Use case?

>>106916465
X = 1

>>106916499
This

>>106916465
1 & -1
Can't be fucked thinking about this more than a few seconds

>>106916465
It’s 1 and then some imaginary numbers I saw it on /pol/

>>106916640
It's x^3 not x^2

>>106916499
You win

>>106916640
-1 would be -2 youve been banned from tech

>>106916465
>1x1x1=1
1-1=0
0=0

File: Screenshot_20251017_050222.png (22 KB, 769x222)

22 KB PNG

>>106916465
here's the correct answer btw, no one got it

>>106916659
1 or 0 then

>>106916465
x = cubicroot(1)

Depends on the underlying ring. For example, 2 is a solution in Z/(7).

>>106916465
>If you can't solve this
>Don't worry, because no one can name a career field outside of Math Teacher that would utilize such algebraic equations for practical purposes
>Extra ketchup please.

>>106916465
>roots of unity (cube root to be specific), a genuine question to test one's analytical ability
>/g/ cant solve it
> b-but usecase kek
>1
>x=cubicroot(1)

i am starting to believe entire 4chan is full of posers. /g/ cant into maths and tech, /lit/ cant read, /mu/ /tv/ /a/ are full of shit, rest is ... well porn

>>106916721
Why cant it be 1?

>>106916729
there are 3 solutions tho, 1 omega omega2
1 is incomplete and shows you can either not solve it completely or even worse, are unaware that the other solutions even exist

>>106916765
So it can be 1?

>>106916765
1 is complete in real space
OP never specified the function domain.

>>106916659
>final solution
kek

>>106916721
Lit can read, ic can draw but g cant code

>>106916789
>1 is complete BUT in real space
>asspulled the OP never mentioned function domain
roots of unity solution is a more complete one in every space firstly and next you are a total NIGGER if you think OP asked this question to test if you could reach 1 as the solution you moron
total subhuman room temperature IQ argument from you right here
do you think the post was meant to check if you knew 1^3 = 1 ?? really ??
absolute state of /g/
i can understand if you dont know the solution, that is totally fine but the stage you are at right now, a sturdy rope is your best shot

>>106916499
Genius

>>106916824
interesting
/ic/ can draw, there is no denying that
i am really not sure if /lit/ can read, but i may just give it to them for keeping it mildly relevant and alive but /g/ ? oh my god, total niggers who cant into programming and think picking muh DOOOTFILES from some another niggers repo and "ricing" your "system" is tech

>>106916659
Not really
Unless otherwise stated R is implied
This is a technology board where complex numbers are very rarely used, so R is generally implied

>>106916857
It's not an asspull.
A function definition is incomplete without specifying the domain.
Especially when presented as just a formula without any context.

The real space solution is just as valid is as the complex space solution here.

>>106916883
holy shit
are you still defending it ??
are you really implying OP asked this to check if you could read 1 as the solution or "infer" that unless stated R is the domain ??
i am done, you win

>>106916784
obviously 1 is one of the solutions but that s not the fucking point of the post

>>106916920
so ur saying that the question "How To Solve?" is adequately answered by "x=1"

>>106916934
i never said that tho
>how do i do X ??
>here you go, X is done.
>no explanation
are you serious, the question "how to solve" is adequately answered by "providing the entire solution to the question"

>>106916920
The point of the post is to troll people with an ill-stated incomplete problem that does not specify function domains, so people can argue about it.
Both answers are valid, stop being an easily baited baby.

>>106916973
>easily baited baby
kek, try better next time
>both are valid
no, try telling that to someone around you who actually knows math but i highly doubt you would be exchanging thoughts with someone like that irl else you wouldnt be so stupid
nice talking to you anon

>>106916465
x^3 - 1 = 0
x * x * x - (- 1 + 1) = 0 + 1
x * x * x - 0 = 1
x^3 = 1
x = 1

Took me about 2 seconds mentally.

File: mx.png (24 KB, 642x198)

24 KB PNG

ez

>>106916878
i use complex numbers all the time, speak for yourself

>>106917057
based

>>106917057
I do too, but only for rotations, no fucking clue on how to find the complex solutions

>>106917146
2pi/n in the complex plane

File: ECClines-3.svg.png (9 KB, 335x190)

9 KB PNG

>>106916465
>If you can't solve this, you shouldn't be allowed to work in tech.

