This site is a work in progress. New lessons are added regularly. Contact us

Solving Radical Equations

Learning goals

  • Isolate, raise, repeat, solve, then check every candidate
  • Trust that raising to a power loses no genuine solution
  • Explain extraneous roots as solutions of the sign-flipped twin
  • Read t2\sqrt{t^2} as t\lvert t \rvert, so a root is never negative
  • Reject the domain check, which is not the test here
  • Note that cubing is reversible, unlike squaring

What raising both sides to a power does to the solution set

A radical equation is an equation in which the unknown sits under a radical, such as x+7=x5\sqrt{x + 7} = x - 5. The unknown is trapped: you cannot add, subtract, or divide it out from under the root sign. The one operation that frees it is the operation that undoes the root, which is raising to a power.

That operation is legitimate, and here is exactly why. If two expressions are equal at some value of xx, they are the same number at that value. And the same number raised to the nnth power gives the same result. So for every positive integer nn,

a=ban=bn.a = b \quad\Longrightarrow\quad a^n = b^n.

Read the arrow carefully, because everything in this lesson hangs on it. The implication runs one way. It does not run backwards when nn is even, and a single example settles that: 22=42^2 = 4 and (2)2=4(-2)^2 = 4, so a2=b2a^2 = b^2 while aba \ne b.

The consequence for solving is precise. Take any value of xx that solves the original equation. Both sides are then equal numbers, so their nnth powers are equal too, so that same xx also solves the powered equation. Nothing that was a solution can be lost. What the arrow does not promise is the reverse, and so the powered equation may pick up values that the original never had. The solution set can grow but it can never shrink.

That is a useful bargain rather than a disaster. It means the candidates you find are a complete list: every genuine solution is somewhere among them. The list is just possibly too long. A value that solves the powered equation but not the original is called an extraneous root (or an extraneous solution). Your job is to find the candidates and then throw out the impostors.

So the method has five steps, and the last one is not a formality:

  1. Isolate a radical, so that it stands alone on one side.
  2. Raise both sides to the power that matches the index (square a square root, cube a cube root).
  3. If a radical is still present, isolate and raise again.
  4. Solve the radical-free equation.
  5. Substitute every candidate into the original equation and keep only the ones that make it true.

Why squaring invents solutions

It is worth knowing exactly what the new equation says, not just that it says “something extra.” The factoring you learned for a difference of squares answers this completely.

Squaring both sides turns A=BA = B into A=BA = B or A=BA = -B#

Let AA and BB be real numbers. We claim that A2=B2A^2 = B^2 holds if and only if A=BA = B or A=BA = -B.

Suppose first that A2=B2A^2 = B^2. Moving everything to one side gives A2B2=0A^2 - B^2 = 0, and a difference of squares factors, so

(AB)(A+B)=0.(A - B)(A + B) = 0.

A product of two real numbers is zero only when one of the factors is zero, so either AB=0A - B = 0 or A+B=0A + B = 0. That is, either A=BA = B or A=BA = -B.

Now suppose the other direction. If A=BA = B, then squaring both sides gives A2=B2A^2 = B^2. If instead A=BA = -B, then A2=(B)2=B2A^2 = (-B)^2 = B^2 as well, since the square of a negative is the square of its opposite. Either way A2=B2A^2 = B^2.

Both directions hold, so the two statements say exactly the same thing about AA and BB.

Read that result as a statement about equations. When you square both sides of A=BA = B, you do not get a slightly different version of your equation. You get the equation

A=BorA=B,A = B \quad\text{or}\quad A = -B,

which is your equation glued together with its sign-flipped twin. Squaring cannot tell tt from t-t, so it cannot keep the two apart, and it hands back the solutions of both. Every extraneous root is a solution of that twin.

Now the puzzle from the opening dissolves. In x=2\sqrt{x} = -2 we have A=xA = \sqrt{x} and B=2B = -2. Squaring produces ”x=2\sqrt{x} = -2 or x=2\sqrt{x} = 2.” The first of those has no solutions, because the principal square root is never negative. The second gives x=4x = 4. So x=4x = 4 did not come from the equation you asked about. It came from the twin that squaring folded in, free of charge.

