life changing quadratic formula 

Same bro!

@@epc0003 it's quite possible Sometimes you just don't wanna go with the said method and try your best to find another way to achieve the answer One does not need to be Po- Shen Lo to come up with this

I also derived the formula during my class and showed to my teacher but he said " the book does not say so and I'll deduct your marks if u use the".... nvm I am so happy now that I was correct

@@epc0003 fr, it's really hard to derive this method from scratch as a student, how would someone come up with taking the midpoint of roots then using it as being equidistant from roots and calculating that distance to calculate roots, I always wondered why addition of roots and multiplication of roots was so easy compared to the quadratic formula but I would never imagine myself deriving this

@@vanshkhatri8233 lmao, this actually happened with me.

a wonderful concept.

Absolutely right

E C 100%

Ironic but sometimes true

Haha ancient chisel go brrr

I just came to the same conclusion. This method basically derives the quadratic formula from "graphical" solution. Which I think, is actually quite educational.

My mathteacher used this “method”, well it’s actually common sense if you think it through, to explain us the abc formula

Yes of course. It’s not going to miraculously break away. But it is definitely an easier way to conceptualize the process. Most students just memorize the quadratic function instead of deriving it. Whereas this method fits nicely into the same method applied to whole number roots. Every student I’ve taught who just memorized formulas deprived themselves of seeing all the connections in math and as a result never become really good at math.

Perspective changed

@@johnspence8141 isn't the easiest way to just complete the square?

Ooooooh I remember you!!! Hope all is well 😁

My math teacher is here too

My inspiration is here too!!!!

Hii

Legend

L e g e n d

Hey, thanks for compiling this!!

thanks for comenting us ew

My thoughts exactly 😀

What?

Lol

This is a very specific joke, i am surprised people got this

Ever heard of being cheerfully refused admission?

Is this a Hitler joke? Just want to make sure I’m right

@@brittonporter5063 yes

Lol

do watch the video till end..he took that too!

@Guitarzen oh no😭

Make sure you are solving real problems

Make sure you watch the video before you comment? Complex numbers change nothing

Lol

True😂

You are a unacademian?

Ashwani Tyagi's students right?

search up po shen loh. He does a lot more real mathematics research (in graph theory and combinatorics) as a professor at carnegie mellon, as well as coach the usa IMO team. this is hardly a breakthrough or a new method in any means. not sure why he's calling it that.

Truly!

yes, because probably the professor taught him something new.

Gay??

@@aryamannsrivastava7279 no!...we cnnot juge like every nice person is gay thats very wrong...instead in general poeple with a higher education like him are nice bc their are not in the level of juck kids who are looking for trouble or bulliying instead of mind themselves.

@@abderzakchebbi1339 I am sorry for my words .actually I myself found sir to be very useful and informative

Ja man pq Formel Gang amk

@@NotBroihon vallah☝🏻

​@@mxchronos3642Jesus loves YOU. He died so YOU can have an eternal life in heaven. True joy, life love, peace and fulfilment is found in God. REPENT of your sins & TURN TO CHRIST 🧡 Accept Him as Lord and Saviour and be saved. Btw, I'm not a bot. There is a person behind their screen praying for you and wishing you joy and heaven that only God can give.

Westerners be like: that's cheating😭😭

x^2 - 9 = 0 : idk😂😂

The name of the formula is middle term factor, so by its name you have to factories the middle term coefficient of the given equation by the help of initial and terminal terms. Here( -6) is the middle term coefficient and -6 = (-4)+(-2) . ( where { -4}×{ -2}= 8). So the Answer will be (x-4) (x-2).

@@LLT_MATHEMATICAL_FLUID kehna kya chahte ho??

@@adityagarg9988 x=+-3

Wahi lmao

Indians are faster than this 😅

@shubh Yes, You are right he is better than that of tiktok jokers

He is not “dude”.. learn some manners..

@@avishek438 that's true too. Dude is little disrespecting

Cheerfulness has very little influence on understanding math...

@@tmjcbs it makes your audience be more interested, hence they will be more focussed and they will learn a lot more

I didn’t understand shit from this vid

@@tmjcbs No

@Nawfal. wns excuses. enthusiasm of the teacher doesnt matter. the actual content is more important. if enthusiasm has an effect on a student then thats just because that student is lazy and doesnt want to do the hard work part on their own.