>>106916765
>there are 3 solutions tho, 1 omega omega2
kek what the fuck are you talking about?
>the very first non meme answer is correct
nooo!! you didn't use my imaginary made up mumbo jumbo maths!! i get paid millions in laundered dark money to come up with fairy tale maths you hav to respect me and my multiple mathematics genders!!!
fuck off retard.
the answer is 1
go waste your time on quantum computing or some other made up useless dogshit this board is full of enough garbage as it is.

Imaginary numbers aren't real. They've played you like fools.

>>106917190
imaginary numbers are real, the name just sucks

>>106917197
Give me i apples please.

>>106917205
they're rotations, give me 30º oranges first

>>106917205
done. you're welcome anon.

File: file.png (36 KB, 1134x736)

36 KB PNG

>>106916465

>>106916878
Not really.
Technology has no way to deal with non-rational numbers. So unless otherwise stated, Q is implied

>>106917229
>square root
you must be a scientist

>>106917236
>Technology has no way to deal with non-rational numbers.

More like non-whole numbers. You can't make 0.6(6) of an chair. Everything has to be emulated.

>>106917236
>gimped number structures can't be accurate therefore computers suck at math
how about you use bigint and complex libraries

>>106916487
fpbp

>>106917211
rotated along what axis?

>>106917265
japan, please, or italy

>>106916487
cubic root of 1 is 1
so x=1

>>106916650
Fuck you
I never liked tech anyway

File: aNR203JV_700w_0.jpg (23 KB, 570x310)

23 KB JPG

>>106916465
The answer is x3-1 because x has no default value

>>106917261
True, Computers already have trouble with 0.3.

>>106917262
I'm not saying computers suck at maths. Just continuing the argumunt of that other anon how complex numbers usually can't be dealt with natively and as such we shouldn't even think about these concepts if not explicitly stated.

just use long division you dumb jeets
you can obviously see x=1 is one real root, now just reduce it to a quadratic equation by factoring that one real root as (x-1):

(x-1)(x^2+x+1) = 0

Now just solve the quadratic equation for the two remaining roots

x = (-1 ± sqrt(1-4))/2 = (-1 ± sqrt(-3))/2 = -1 ± i*sqrt(3)/2

There you go the two remaining complex roots.

>>106918146
but why would I even try that if x = 1^(1/3) is right there?

>>106918169
Because that is only one of the three roots of x.

>log_x(1) = 3 (I forgetted how to do the rest)

What do I win?

>>106918146
>long division
nowhere in your post did you use long division, nor is it needed to solve this

>>106918225
long division is used to obtain the second degree polynomial used in the factorization you dumb jeet
and long division is always used to solve simple cubic equations (i.e. when one real root is obvious).

Oh shit bros I googled it, remember difference of squares? This is just difference of cubes.

>>106916499
you only gave 1/3 of the solutions:
>X = 1
>X = e^(i * 2 * pi/3) (also sometime named j)
>X = e^(i * 4 * pi/3) (sometime named j with a bar on top as it's conj(j))

In fact any non-zero polynomial with real coefficients has exactly N roots, where N is the degree of that polynomial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorem_of_algebra

>>106916465
answer is 0!

>>106918175
and how would I know I haven't found them all?

>>106918303
because you know there are 3 and youve only pointed out 1.

>>106916465
x=1

>>106916789
op never specified if X is a p-adic number either.

>>106916465
just do a loop and increment x until it satisfies the equation.
boom done

>>106918303
fundamental theorem or algebra

>>106918303
Because it's a ^3 equation you fucking jeet.

>>106918502
>uh duh, obviously x^8391 = 1 has 8391 solutions
this is your brain on meth

>>106918527
yes

>>106918527
if you draw a polynomial you will notice that N in x^N will equal the amount of times the polynomial intersects the X-axis i.e. x=0. The roots are these intersection points.