The same fact has a compact form you should memorize:

t2=t,which is t only when t0.\sqrt{t^2} = \lvert t \rvert, \qquad \text{which is } t \text{ only when } t \ge 0.

Squaring and then taking the principal root does not reliably return you to where you started. It returns the absolute value, because the principal root is non-negative by definition and cannot report a sign it was never given. When tt happens to be non-negative the two agree, and that is exactly what makes the identity treacherous. It looks like an inverse until the day tt is negative, and then it quietly hands back t-t instead. This is also why radical equations and absolute value equations misbehave in the same way. Taking principal roots on both sides of A2=B2A^2 = B^2 gives A=B\lvert A \rvert = \lvert B \rvert, which is precisely A=±BA = \pm B, the very split that created extraneous roots back in Chapter 1.

Why squaring invents the root x = 4 for the equation √x = -2The line y = -2 never meets the graph of y = √x, so the equation has no solution. Squaring adds the lower branch y = -√x, and the line meets that added branch at the point (4, -2).xy492-2y = √xy = -√xy = -2(4, 2)(4, -2)
The solid curve is y = √x, the only thing the original equation talks about. Squaring adds the dashed lower branch y = -√x, and the line y = -2 meets that branch at x = 4. The candidate x = 4 is a perfectly ordinary number sitting comfortably inside the domain. It is simply on the branch that squaring invented.

Squaring has a second, quieter side effect. The powered equation is often defined at values where the original is meaningless. Look at x5=1x\sqrt{x - 5} = \sqrt{1 - x}. Squaring gives x5=1xx - 5 = 1 - x, a harmless linear equation with the single root x=3x = 3. But at x=3x = 3 the original reads 2=2\sqrt{-2} = \sqrt{-2}, and 2\sqrt{-2} is not a real number, so x=3x = 3 solves nothing. Squaring widened the domain, and a candidate wandered in through the new opening.

So a candidate can fail for two different reasons. It can be outside the domain of the original radicals, or it can be inside the domain and still make the two sides disagree in sign. Substituting into the original catches both at once, without your having to decide in advance which trap you fell into, because it simply asks whether the original statement is true.

Isolate the radical before you raise it

Suppose you skip step 1 and square 3x+12=3\sqrt{3x + 1} - 2 = 3 exactly as it stands. The left side is a difference of two terms, and squaring a difference produces a cross term:

(3x+12)2=(3x+1)43x+1+4.\left(\sqrt{3x + 1} - 2\right)^2 = (3x + 1) - 4\sqrt{3x + 1} + 4.

The cross term 43x+1-4\sqrt{3x+1} still carries a radical, so you have done a lot of work and freed nothing. This is not a special misfortune. Squaring P+QP + Q always leaves the cross term 2PQ2PQ behind, and if PP is a radical then 2PQ2PQ contains that radical. The radical only disappears when it is alone, because then it is the whole side, and (u)2=u(\sqrt{u})^2 = u with nothing left over.

Worked example 1 Solve 3x+12=3\sqrt{3x + 1} - 2 = 3

Isolate the radical first by adding 22 to both sides:

3x+1=5.\sqrt{3x + 1} = 5.

Now the radical is the entire left side, so squaring clears it cleanly:

3x+1=25.3x + 1 = 25.

Solve the linear equation: 3x=243x = 24, so x=8x = 8.

Check the candidate in the original equation, not in any of the lines below it:

3(8)+12=252=52=3.\sqrt{3(8) + 1} - 2 = \sqrt{25} - 2 = 5 - 2 = 3. \checkmark

The candidate survives, so x=8x = 8 is the solution. Notice that the right side, 55, was non-negative when we squared, which is why no impostor appeared here.

The check is against the original, not against the domain

Five lessons ago, solving a rational equation, you also met extraneous roots, and there the check had a shortcut: throw out any candidate that makes a denominator zero. That shortcut is a domain check, and it is exactly the wrong instinct here. A radical equation can hand you a candidate that is happily inside the domain, with every radicand non-negative, and it can still be an impostor.

Worked example 2 Solve x+7=x5\sqrt{x + 7} = x - 5

The radical already stands alone, so square both sides:

x+7=(x5)2=x210x+25.x + 7 = (x - 5)^2 = x^2 - 10x + 25.

Collect everything on one side to get a quadratic:

x211x+18=0.x^2 - 11x + 18 = 0.

