In elementary algebra, the **quadratic formula** is a formula that provides the two solutions, or roots, to a quadratic equation. There are other ways of solving a quadratic equation instead of using the quadratic formula, such as completing the square.

Given a general quadratic equation of the form

with x representing an unknown, with a, b and c representing constants, and with *a* ≠ 0, the quadratic formula is:

where the plus–minus symbol "±" indicates that the quadratic equation has two solutions.^{[1]} Written separately, they become:

Each of these two solutions is also called a root (or zero) of the quadratic equation. Geometrically, these roots represent the x-values at which *any* parabola, explicitly given as *y* = *ax*^{2} + *bx* + *c*, crosses the x-axis.^{[2]}

As well as being a formula that yields the zeros of any parabola, the quadratic formula can also be used to identify the axis of symmetry of the parabola,^{[3]} and the number of real zeros the quadratic equation contains.^{[4]}

The expression Δ = *b*^{2} − 4*ac* is known as the discriminant. If a, b, and c are real numbers and *a* ≠ 0 then

- When
*b*^{2}− 4*ac*> 0, there are two distinct real roots or solutions to the equation*ax*^{2}+*bx*+*c*= 0. - When
*b*^{2}− 4*ac*= 0, there is one repeated real solution. - When
*b*^{2}− 4*ac*< 0, there are two distinct complex solutions, which are complex conjugates of each other.

The quadratic formula may also be written as

or

Because these formulas allow re-use of intermediately calculated values, these may be easier to use when computing with a calculator or by hand. When the discriminant is negative, complex roots are involved and the quadratic formula can be written as:

A lesser known quadratic formula, also named "citardauq", which is used in Muller's method and which can be found from Vieta's formulas, provides (assuming *a* ≠ 0, *c* ≠ 0) the same roots via the equation:

For positive , the subtraction causes cancellation in the standard formula (respectively negative and addition), resulting in poor accuracy. In this case, switching to Muller's formula with the opposite sign is a good workaround.

Many different methods to derive the quadratic formula are available in the literature. The standard one is a simple application of the completing the square technique.^{[5]}^{[6]}^{[7]}^{[8]} Alternative methods are sometimes simpler than completing the square, and may offer interesting insight into other areas of mathematics.

Divide the quadratic equation

by , which is allowed because is non-zero:

Subtract *c*/*a* from both sides of the equation, yielding:

The quadratic equation is now in a form to which the method of completing the square is applicable. In fact, by adding a constant to both sides of the equation such that the left hand side becomes a complete square, the quadratic equation becomes:

which produces:

Accordingly, after rearranging the terms on the right hand side to have a common denominator, we obtain:

The square has thus been completed. If the discriminant is positive, we can take the square root of both sides, yielding the following equation:

(In fact, this equation remains true even if the discriminant is not positive, by interpreting the root of the discriminant as any of its two opposite complex roots.)

In which case, isolating the would give the quadratic formula:

There are many alternatives of this derivation with minor differences, mostly concerning the manipulation of .

Completing the square can also be accomplished by a sometimes shorter and simpler sequence:^{[9]}

- Multiply each side by ,
- Rearrange.
- Add to both sides to complete the square.
- The left hand side is the square of the polynomial .
- Take the square root of both sides.
- Isolate .

Thus, the quadratic formula is derived as follows:

This derivation of the quadratic formula is ancient and was known in India at least as far back as 1025.^{[10]} Compared with the derivation in standard usage, this alternate derivation avoids fractions and squared fractions until the last step and hence does not require a rearrangement after step 3 to obtain a common denominator in the right side.^{[9]}

Another technique is solution by substitution. In this technique, we substitute .

Then , so . Expanding yields , and combining like terms further simplifies this to . Moving the constant terms to the other side and dividing by a gives us the equation . Solving for y and using the original identity , we get the familiar quadratic formula: .

The following method was used by many historical mathematicians:^{[11]}

Let the roots of the standard quadratic equation be *r*_{1} and *r*_{2}. The derivation starts by recalling the identity:

Taking the square root on both sides, we get:

Since the coefficient *a* ≠ 0, we can divide the standard equation by a to obtain a quadratic polynomial having the same roots. Namely,

From this we can see that the sum of the roots of the standard quadratic equation is given by −*b*/*a*, and the product of those roots is given by *c*/*a*.
Hence the identity can be rewritten as:

Now,

Since *r*_{2} = −*r*_{1} − *b*/*a*, if we take

then we obtain

and if we instead take

then we calculate that

Combining these results by using the standard shorthand ±, we have that the solutions of the quadratic equation are given by:

Further information: Lagrange resolvents |

An alternative way of deriving the quadratic formula is via the method of Lagrange resolvents,^{[12]} which is an early part of Galois theory.^{[13]}
This method can be generalized to give the roots of cubic polynomials and quartic polynomials, and leads to Galois theory, which allows one to understand the solution of algebraic equations of any degree in terms of the symmetry group of their roots, the Galois group.

This approach focuses on the *roots* more than on rearranging the original equation. Given a monic quadratic polynomial

assume that it factors as

Expanding yields

where

Since the order of multiplication does not matter, one can switch α and β and the values of p and q will not change: one can say that p and q are symmetric polynomials in α and β. In fact, they are the elementary symmetric polynomials – any symmetric polynomial in α and β can be expressed in terms of *α* + *β* and *αβ*. The Galois theory approach to analyzing and solving polynomials is: given the coefficients of a polynomial, which are symmetric functions in the roots, can one "break the symmetry" and recover the roots? Thus solving a polynomial of degree n is related to the ways of rearranging ("permuting") n terms, which is called the symmetric group on n letters, and denoted *S _{n}*. For the quadratic polynomial, the only ways to rearrange two terms is to leave them be or to swap them ("transpose" them), and thus solving a quadratic polynomial is simple.