>>106918251
Great, correct, but the real answer is "not enough details are provided for a solution". We don't know if the complex roots are needed, or just the real ones, or really any constraints that most root-solving problems have.
>>106916487
only right answer

>>106916487
ebussy won

File: .png (27 KB, 959x735)

27 KB PNG

>>106918625
it still doesn't make sense
how the hell do you look at this and think
"there must be a whole dimension I missed, I can't see the other two points that cross the x axis"

File: 1742515376805898.png (99 KB, 986x914)

99 KB PNG

>>106918710
Because anon said it the way he did i can't be sure that he understands it
Anyways, third order polynomials always have 3 solutions, in this case we can see that it has one real solution, which means there's two complex solutions as well

>>106918710
they just account for i, the extra dimension's a side effect

>>106916716
I'm sure there's a use out there. hoping someone can tell me

Looks like it's solved already to me. It equals zero.

>>106916465
I've been thinking about writing a free math textbook for /g/entoomen for a while now. I'm sure that a lot of you fags would benefit from learning more about math, but I'm not sure how many would actually want to do it.

>>106918225
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynomial_long_division

>>106919778
I'd do it anon
I quite liked complex analysis back in uni but sadly never got around to reading serious material on it afterwards

>>106918251
Why not including the Quaternion's plane then ?
Quaternions are more related to /g/ than simple "Complex numbers" :
>Unit vectors in 3D for vidya-gfx

>>106919933
Hmm, maybe I'll get to work then. I'm quite busy at the moment, but I should have a lot more free time next year. What topics would /g/entoomen like to see covered?

>>106918240
>>106919845
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_division

>>106916465
x^3, so 3 roots equally spaced along the unit circle with |z|=1
One full rotation is 2pi, so 1/3 rotation is 2pi/3 and 2/3 rotation is 4pi/3
So, the first root is e^(i*0)=1, the second root e^i(2pi/3), the third is e^i(4pi/3)

>>106916465
Fuck writing the whole solution, just think. Which number, when cubed, would become just a plain 1? The simplest answer is 1.

>>106918710
sqrt(-1) doesn't exist in the real numbers, so of course it isn't go to show up in a graph of the function over the real numbers.

>>106916487
/thread

>>106916465
Why?

>>106916857
That fact that you are this butt blasted over complex numbers tells me your the poser lmao

x = 1 , exp (-i * 2 * PI * 1/3), exp (-i * 4 * PI * 1/3)
Unless you are implementing DFT you don't need to know this lmao. Math as it's taught in highschool and college is largely useless for computing even if you are implementing DFT you are better off (from scratch) just reading an implementation and making your own examples. I think if you've taken a lot of math you are a few steps behind people who start from 0. Cause they weren't taught the wrong way.

>>106920118
Because it would embarrass the mathematicians that waste their time complicating simple ideas. All the complex solutions are saying is that cubing is in some way analogous to 3 120 degree rotations. Once you know that you can just name a function and implement it any way you like. so x^n = 1 is n rotations, but no mathematician would ever tell you that, they just want to "blow your mind" by introducing e^x and saying it magically does blahblahblah.

>>106922653
>but no mathematician would ever tell you that
Because it's kind of trivial

>>106916465
This is going to be some pajeet-tier bait-and-switch question where '''''''''''''''''answers''''''''''''''''' are almost never 1 or some complex shit.
If you think too quickly, correct or not, they will say you did not think throughout enough, and they will give you some jeet answers.
If you think too slowly, they will say you thought too much, and they will give you 1 (and possibly that one complex and its conjugate) as (an) answer(s).

for 0 1 2 in i ; cos(2*PI * i / 3.0) + u * sin(2*PI * i / 3.0)
where u is the unit quaternion (0 is the trivial case)
Of course there is no closed form to the solution over quaternions. This exercise is entirely pointless OP is a faggot.

int: x = 1
float, double: x = 1.0
bool: x = 1
char: x = '\001', (undefined)
array of ints: undefined
hashmap : undefined
tree: undefined
complex: look it up

>>106922886
you can multiply characters in c so it's not undefined

>>106922886
complex.h is a C99 standard

>>106923144
So is not converting floats to doubles and VLAs. Lots of bad ideas in c99.