This factors as (x9)(x2)=0(x - 9)(x - 2) = 0, so the candidates are x=9x = 9 and x=2x = 2.

Check x=9x = 9 in the original. The left side is 9+7=16=4\sqrt{9 + 7} = \sqrt{16} = 4, and the right side is 95=49 - 5 = 4. The two agree, so x=9x = 9 is a genuine solution.

Check x=2x = 2 in the original. The left side is 2+7=9=3\sqrt{2 + 7} = \sqrt{9} = 3, and the right side is 25=32 - 5 = -3:

33.3 \ne -3.

So x=2x = 2 is extraneous, and the only solution is x=9x = 9.

Look hard at the candidate that failed. At x=2x = 2 the radicand is 2+7=92 + 7 = 9, which is positive, so x=2x = 2 sits comfortably inside the domain of x+7\sqrt{x + 7}. Both sides of the original are perfectly well-defined real numbers there. It failed for one reason only: the left side came out +3+3 and the right side came out 3-3. They agree in size and disagree in sign, which is precisely the disagreement squaring is blind to.

You can even see which equation x=2x = 2 really belongs to. The twin of x+7=x5\sqrt{x + 7} = x - 5 is x+7=(x5)=5x\sqrt{x + 7} = -(x - 5) = 5 - x, and at x=2x = 2 that reads 3=33 = 3. The candidate is an honest solution, just not of the equation you were asked about.

The moral is worth stating flatly, because it is the thing students most often get backwards. It is false that a candidate is extraneous exactly when it lies outside the domain. That rule belongs to rational equations, where the only irreversible move was multiplying by something that might be zero. Here the sign is what was thrown away, so the sign is what must be checked. And the only way to check it is to substitute into the original equation and look at both sides.

Check your understanding

Solve x+2=x\sqrt{x + 2} = x.

Answer choices

Equations with two radicals

When two radicals appear, one squaring is not enough, and the reason is the cross term again. Isolate one radical, square, and you are left with a single radical instead of two, because squaring a binomial like 1+u1 + \sqrt{u} gives 1+2u+u1 + 2\sqrt{u} + u: the u\sqrt{u} survives in the middle. So you isolate that surviving radical and square a second time. Two radicals, two squarings, and two chances to invent a solution, which is why the final check matters even more here.

Worked example 3 Solve 2x+3x+1=1\sqrt{2x + 3} - \sqrt{x + 1} = 1

Isolate one radical by moving the other one across:

2x+3=1+x+1.\sqrt{2x + 3} = 1 + \sqrt{x + 1}.

Square both sides. The right side is a binomial, so expand it with care:

2x+3=1+2x+1+(x+1)=x+2+2x+1.2x + 3 = 1 + 2\sqrt{x + 1} + (x + 1) = x + 2 + 2\sqrt{x + 1}.

One radical is left, exactly as predicted. Isolate it by subtracting x+2x + 2 from both sides:

x+1=2x+1.x + 1 = 2\sqrt{x + 1}.

Square again:

(x+1)2=4(x+1).(x + 1)^2 = 4(x + 1).

Bring everything to one side and factor out the common x+1x + 1:

(x+1)[(x+1)4]=0    (x+1)(x3)=0.(x + 1)\left[(x + 1) - 4\right] = 0 \;\Longrightarrow\; (x + 1)(x - 3) = 0.

The candidates are x=1x = -1 and x=3x = 3.

Check x=1x = -1: the original becomes 10=10=1\sqrt{1} - \sqrt{0} = 1 - 0 = 1, which is correct.

Check x=3x = 3: the original becomes 94=32=1\sqrt{9} - \sqrt{4} = 3 - 2 = 1, which is also correct.

Both candidates survive, so the solutions are x=1x = -1 and x=3x = 3. Checking is not the same as rejecting: sometimes every candidate is honest, and a negative value of xx is perfectly acceptable as long as it keeps each radicand non-negative.

Check your understanding

Solve x+7x=1\sqrt{x + 7} - \sqrt{x} = 1.

Answer choices

Cubing both sides is reversible

Everything above blamed the even power. An odd power is a different animal, and the difference is not a technicality: it changes what you are allowed to conclude.

