If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

### Course: Get ready for Algebra 2>Unit 1

Lesson 8: Factoring quadratics with difference of squares

# Factoring difference of squares: analyzing factorization

Sal analyzes two different factorizations of 16x^2-64 and determines whether they are correct.

## Want to join the conversation?

• Which expression is further simplified?
• To sum it up, (4x-8)(4x+8) is not the most simplified because you can still factor out a four --> (4x is divisible by 4 and 8 is also divisible by 4). 16 (x - 2)(x + 2) is the most simplified because 2 can be divided by 2 but x (which is the same as 1x) can't be divided by any number other than one.
• How will we ever use this in real life?
How is this information ever going to help us?
What's the purpose of this particular topic being here on this website for us to study so we can use it in our tests and exams?

I'm not trying to criticize anyone, i'm just curious.
• I think this advanced into math, you are just doing it for the sake of math...
• Did i do right?

16x^2-64
4(4x^2-16)
4((2x)^2-(4)^2)
4(2x+4)(2x-4)
4(2)(x+2)(2)(x-2)
16(x+2)(x-2) --> Moussa?
4(4)(x+2)(x-2)
4(x+2)4(x-2)
(4x+8)(4x-8) --> Fatu?
• Yes, you did!
• Hi, since there are squares, how can -1 be squared. Isn;t that an imaginary number? How can you find the square root of an imaginary number? Please help!
• -1 squared is 1, it is the square ROOT of -1 that is imaginary
• I didnt understand the video...i could barely hear or keep up with anything going on in the video
• The audio is very low on this video. Make sure that the volume on your device is turned all the way up and that your playback speed is at 1. If you still can't hear, you could read the transcript.

Also, if you don't understand what Sal is teaching, he references a few videos, like the beginning videos in this course. Hope this helps. :)
• Why at Sal says it doesn't make any sense?
• He is saying if it doesn't make sense to go to the introduction videos.
• Okay, so, looking at Fatu's expression, with 16x^2-64=(4x+8)(4x-8), Sal said it is correct. I trust him in that.
But wouldn't you have to simplify that more? Like, factor out a 4? That would make it 4(x+2)(x-2), which at first would make sense but hold up...Sal also said Moussa's was correct, and that answer was 16(x+2)(x-2), and the parethesis' would cancel out and there is no way that 4=16. Somehow this is not working out! What did I do wrong?
Any help would be appreciated!
• Both binomials have a common factor of 4. When you factor them both out, you get: 4*4(x+2)(x+2 = 16(x+2)(x+2)
Hope this helps.
• I am confused. I tried to calculate what Moussa would get using the equation 16 (x+2) (x-2). The order of operations tells me that the first thing I should do is multiply 16 by the terms in the first set of parentheses: x + 2. Doing so brings the equation to 16x + 32 (x - 2). The order of operations tells me that the next thing I should do is multiply 32 by the terms in the remaining set of parentheses: x - 2. Doing so brings the equation to 16x + 32x - 64. I can add the first two terms in the equation since they both feature the same variable. Doing so gets me 48x - 64. I don't understand why Sal didn't follow the order of operations like I did.
• You started out correctly.... but you lost a set of parentheses.
16 (x+2) (x-2) = (16x + 32) (x-2)
Multiply the 16 with the binomial x+2 doesn't change the fact that the entire binomial needs to get multiplied with the 2nd binomial. So, you can't drop the parentheses.
Hope this helps.