🙂🙂🤣🤣

The equations at the beginning are called Vieta's formulas

I call it "Bhaskara formula with geometrical intuition" hahaha Completing the square is my go-to though

completing the square doesn't use symmetry in the same way. This is slightly different.

Yes, this is essentially finding a turning point and completing the square.

Oh no guess I have to change my name now 😅

@@MKD1101 pehle mera naam Gangster Sharma tha then i changed it .

@@MKD1101 please bhai , yeh mat karo .. ruk jao .

Please don't comment without having a prior knowledge of complex no.s

@@anitakajala7799 Expert in it bro mind your own work 😏

Minchia in Russia siete fortissimi

In russia too

well in india too.. we are taught vieta formula.. x^2 - (sum of roots) x + (product of roots)

@@infinixgaming1791 it's a bit different. i learned that 3 years ago, but the loh's method use de discriminant for quadratic equations in a ''indirect'' form the ∆=b^2-4ac is equal to u. since there are many equations that cannot use x^2-sum+product.

Grrrrr

Awesome!!!

It is also standard, I believe, in most of Eastern Europe.

This was so basic... I didn't know this method had a name. We were taught this before quadratic formula.

Being an asian indian I didn't know this method, although I know some different easy methods to solve this equation. Always happy to learn more.🥰

Meet any CAT or CGL aspirent of india

I m from Russia and we use this formula and name of this “ the theorem of Viet” (Теорема Виета)😂😂😂

oh so you can use them for cubic?

@@mathadventuress yupp

@@mathadventuress The formula states that for any equation of degree N which has roots A_i where i={1,2,3...} the sum of the roots is the coefficient of the term which has N-1 as power divided by the coefficient of the term which has Nth power TIMES -1... and just like this when the roots are taken two at a time and multiplied and then added like a series (to clear things up e.g (A1*A2)+(A2*A3)+(A3*A4)+....+(A_N-1 *A_N) )IS JUST THE THIRD COEFFICIENT divided by the the first one and and like so on I would suggest you to look it up on some good book like Hall and knight

Vietas formulas should be a must learn for polynomials of any degree. Sad it is not taught to many before university (not even a glimpse).

I learned it in 6th grade, and my teacher use to say if you want to learn math or science learn from Russian and one of my professor (one of the smartest person i met in my life yet)here is US proved it.

Wonderful!!! :)

That is correct. In fact, he SAYS that if a isn't 1, you have to factor it out first. If you factor a quadratic using this method, and then using the quadratic formula, you find yourself doing all the same arithmetic. The difference is that if you are good at remembering sequences of operations, this will seem easier, while if you are better at remembering formulas, the quadratic formula will seem easier. They all break down to different rearrangements of the prototypical quadratic, ax^2 + bx + c = 0, to solve for x.

Lmao yea it is

To be fair, it will all be algebraically equivalent no matter what you do. This is just a different way of thinking about it. The equation becomes: for a=1, x=(-b)/2 ± √[ (b/2)^2 - c ] Honestly, this would be an easier way of evaluating the quantity underneath the root if b is divisible by 2. But, most importantly, it gives a better conceptual understanding which can save you if you forget the quadratic equation.

Thought so too!

when we complete the square its the same... the turning point -b/2a x-coordinate is the midpoint of the root ... the rest follows

This is correct, but I'd like to point out that you would get the quadratic equation once you're rearranged the original equation to factor out the x^2 coefficient. So you end up doing exactly the same arithmetic either way, but the method you are showing splits it into two steps. What makes the quadratic equation nice is that once you have it memorized, it's just one step. So really it's a matter of whether you want to remember one equation, or a slightly simpler equation and another step. What I like about the method shown in the video is that you don't have to memorize anything, and even if you forget the exact process, it takes only a minute to go through the same derivation the describes.

I'm pretty sure I was taught a formula as x^2 +2ab + b

@@-ClerzZ- I'm pretty sure you weren't, because that would not have given you the correct answers. In fact, it doesn't even solve for x.

I agree. This video really does not add anything new to the solution of the famous equation. But how could it? Everything here is completely known for centuries.