For real numbers, a3=b3a^3 = b^3 holds exactly when a=ba = b#

One direction is immediate: if a=ba = b, then cubing both sides gives a3=b3a^3 = b^3.

For the other direction, suppose a3=b3a^3 = b^3. Then a3b3=0a^3 - b^3 = 0, and a difference of cubes factors. (Expand the right side below and watch the middle terms cancel in pairs if you want to see why.)

(ab)(a2+ab+b2)=0.(a - b)\left(a^2 + ab + b^2\right) = 0.

So either a=ba = b, which is what we want, or the second factor vanishes. Complete the square on that second factor to see when it can:

a2+ab+b2=(a+b2)2+34b2.a^2 + ab + b^2 = \left(a + \tfrac{b}{2}\right)^2 + \tfrac{3}{4}b^2.

Both terms on the right are squares of real numbers, so both are non-negative, and their sum is zero only if each is zero separately. That forces b=0b = 0 from the second term, and then a=0a = 0 from the first. So the second factor vanishes only at a=b=0a = b = 0, where a=ba = b holds anyway.

In every case a=ba = b, so cubing loses nothing and adds nothing.

So cubing both sides of A=BA = B is reversible: the cubed equation says exactly what the original said, no more and no less. When a cube root stands alone, that one step is the whole method, and it cannot manufacture an impostor. Two familiar worries evaporate with it. A cube root is defined for every real number, positive or negative, so there is no domain to restrict. And u3=3\sqrt[3]{u} = -3 is a perfectly reasonable statement, because an odd root is allowed to be negative, unlike the principal square root. The same reasoning applies to fifth roots, seventh roots, and every other odd index. Every even index, by contrast, behaves just like the square root, because t4=(t)4t^4 = (-t)^4 for the same reason t2=(t)2t^2 = (-t)^2.

Keep the guarantee inside its fence. It is a claim about the step “cube both sides of A=BA = B”, not an amnesty for every equation that happens to contain a cube root. A solution might manipulate the equation some other way, for instance by cubing a sum of two cube roots and then feeding the original equation back into the expansion. Such a solution is not making that reversible move, and it can enlarge the solution set like any other irreversible step. Substituting back costs one line, so keep doing it.

Worked example 4 Solve 2x13=3\sqrt[3]{2x - 1} = -3

Do not reach for the “a root cannot be negative” reflex. That rule is about the principal square root. A cube root reports the sign of its input, so a negative value on the right is exactly what you should expect from a negative radicand.

Cube both sides, which is a reversible step:

2x1=(3)3=27.2x - 1 = (-3)^3 = -27.

Solve: 2x=262x = -26, so x=13x = -13.

Check in the original, which is still worth doing to catch arithmetic slips:

2(13)13=273=3.\sqrt[3]{2(-13) - 1} = \sqrt[3]{-27} = -3. \checkmark

The solution is x=13x = -13. Here the check confirmed rather than filtered, and by the proof above it could never have done anything else.

Rational exponents wear the same equation

You already know that a1/na^{1/n} is another name for an\sqrt[n]{a}, so an equation written with fractional exponents is a radical equation in different clothes. In particular (2x+5)1/2(2x + 5)^{1/2} is 2x+5\sqrt{2x + 5}, raising both sides to the power 22 is squaring, and every warning in this lesson applies without a single change.

Worked example 5 Solve (2x+5)1/2=x+1(2x + 5)^{1/2} = x + 1

Rewrite the left side to see what you are holding: (2x+5)1/2=2x+5(2x + 5)^{1/2} = \sqrt{2x + 5}. The radical is already isolated, so raise both sides to the power 22, using the power-of-a-power rule on the left:

[(2x+5)1/2]2=(2x+5)1=2x+5.\left[(2x + 5)^{1/2}\right]^2 = (2x + 5)^{1} = 2x + 5.

The equation becomes

2x+5=(x+1)2=x2+2x+1,2x + 5 = (x + 1)^2 = x^2 + 2x + 1,

so x2=4x^2 = 4 and the candidates are x=2x = 2 and x=2x = -2.

Check x=2x = 2: the left side is (9)1/2=3(9)^{1/2} = 3 and the right side is 2+1=32 + 1 = 3, so it is a solution.

