Difference of Squares
Learning goals
- Apply
- Spot two perfect squares joined by a minus
- Take square roots including coefficients, so is
- Factor again when a factor is itself a difference
- Refuse to factor a sum of squares over the reals
Why a difference of squares always factors
The claim is that factors as . There is nothing to guess and nothing to memorize on faith, because you can check it directly. To test whether two factors really rebuild an expression, multiply them out and see what survives.
Why #
Expand the proposed factorization the way you expand any product of two binomials, multiplying every term of the first factor by every term of the second:
The four products are , then , then , then . Now look hard at the two middle products. Because the order of multiplication does not matter, and are the same quantity, so and are exact opposites. They add to zero and disappear:
Only the two squares are left. So for every and . Read from right to left, that is the factoring rule: a difference of two squares splits into the sum of the roots times the difference of the roots. The cancellation of the middle terms is the entire mechanism, and it is also why a sum of squares behaves differently. Flip one sign, expand instead, and the two middle products become and , which reinforce rather than cancel.
The same fact has a picture. Start with a square of side , whose area is , and cut a smaller square of side out of one corner, removing area . What is left is an L-shaped region of area . Slice that L into two rectangles and slide them together, and they line up into a single rectangle with sides and . No area is created or lost in the move, so the leftover must equal the rectangle’s area .
Recognizing a difference of squares
Before you can use the pattern you have to spot it, and the test has three parts. The expression must have exactly two terms. Both terms must be perfect squares, meaning each one is something squared. Each one may be a number like or , a variable power like or , or a whole term like . And the two squares must be joined by a minus sign, one square subtracted from the other. When all three conditions hold, the expression is a difference of squares and factors as the sum times the difference of the two roots.
The minus sign is not a formality. A sum of two squares, like , passes the first two conditions but fails the third. A sum like does not factor at all over the real numbers. That is not a hole in your method; there is genuinely no pair of real factors whose product is . A later chapter, once numbers beyond the real line are on the table, comes back to this case. For now, read a plus sign between two squares as a full stop and leave the expression alone.
Worked example 1 Which expressions are differences of squares?
Run each one through the three-part test: two terms, both perfect squares, joined by a minus sign.
qualifies. It has two terms, both are perfect squares since and , and they are subtracted. The roots are and .
qualifies too. Here and , with a minus between them, so the roots are and .
fails. Both terms are perfect squares, but they are added, not subtracted. This is a sum of squares, and it does not factor over the real numbers.
fails as well. It does have a minus sign, but is not a perfect square, since is not a whole number. So the second term is not a square to begin with.
Only the first two are differences of squares.
Check your understanding
Which of these is a difference of squares?
A difference of squares is two perfect-square terms joined by a minus sign. In , both and are perfect squares, and they are subtracted.
The expression is a sum of squares and does not factor over the reals, is not a perfect square, and is not a square.
Factoring when the terms carry coefficients
Nothing in the pattern requires the squares to be bare variables. A term like is a perfect square because , so a difference such as factors exactly the way does. The one new skill is taking the square root of each term correctly, coefficient and all. The root of is , not , because you have to square both the and the to rebuild .
The routine is always the same. Take the square root of the first term to get , take the square root of the second to get , and write . Then expand it in your head as a check: the two outer squares should return and the middle terms should cancel.
Worked example 2 Factor and
For , take the root of each term. The first is and the second is , so and :
Check it by expanding: , with the middle terms canceling just as the pattern promises.
For , the roots are and . This time the number comes first and the variable term second, but the pattern does not care about the order:
Both factors carry the same two roots, once added and once subtracted.
Worked example 3 Factor
A second variable changes nothing. Take the square root of each term, keeping each coefficient with its variable: and .
Each root captures its whole term. The check is the usual one: the cross terms and cancel, leaving .
Check your understanding
Factor .
Take the square root of each term: and . Write the sum of the roots times the difference of the roots.
The two factors must have opposite signs, so is wrong, and the root of is , not .
Factoring more than once
Factoring is not finished until nothing that remains can be factored again. Sometimes one pass of the difference-of-squares rule leaves a factor that is itself a difference of squares, and then you apply the rule a second time. This comes up often with fourth powers, because is a perfect square whose root can be a difference of squares in its own right.
Worked example 4 Factor completely
Read as , a difference of squares with roots and :
Now inspect each factor. The second one, , is again a difference of squares, , so it factors further:
The first factor, , is a sum of squares, so it does not factor over the real numbers and the work stops there. Assembling the pieces gives the complete factorization:
Stopping at would be an error, because still comes apart. After every pass, look at each new factor and ask whether it is a difference of squares.
Pulling out a common factor first
An expression can hide a difference of squares behind a common factor. Take . Neither nor is a perfect square, so at first glance the pattern does not apply. But the two terms share a factor of , and once you pull it out, what is left is a clean difference of squares:
The habit to build is to factor out the greatest common factor first, then check whether what remains fits a special pattern. Skip that step and you either miss the difference of squares entirely or leave the factoring half-done.
Worked example 5 Factor completely
First find the greatest common factor of and . They share a factor of and a factor of , so the common factor is :
What is left inside is , a difference of squares with roots and :
So the complete factorization keeps the common factor out front:
Pulling out first is what exposed the difference of squares. There was no square to see until the common factor was gone.
Check your understanding
Factor completely.
First pull out the greatest common factor, which is . What remains is a difference of squares.
Stopping at is incomplete because still factors, and is not fully factored either, since still has a common factor of . The two factors also need opposite signs, so is wrong.
Solving equations and a mental-math shortcut
The pattern turns certain equations into one-liners. To solve , factor the left side and use the zero-product property, which says a product is zero only when one of its factors is zero:
The same reasoning handles in general. Factoring gives , so either or , which means or . A difference of squares is zero exactly when the two quantities are equal or are exact opposites.
The identity is also a real arithmetic shortcut. A product of two numbers that sit the same distance on either side of a round number is a difference of squares in disguise. To multiply , notice that and , so the product is :
You have replaced a two-digit multiplication with a square and a subtraction. The same move gives . This pairing of a sum with a matching difference is worth holding onto for one more reason. The very same trick is what later lets you clear square roots out of a denominator when you simplify radical expressions.