@@sasoblazic It gives students another option. The math is what it is. Whether you are plugging a, b, and c into the quadratic equation, or you're factoring by completing the square, or you're using this method, the actual arithmetic you are doing is identical. But different people remember things in different ways, so for someone who has no trouble remembering complicated equations, the quadratic equation may be the best way, while for people for whom remembering the steps in a process is easier, then this method or completing the square may be easier. You are right: this method that David Seed describes doesn't add anything to the mathematics, because just as what is described in the video is actually one derivation of the quadratic equation, and completing the squares is another, this is just preparing your polynomial a bit before crunching the coefficients through a simplified version of the quadratic equation. But for every student, ONE of these methods will click better in their mind. There are also cases, though, that are easier to do with one method than another. For example, if the x^2 coefficient is 1, David Seed's formula is slightly easier to use than the more general quadratic equation, and if your coefficients are all integers, completing the square or the method in the video may be easier to apply.

But in real life, and nature, the coefficients could be ANYTHING, not so nice and simple. You need a repettive method that works fir ever single situation. Does this one do it.?

Still taught in my additional maths with roots of polynomials

Yeah. This lets you guess the roots when they are integers. Which is fine for passing math tests, but doesn't come up so much in the real world.

TY, I cam to the same conclusion how can the sum of the roots be < 0 yet they are both positive.

FFFFFFFFFFF

It also tells you if the roots are real or not. For me its a lot quicker to solve using that formula. The only problem is remembering it by heart.

Omg now I have that song stuck in my head again 🤦🤣

@@Fakipo join the cult ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-E2eVZFy9yzk.html

@@bonnieb7608 yes

LMAO

-b+-√b²-4ac/2a : am I a nightmare 😤

Wait so do I use the one you suggested? Instead of quadratic equation

@@GG4EVA623 not always valid

This is my preferred method when doing physics and dealing with a bunch of physical constants. I find it quite clean.

@@interiorcrocodile4297 When is it not valid? It is valid for all cases since new definition of "b" is now 1/2 of old b.

He's from West

In China, the method was taught in grade 7... But it’s a great method, anyway.

Here in Czechia, it's taught in 6 grade, maybe even in kindergarten we spoke about it among boys... (Just joking, I am not from Czechia)

@@hanzhoutang9235 Chinese people are machines! They work alot to use their full potential. I am a 10 grader and learnt it for the very first time

I too.

Careful, in exams it can be equally important that you're examiner recognises you go a "working" way to the solution. Then, if you make a mistake they may give you marks for the way to the solution. (Still, I agree it's a wonderful way, especially because it always goes with understanding of how the solution works.)

How did it go?

@@KayOScode it was extremely easy actually

@@mayaghazy391 I love it when theyre easy. Hoping my compilers midterm is easy this Wednesday lol

also in Italy, it is considered the basis of second degree equations, you learn in the first grade

Also in Russia, it is one of the basic formulas

Never studied it as a part of curriculum in India

@@pizzamidhead2183 I knew Italians were smart, but how do you teach quadratics to 6 year olds. That’s crazy

@@yagnapatel3912 Probably first-grade high school students.

Hindhu Shridhar Acharya. But sad part is it is not mentioned in our textbooks. I found it from other reference books.

Lmaooo

@Left and Right Troll For a Computer, the quadratic formula is better, because, it doesn't have to "think", rather input values in a pre defined formula

work the method shown in the video symbolically and you will find that it reduces to the usual quadratic formula. The method shown is only another way to derive the conventional quadratic formula that we are all familiar with. just start with: x^2+bx+c=0, and follow steps in the video.

@Left and Right Troll Yeah like when i was in high school we had the right to use a calculator and we had a program calculating the solutions instantly...

i understand it is equivalent to the usual formula. And if you think of it has to be since it gives the correct solutions. Now i tried a few times and it is not as slow as i first thought, with some practice it could become a viable computational option. Another test to do is wether that method increases or decreases your percentage of calculation mistakes.

@@adrien8572 so your calculator got the school degree, not you. son..

Thanks so much!

and the way he derives and then uses the discriminant formula in every quadratic equation

@@AAAAAA-gj2di lol

@@deelakayahaladeniya4472 ur gay

Not to me.