Check x=2x = -2: the left side is (1)1/2=1(1)^{1/2} = 1 and the right side is 2+1=1-2 + 1 = -1:

11.1 \ne -1.

So x=2x = -2 is extraneous, and the only solution is x=2x = 2. Once again the impostor was inside the domain (its radicand was 11) and failed only on sign.

When the numerator of the exponent is not 11, split the power into two steps rather than guessing. To solve (x4)3/2=27(x - 4)^{3/2} = 27, write the left side as [(x4)1/2]3\left[(x-4)^{1/2}\right]^3 and name the inner piece u=(x4)1/2u = (x - 4)^{1/2}. Because uu is a principal square root, u0u \ge 0. The equation is now u3=27u^3 = 27, and cubing is reversible, so u=3u = 3 and nothing else. Then (x4)1/2=3(x - 4)^{1/2} = 3 gives x4=9x - 4 = 9, so x=13x = 13, and the check confirms it: (134)3/2=93/2=(9)3=27(13 - 4)^{3/2} = 9^{3/2} = (\sqrt{9})^3 = 27.

The same reading tells you when to stop early. The equation (x4)3/2=27(x - 4)^{3/2} = -27 has no solution, because u0u \ge 0 forces u30u^3 \ge 0, and u3u^3 can never equal 27-27. Recognizing the impossibility before you compute saves the whole calculation.

Check your understanding

Solve (x+5)3/2=8(x + 5)^{3/2} = 8.

Answer choices

Three causes, three checks

You have now met extraneous roots three times, and they had a different cause every time. That is the point worth carrying away. “Extraneous root” is not one phenomenon with one fix. It is a name for what happens whenever a step in your solution is not reversible. And since the irreversible step differs, the reason a false value slips in differs, and so the check that catches it differs.

Where you met itThe step that is not reversibleWhy a false value slips inWhat the check must ask
Absolute value equationsRewriting X=Y\lvert X \rvert = Y as X=YX = Y or X=YX = -YThe rewrite is only valid when Y0Y \ge 0, and that hypothesis is silently discardedDoes the value satisfy the original, signs and all?
Rational equationsMultiplying both sides by the LCDThe LCD can be zero, and multiplying by zero makes any two sides agreeIs the value in the domain, that is, does it leave every denominator non-zero?
Radical equationsRaising both sides to an even powerAn even power cannot tell tt from t-t, so it folds in the twin equation A=BA = -BDoes the value satisfy the original, signs and all?

A student who memorized “check for extraneous roots” without knowing why will reach for the wrong check. Coming from rational equations, the habit is to scan the candidates against the domain and keep whatever survives. Do that here and you will confidently report x=2x = 2 as a solution of x+7=x5\sqrt{x + 7} = x - 5, because its radicand is a healthy 99, and you will be wrong.

There is one check that never needs you to diagnose the cause first. Substitute the candidate into the original equation and see whether both sides come out equal. It works for absolute value equations, for rational equations, for radical equations, and for every irreversible step you will ever invent. That is because it is not a trick at all: it is the definition of what it means to be a solution.

Common mistakes

Practice

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ)

Progressively harder sets of questions. Each opens on its own page.

Free Response Questions (FRQ)

Longer questions in parts, to be worked out on paper. Progressive hints, the answer on its own so you can check yourself and try again, then the full worked solution, plus a rubric to mark your own work against.

Free response Work it out on paper 5 questions Start →
More practice (optional)

Extra sets, as hard as the Challenge set. Each one opens on its own page.

More resources (optional)

Other explanations of this lesson, if you want a second take.

A bit of history (Optional)

Before algebra had symbols, an equation was a claim about shapes. Solving one meant building it.

Around the year 1070 the Persian mathematician Omar Khayyam worked through the cubic equations one type at a time. Outside mathematics he is better known as a poet. He solved the cubics by drawing two curves, a circle and a parabola in one case, and reading off the point where they crossed. The answer came out as a length you could put a finger on.

That method carried its own check, quietly and for nothing. A length is a real thing: it cannot be negative, and it either appears in the picture or it does not. An answer that made no sense was never produced at all, because the geometry declined to draw it.

Symbols are far more powerful, and the price of that power is the check. Raising both sides to an even power is a legal operation on marks made with ink. Ink does not know what your equation was about. Substituting a candidate back into the original is how you put the picture back.