File: SQRT.jpg (34 KB, 716x960)

34 KB JPG

>>106917240

>>106923374
I always compile with -Wvla and I've never had issues with floats and doubles, you gotta spend a little more time writing if you want to be understood

>>106916465
1
next thread

File: x**3-1=0.png (28 KB, 462x700)

28 KB PNG

>>106916465

the answer is literally just 1. anything else sounds like fake math to me.

File: pic-selected-251017-1500-07.png (267 KB, 1298x1043)

267 KB PNG

>>106923464
Who are you?
(small correction, on the pdp-11 v6 unix the c compiler doesn't support floating point, though the language itself does)

>>106916465
>they don't know about -1/2 +/- sqrt(3)i/2
china won.

>>106923464
You've never played a videogame with a floating point bug? I call bullshit, minecraft has them for this reason right here >>106923573

>>106918251
>In fact any non-zero polynomial with real coefficients has exactly N roots, where N is the degree of that polynomial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorem_of_algebra:
>every non-zero, single-variable, degree n polynomial with complex coefficients has, counted with multiplicity, exactly n complex roots.
well it doesn't say what you said it said, it said the opposite. x is not complec coefficient. therefore fuck you

>>106923539
Close, it's imaginary.

File: 2025-10-18-00:45:29.png (30 KB, 1122x104)

30 KB PNG

>>106923649
>exactly n complex roots
exactly what I said

x^3-1 is a polynomial with only real coefficients.
so it checks out
also u+0i is a complex value, as well as being a real value

Given that this thread is somehow still alive, here is the full process of solving it you fucking niggers.

x^3-1=0
x^3=0+1
x^3=1
x=cubicroot(1)
x=1

Why? What is a root? You take the number of root, which is 3 in this case and you need to find what 3 numbers multiplied together give 1. How much is 1*1*1? It's 1, therefore x=1.

Mods please close this ridiculous thread.

x^3 crosses the y line only once,
1 is the obvious answer

>>106924007
Oh right root is opposite of exponent i knew that

>>106916465
(X * X * X) - 1 = 0
(X * X * X) = 1
X^3 = 1
X = 1

1 - 1 = 0
The solution is this.

>>106924016
lol retard

File: Untitled.png (8 KB, 806x480)

8 KB PNG

>>106918449
its not algebra
its calculus

File: tard.jpg (3 KB, 125x124)

3 KB JPG

>>106925872
>>106923539
>>106917190
>>106916878

algebra - muslim useless shit
calculus - glorious white man invention leading us to stars!

>>106916465
I can’t think of a single problem in software development that would ever require knowing how to solve this.

>>106928382
how about equation solving software like wolframalpha?

You NEED to know cube root solutions because it's essential in inverse kinematics functions for animating robots and virtual characters (both of which are technology).

>>106928816
go on...

Just draw a unit circle in the complex plane and select the points at 0, 120 and 240 degrees.

>>106928816
>animating robots
complex solutions is not important

difference of cubes:
a^3 -b^3 = (a-b)(a^2 +ab +b^2)
x^3 - 1 = x^3 - 1^3
=> (x - 1)(x^2 +x +1)
root x=1
x_{1,2}= ( -1 \pm sqrt (-1 +4 ) ) / 2
x_{1,2}= ( -1 \pm sqrt -3 ) / 2
x_{1,2} = (-1 \pm i sqrt 3 ) / 2

I have tested IQ of 86 btw

>>106918251
Weigh me i grams ... any number which isn't real and positive is bullshit.

>>106929077
it's true, they are all scalars in different fields

File: Untitled.png (11 KB, 818x480)

11 KB PNG

algebra - muslim useless shit
calculus - glorious white man invention leading us to stars!

>>106916499
Could also be -i^(2/3)

>>106916465
>If you can't solve this, you shouldn't be allowed to work in tech.
If you can't solve this you're literally retarded. At least post an impossible or ambiguous meme equation next time.

>>106918251
Not a real answer

File: 1550079191088.jpg (80 KB, 750x714)

80 KB JPG

>>106916465
the solution is 0
it literally said =0 on the question

>>106916487
What's case?

>>106918146
That's pretty cool. Thanks Anon.

File: you should be able to sol(...).png (678 B, 88x19)

678 B PNG

You guys are not serious, right? Right???

