Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

How to solve for an unknown in two different denominators?

In this equation: $$F = \frac{GMm_3}{r_2} - \frac{Gmm_3}{d-r_2}.$$

Everything is given except for $r_2$. How do I solve for $r_2$? Is it possible?

share|cite|improve this question
@Justin: Assuming this is a physics problem involving Newton's law of gravity, the units do not match. If you calculate a force, you need a distance^2 in the denominator. – Ross Millikan Jul 25 '11 at 19:26
I neglected to mention that F = 0 in this scenario. Will I still need to use the quadratic formula? – Justin Jul 25 '11 at 19:28
If you put $f=0$ in Arturo Magidin's answer, the quadratic term disappears, so not in that case. And if the denominators are really $r_2^2$ and $(d-r_2)^2$ you will just have the ratio of squares with no linear term. – Ross Millikan Jul 25 '11 at 19:39
up vote 3 down vote accepted

First, rewrite the right hand side as a single fraction by adding the fractions; factoring out $Gm_3$ simplifies matters a bit: $$\begin{align*} f &= \frac{GMm_3}{r_2} - \frac{Gmm_3}{d-r_2}\\ &= Gm_3\left(\frac{M}{r_2} - \frac{m}{d-r_2}\right)\\ &= Gm_3\left(\frac{M(d-r_2) - mr_2}{r_2(d-r_2)}\right). \end{align*}$$ Then clear denominators by cross multiplying, and collect appropriate powers of $r_2$; you'll end up with a quadratic equation in $r_2$ that can be solved using the quadratic formula or other methods: $$\begin{align*} f & = Gm_3\left(\frac{Md - (M+m)r_2}{r_2(d-r_2)}\right)\\ fr_2(d-r_2) &= Gm_3\left(Md - (M+m)r_2\right)\\ fdr_2 - f(r_2)^2 &= Gm_3Md - Gm_3(M+m)r_2\\ 0&= GMm_3d - \Bigl(Gm_3(M+m)+fd\Bigr)r_2 + f(r_2)^2. \end{align*}$$

Added. If $f=0$, as you now write, then the equation becomes $$0 = Gm_3\left(\frac {Md - (M+m)r_2}{r_2(d-r_2)}\right).$$ If $G\neq 0$ and $m_3\neq 0$, then this holds if and only if the numerator is $0$, if and only if $$0 = Md - (M+m)r_2,$$ which is easy to solve.

If, as Ross suggests, the denominators should be squared and $f=0$, then you would instead get $$0 = M(d-r_2)^2 - m{r_2}^2$$ which yields a quadratic equation in $r_2$ again, namely $$(M-m){r_2}^2 - 2Mdr_2 + Md^2 = 0.$$

share|cite|improve this answer
Or (in the denominator squared case) you can write $M(d-r_2)^2=mr_2^2$, take square roots (masses are positive), and have a linear equation. – Ross Millikan Jul 25 '11 at 20:08
@Ross: You have to note that you need to have either $r_2,d-r_2\gt 0$ or $r_2,d-r_1\lt 0$ in that case, so that the original equation holds, but I agree that once you notice that your simplification works. – Arturo Magidin Jul 25 '11 at 21:06
true, I am hypnotized by the appearance of Newton's law as opposed to an arbitrary equation. These conditions will then be satisified. – Ross Millikan Jul 25 '11 at 23:47

Try multiplying each side by both denominators, i.e. both $r_2$ and $d-r_2$, so that there are no fractions left. Combine like terms - in other words, group the terms with $r_2^2$ in them, the terms with $r_2$ in them, and the terms with no $r_2$'s in them. Then, treating $r_2$ as a variable we are solving for, we can apply the quadratic formula.

share|cite|improve this answer

You can, but you will probably use the quadratic formula.

$$f = \frac{GMm_3}{r_2} - \frac{Gmm_3}{d-r_2}.$$

$$f \cdot (r_2)(d-r_2) = GMm_3 \cdot (d-r_2) - Gmm_3 \cdot r_2$$

$$ -f \cdot r_2^2 + (fd + GMm_3 + Gmm_3) \cdot r_2 - GMm_3 d = 0$$

And this is quadratic in $r_2$, so solve using the quadratic formula. Aha - just as I am ready to post, this tells me that Zev has posted a similar answer. Well, this is his, except Texed up.

share|cite|improve this answer

A brief plea for symmetry!

The problem probably came from a situation in which there are two distances, $r_1$ and $r_2$, whose sum is $d$. It could make life easier to use $r_1$ instead of $d-r_2$. We then need to specify additionally that $r_1+r_2=d$.

So instead of a single equation, we have a system of two equations. But there is much more symmetry. Calculations often are more pleasant, and the calculation is more likely to reveal structural information.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.