When we get to the part where we solve x intercept in the quadratic equation, why does it work that we can plug the x values back into our original equations that we can find their intercepts?
I’m not sure if I understand you right, when you say “plugging in the x values back into our original equations”, what are the x values you are taking about?
I don’t believe that it actually works like that. If you plug in x = -4 for the left side you get positive 1. And if you plug in -1 to the right you get positive 4.
First I think you need to understahd how a function works. Here is a simple linear function
f(x) = 6x + 2 or y = 6x + 2
In a function you feed it an x value and it spits out a y value. If we have a y value of 0 then that means we solved for an x intercept. Using this knowledge we can solve for a functions x intercepts.
I understand how functions work, I just want the WHY the x intercept of the quadratic function is the same as the intercept of the radical and linear function
I believe that is is just a coincidence, also how is that an extraneous value. Plug in -4 and you get
(sqrt(-4+5))^2. Then add (sqrt(1))^2 sqrt and squaring it cancel out and have no effect, so you get 1.
Extraneous means it is a solution, but is invalid for one reason or another. In this case, -4 doesn’t work because x+3 does not intercept sqrt(x+5) at x = -4. I hope that makes sense.
You are adding in an unnecessary squaring of the left side. Square root of 1 is just 1, there is no need to square both sides. This is why it is a solution, due to square roots being ±, however, it is not a solution for the primary equation. You can see it graphically:
There is no intersection at x = -4. Graphing an equation can tell you pretty much anything you need to know about it.