>>106930199
Which field, group or ring are we on?

>>106930000
kek

File: roots of jewnity.png (73 KB, 926x634)

73 KB PNG

its always the jews

>>106930199
i.... think it's... hmmm... i... don't know

File: njwildberger.png (1.08 MB, 900x900)

1.08 MB PNG

>>106930199
the only real numbers are finite integers, not including "zero", thus there is no solution. any other answer is bluepilled pseudoscience

File: death.jpg (31 KB, 474x476)

31 KB JPG

>>106930228
i was obviously thinking of the sweedler hopf algebra, smartass.

>>106918251
Imaginary numbers are /sci/faggotry
This is /g/
The answer is 1

>>106916640
I've always been deeply confused by things like algebra seminars for adults on company money (Private sector in my country still invests in workers).
Then I see shit like this and it all becomes crystal clear, It is a very sad thing for me but the job world revolves only around social skills.

>>106916659
(x-1)(x^2+x+1)
x(x^2+x+1)
-1(x^2+x+1)
x^3+x^2+x-x^2-x-1=0
x^3-1=0
>>106917051
x^3-1=0
x^3=1
x=1

Why are anons trying to add complexity, to grade-schooler math? Is it the R/python way or something?

>>106929807
show me i apples

>>106930607
show me 2 identical apples.

>>106916465
if you can't solve this i think the term for you is "clinically retarded". being in tech doesn't have shit to do with this.

>>106916640
That only applies for even numbered roots.
If you have y = x^2, it can take negative and positive number inputs and give out positive number outputs. Its inverse, y = ±sqrt(x), is the opposite, it takes in positive number inputs and gives out negative and positive number outputs. But you have to add that ± symbol because y = sqrt(x) only gives out positive outputs, and this is because of the definition of a function (one input should only have one output).
So, when you have x^2 = 1, and you apply its inverse to both sides: ±sqrt(x^2) = ±sqrt(1) => x = ±sqrt(1) => x = ± 1.
But with odd numbered roots, this doesn't apply.
If you have y = x^3, it can take negative and positive number inputs and give out negative and positive number outputs, so its inverse, y = cbrt(x), can also take in negative and positive inputs and give out negative and positive outputs. This means that there's no need to add a ± symbol.
I over-explained because I'm a retard, and that's how i understand it. In practicality, x^2 - 1 = 0 has two numbers that satisfy the equation: positive and negative 1, and x^3 - 1 = 0 has only one number that satisfies the equation: positive 1.

>>106930661
i bet you didn't think about imaginary numbers.

File: file.jpg (28 KB, 499x481)

28 KB JPG

>>106929807
>2 hours later, nobody of the tech geniuses got the joke

File: apples.png (1.73 MB, 1861x1001)

1.73 MB PNG

>>106930644

>>106930810
And that kids is why we don't believe in no Axiom of "Choice".

>>106930145
Serious question. Can't even google this 'cause this word has too many meaning.

behead anyone overcomplicating their answer

>>106916465
1, -1, -i

>>106918251
X = 1 gets you a well paying job as an engineer. All that other stuff gets you into an insecure shit paying part time gig between 3 poor yuro universities and a monthly quota of at least 2 useless math papers in publications nobody reads.

File: measuring_tension.png (17 KB, 800x882)

17 KB PNG

>>106932352
kek, i didn't major in electronics, but we used imaginary numbers all the time. impedances use complex numbers all the time.
for instance ohm's law for impedance Z is
V = I |Z| e^(i arg(Z)).

even when you use a basic volt meter it solves complex equations internally to display the electrical tension.

even in mechanics complex numbers come up all the time, for damping factors, or solving movement equations. and don't even get me started on signal processing and fourier analysis.

>>106930000
Holy cinema

>>106916659
I popped open a Ruby interpreter, set up this equation:

x = (1 + Complex(0, Math::sqrt(3))) / 2.0
puts x ** 3

Answer it gives is -0.9999999999999998+1.1102230246251565e-16i

This is an approximation of -1, so x^3 - 1 gives -2, which is an incorrect solution.

>>106932780
Actually, forgot the minus sign in front of it. That makes it equivalent to just saying 1 in a roundabout way.