To find the roots α and β, consider their sum and difference:

These are called the *Lagrange resolvents* of the polynomial; notice that one of these depends on the order of the roots, which is the key point. One can recover the roots from the resolvents by inverting the above equations:

Thus, solving for the resolvents gives the original roots.

Now *r*_{1} = *α* + *β* is a symmetric function in α and β, so it can be expressed in terms of p and q, and in fact *r*_{1} = −*p* as noted above. But *r*_{2} = *α* − *β* is not symmetric, since switching α and β yields −*r*_{2} = *β* − *α* (formally, this is termed a group action of the symmetric group of the roots). Since *r*_{2} is not symmetric, it cannot be expressed in terms of the coefficients p and q, as these are symmetric in the roots and thus so is any polynomial expression involving them. Changing the order of the roots only changes *r*_{2} by a factor of −1, and thus the square *r*_{2}^{2} = (*α* − *β*)^{2} is symmetric in the roots, and thus expressible in terms of p and q. Using the equation

yields

and thus

If one takes the positive root, breaking symmetry, one obtains:

and thus

Thus the roots are

which is the quadratic formula. Substituting

A similar but more complicated method works for cubic equations, where one has three resolvents and a quadratic equation (the "resolving polynomial") relating *r*_{2} and *r*_{3}, which one can solve by the quadratic equation, and similarly for a quartic equation (degree 4), whose resolving polynomial is a cubic, which can in turn be solved.^{[12]} The same method for a quintic equation yields a polynomial of degree 24, which does not simplify the problem, and, in fact, solutions to quintic equations in general cannot be expressed using only roots.

The earliest methods for solving quadratic equations were geometric. Babylonian cuneiform tablets contain problems reducible to solving quadratic equations.^{[14]}^{: 34 } The Egyptian Berlin Papyrus, dating back to the Middle Kingdom (2050 BC to 1650 BC), contains the solution to a two-term quadratic equation.^{[15]}

The Greek mathematician Euclid (circa 300 BC) used geometric methods to solve quadratic equations in Book 2 of his *Elements*, an influential mathematical treatise.^{[14]}^{: 39 } Rules for quadratic equations appear in the Chinese *The Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art* circa 200 BC.^{[16]}^{[17]} In his work *Arithmetica*, the Greek mathematician Diophantus (circa 250 AD) solved quadratic equations with a method more recognizably algebraic than the geometric algebra of Euclid.^{[14]}^{: 39 } His solution gives only one root, even when both roots are positive.^{[18]}

The Indian mathematician Brahmagupta (597–668 AD) explicitly described the quadratic formula in his treatise *Brāhmasphuṭasiddhānta* published in 628 AD,^{[19]} but written in words instead of symbols.^{[20]} His solution of the quadratic equation *ax*^{2} + *bx* = *c* was as follows: "To the absolute number multiplied by four times the [coefficient of the] square, add the square of the [coefficient of the] middle term; the square root of the same, less the [coefficient of the] middle term, being divided by twice the [coefficient of the] square is the value."^{[21]}
This is equivalent to:

Śrīdhara (870–930 AD), an Indian mathematician also came up with a similar algorithm for solving quadratic equations, though there is no indication that he considered both the roots.

The 9th-century Persian mathematician Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī solved quadratic equations algebraically.^{[14]}^{: 42 } The quadratic formula covering all cases was first obtained by Simon Stevin in 1594.^{[23]} In 1637 René Descartes published *La Géométrie* containing special cases of the quadratic formula in the form we know today.^{[24]}

In terms of coordinate geometry, a parabola is a curve whose (*x*, *y*)-coordinates are described by a second-degree polynomial, i.e. any equation of the form:

where p represents the polynomial of degree 2 and *a*_{0}, *a*_{1}, and *a*_{2} ≠ 0 are constant coefficients whose subscripts correspond to their respective term's degree. The geometrical interpretation of the quadratic formula is that it defines the points where the parabola will cross the x-axis. Additionally, if the quadratic formula is considered as two terms,

the axis of symmetry appears as the line

If this distance term were to decrease to zero, the value of the axis of symmetry would be the x value of the only zero; that is, there is only one possible solution to the quadratic equation. Algebraically, this means that √*b*^{2} − 4*ac* = 0, or simply *b*^{2} − 4*ac* = 0 (where the left-hand side is referred to as the *discriminant*). This is one of three cases, where the discriminant indicates how many zeros the parabola will have. If the discriminant is positive, the distance would be non-zero, and there will be two solutions. However, there is also the case where the discriminant is less than zero, and this indicates the distance will be *imaginary* – or some multiple of the complex unit i, where *i* = √−1 – and the parabola's zeros will be complex numbers. The complex roots will be complex conjugates, where the real part of the complex roots will be the value of the axis of symmetry. There will be no real values of x where the parabola crosses the x-axis.

If the constants a, b, and/or c are not unitless then the units of x must be equal to the units of *b*/*a*, due to the requirement that *ax*^{2} and *bx* agree on their units. Furthermore, by the same logic, the units of c must be equal to the units of *b*^{2}/*a*, which can be verified without solving for x. This can be a powerful tool for verifying that a quadratic expression of physical quantities has been set up correctly.