MathLabs
TheoremProved

Discriminant sign determines the root count

Statement

For a≠0a\neq0, the equation ax2+bx+c=0ax^2+bx+c=0 has exactly two distinct real roots if Δ>0\Delta>0, exactly one real root x=−b2ax=-\dfrac{b}{2a} if Δ=0\Delta=0, and no real root if Δ<0\Delta<0.

Why is it true?

This turns "how many times does the parabola cross the x-axis" — a question about a picture — into "check the sign of one number" — a question you can answer without drawing anything.

Proof sketch

Every step of this proof reuses the identity (x+b2a)2=Δ4a2\left(x+\dfrac{b}{2a}\right)^2=\dfrac{\Delta}{4a^2} established in the previous theorem, which holds for any real a,b,ca,b,c with a≠0a\neq0 regardless of the sign of Δ\Delta — only the final square-root step depended on Δ≥0\Delta\ge0.

**Case Δ>0\Delta>0.** The right side Δ4a2\dfrac{\Delta}{4a^2} is a positive number (a positive numerator over a positive denominator 4a24a^2), so it has two distinct square roots, +Δ2a+\dfrac{\sqrt{\Delta}}{2a} and −Δ2a-\dfrac{\sqrt{\Delta}}{2a}, which differ because Δ≠0\sqrt{\Delta}\neq0. Each gives a different value of x+b2ax+\dfrac{b}{2a}, hence a different value of xx: exactly two distinct real roots.

**Case Δ=0\Delta=0.** The right side becomes 00, and the only real number whose square is 00 is 00 itself — there is no "±\pm" ambiguity left. So x+b2a=0x+\dfrac{b}{2a}=0, giving the single root x=−b2ax=-\dfrac{b}{2a}. This matches factoring the left side directly as a(x+b2a)2=0a\left(x+\dfrac{b}{2a}\right)^2=0, a perfect square touching zero exactly once.

**Case Δ<0\Delta<0.** The right side Δ4a2\dfrac{\Delta}{4a^2} is now negative. But the left side (x+b2a)2\left(x+\dfrac{b}{2a}\right)^2 is a square of a real number, and the square of any real number is always ≥0\ge0 — it can never equal a negative number. So no real xx can satisfy (x+b2a)2=Δ4a2\left(x+\dfrac{b}{2a}\right)^2=\dfrac{\Delta}{4a^2} in this case, meaning the original equation has no real solution at all.

Topics that use this theorem

Step-by-step proofs

No step-by-step proof yet for this theorem.