Its hay

Proud to be jee aspirant 😊

Yes🤣.. in india 10th ka bachha ye kr lega😆

Mein to ye 6 class mein sikh liya tha 😂😂

Oh, he really has an accent? I didn't notice that! :-)

That was how they taught us to factor quadratics first, but I kept asking, "but what if the factors aren't nice, round numbers", to which I was told, "don't worry, we'll get to that", and that turned out to be the quadratic equation, which always works. I think they only made us learn to figure out pairs that multiplied to b and added to c, was so that we would learn to recognize the easy cases, and avoid using the full formula.

That was how they taught us to factor quadratics first, but I kept asking, "but what if the factors aren't nice, round numbers", to which I was told, "don't worry, we'll get to that", and that turned out to be the quadratic equation, which always works. I think they only made us learn to figure out pairs that multiplied to b and added to c, was so that we would learn to recognize the easy cases, and avoid using the full formula.

@@BrightBlueJim sure, but for almost all cases that you are likely to encounter, the coefficients arent fractions

@@7rgrov198 That may be the case when you're taking an algebra test in high school, but when you are solving for the poles in an electrical circuit, the coefficients come from some combination of multiple electric component values, the coefiicients are almost never integers. This is just one example. Every place I've seen where I've actually had to solve a real world problem (as opposed to a problem in a textbook), I've had non-integer coefficients to deal with. I've come to realize that it's far easier to just plug the numbers into the quadratic formula, than to use one of these "shortcuts".

West Bengal naki Bangladesh???? INDIA te to calculator allow kore na wbjee &jee main etc te!

@@amitavadass maybe he's in a college

@@DANTE-kv7mv hoyto!

@@amitavadass Bangladesh eo korena dada

@@amitavadass jee 2021 or 2022

If they're more visual math learners, like me, they might prefer to Complete The Square, using an area model (the same thing).

No, don’t do that. They are taught the formula for a reason, most questions will require the formula, you get marks for working, if you do that you will confuse them and they will lose marks

Correct

I like his enthusiasm, he is very good at this, but Yikes.

Yes

Yes Sridhar Acharya's method is more easier.

Yes. They are fools😅

@ayo tebak siapa and why u feeling jealous by this? This is true...evan u also use this method

Yes it is.

That’s harsh, we should be nice to the polynomial to help it overcome its depressive roots

Depressing a quadratic is equivalent to "completing the square".

yup more exactly the variation of the quadratic used in Germany and India. The Pq-formula. (way less of a headache than the American formula and all you really do is divide by a)

@@Metalhammer1993 Yeah, can belive so. remaber when I first learned the formula, was a headice to memorice

@@alakas706 the american one really is a monster. the PQ one is a bit simpler

My God, the rest of the world uses the ABC formula? I hate that monster.

@@m.m.2341 yup. I at least only know Germany and India

Than you

I think your English teacher was also not cheerful

😂

@@dragster9474 🤣🤣

@Aadi Ringay which method?

I'm pretty sure u would be making fun of him

You are from which country?

Same here

@@anshikagupta1114 India me bhi 6 class me krate h यह kha se aagyi tu?

@@akshatj4546 I am also from India but I learnt this in 9th standard

‘The Good Doctor ‘ Peyem

Because it actually IS taught. It is based on completing the square, which is a method used in deriving the standard quadratic formula. If you recall its derivation, you can clearly see how they are identical.

@@fullfungo Yes, I know that this is how the Greeks worked it out as well, but schools just sit down you in front of the equation.

@@fullfungo then why is he touting it's different if it's the same?

@@Icenri They do? I don't recall that ever happening for me. Maybe it's just some places where it's taught worse?

@@leif1075 Having different methods to obtain the same result may seem pointless. However, some of them may be more intuitive for a human, while others are more efficient for a computer. There are of course other reasons, but these two are usually the ones that help us make the choice when presented with one.

And pq is even more simple and easier to use

@@tobibender7475 The point is not about "more simple and easier". It is about following: An algorithm does not explain why it works. It is just: Make step 1, step 2, step 3, ... the pq-formula or abc-formula or what ever explains, why it works. This is the difference.

@@easymathematik In school, we learned how to get from x²+px+q=0 to the pq-Formel. Afterwards, we used it to calculate fast.