You may know to simplify by clearing the radicals out of the denominator, but how do you simplify
or
?
Did you figure out that ? If not, you can double check by squaring both sides. But how would you do this without guess-and-check? The process is known as denesting radicals, since
has nested square roots, while
does not.
Problem. Can be denested? What about
?
We will answer both of these questions, but first let’s solve a special case:
Case 1: The norm is a square
The expression is called the norm of
. It turns out that
can be denested whenever the norm of
is a perfect square. Let
and
. Then we will always find that
is rational and
is rational. (In fact,
.) Therefore, we need to solve the system of equations
,
.
This system of equations can be solved using elimination of variables or Vieta’s formulas, but either way we find that and
are the roots of the quadratic
, which are
.
So denests!
Example. Suppose we want to denest . Let
, and notice
and
, so
. Then
are the roots of
, so by the quadratic formula,
.
Example. We had asked about and
, but neither of these can be denested using this strategy, since both of them have norm
, which is not a square. So we need a little more work.
Case 2: The norm is not a square
In fact, we can prove that neither of these can be denested in terms of square roots:
Theorem. Suppose are rational numbers, and
is not a perfect square. Then
can be expressed as a rational linear combination of square roots if and only if the norm
is a perfect square.
We first need to understand what the theorem statement means. A rational linear combination of square roots is an expression of the form
,
where are rational numbers,
are squarefree integers (integers which are not divisible by any perfect square except
), and the sum has finitely many terms. We can also assume that
are all distinct, because if two were equal, we may as well group them together.
Theorem. If a number can be expressed as a rational linear combination of square roots, then it can be expressed uniquely in this form.
The proof is an interesting exercise. We will omit it, but try it yourself to brush up on your proof skills!
We tend to say that a rational linear combination of square roots is in simplest form. For example, is not in simplest form because it can be expressed as a rational linear combination of square roots,
, which corresponds to what we learned in school.
Now we have already proven that if is rational, then
can be expressed as a rational linear combination of square roots. Let’s prove the converse: that
is rational if
can be expressed as a rational linear combination of square roots.
By assumption, we have
.
When expanded, the right hand side contains terms of the form . By the last theorem, it must be that each of those terms is either an integer (
is a square, so
) or a
term (
is a square, so
or
). In other words, we must have
.
Squaring both sides, and
. Dividing,
, or
. Multiplying by
, we find that
satisfies the polynomial
. But since
is rational, that means that the discriminant
must be a square, so the norm
must be a perfect square. The proof is complete!
Denesting using fourth roots
According to our theorem, cannot be expressed in terms of non-nested square roots. However, let’s try to use the same strategy anyway. Define
and
. (Notice we use
instead of
because
.) Then
Therefore, and
are roots of the quadratic
, so
.
You can always verify it by squaring both sides! The final word on this subject is due to Borodin, Fagin, Hopcroft, and Tompa:
Theorem. Suppose are rational numbers, and
is not a perfect square. Let
, the norm of
.
- If
where
is rational, then
denests (using our algorithm) as
.
- If
where
is rational, then
denests (using our algorithm) as
.
- Otherwise,
does not denest as a linear combination of
roots for any
.
Other problems
Each of the following can be denested. Can you denest them?
Answers to some of these can be found in the references below. By the way, problems like these come up in Galois Theory when finding Galois groups, but that is beyond the scope of this article!
References
- Borodin, Fagin, Hopcroft, and Tompa. Decreasing the Nesting Depth of Expressions Involving Square Roots. 1985
- Landau. How to Tangle with a Nested Radical. 1993
- Zippel. Simplification of Expressions Involving Radicals. 1985
