:27












$begingroup$
You can always hope for a pretty solution :-). Now you know that sometimes that's not possible, sometimes it's ugly (too ugly to be useful?) and if you're lucky, you can get a nice explicit formula. I'd say you're in the middle case with this one.
$endgroup$
– StackTD
Dec 12 '18 at 10:29




$begingroup$
You can always hope for a pretty solution :-). Now you know that sometimes that's not possible, sometimes it's ugly (too ugly to be useful?) and if you're lucky, you can get a nice explicit formula. I'd say you're in the middle case with this one.
$endgroup$
– StackTD
Dec 12 '18 at 10:29












$begingroup$
I've never heard of Ferrari's solution so I'll look into that for a bit, perhaps I'll get some inspiration but for a physical phenomenon it shouldn't be this 'ugly', at least it seems.
$endgroup$
– John Miller
Dec 12 '18 at 10:34




$begingroup$
I've never heard of Ferrari's solution so I'll look into that for a bit, perhaps I'll get some inspiration but for a physical phenomenon it shouldn't be this 'ugly', at least it seems.
$endgroup$
– John Miller
Dec 12 '18 at 10:34


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3036498%2fnot-sure-how-to-rearrange-this-formula%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

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







Popular posts from this blog

Biblatex bibliography style without URLs when DOI exists (in Overleaf with Zotero bibliography)

ComboBox Display Member on multiple fields

Is it possible to collect Nectar points via Trainline?