Whether this statement is true or false

  • Thread starter Thread starter an_mui
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the factorization of the polynomial expression (x^n - 1) where 'n' is a positive integer. Participants are examining whether 'x - 1' is always a factor of this polynomial.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the factorization of (x^n - 1) and discuss the implications of 'n' being odd or even. There are attempts to clarify the meaning of factoring polynomials and the conditions under which 'x - 1' is a factor.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active with various perspectives being shared. Some participants suggest methods such as long division and the remainder theorem to investigate the factorization further. There is no explicit consensus, but multiple approaches are being considered.

Contextual Notes

Participants are considering specific cases of 'n' and the implications of odd versus even values, which may influence the factorization process. There is an emphasis on understanding the definitions and properties related to polynomial factors.

an_mui
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
'x - 1' is a factor of a polynomial in the form (x^n - 1) where 'n' is a positive integer.

my guess:

This statement is always true because (x^n - 1) is a difference of square. When factored even more, (x^n - 1) = (x^n/2 - 1)(x^n/2 + 1). Therefore, (x-1) can be factor of (x^n - 1) and is always true.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
(x^n - 1) = (x^(n/2) -1) (x^(n/2) - 1)
= (x^(n/4) - 1)(x^(n/4) + 1)(x^(n/2) + 1)

and so on, where the power of x is n/(2^k).

Consider the case where n is odd, dividing n by 2^k will never equal 1.
 
Your logic is faulty. Think about what your statement means when n is an odd integer and what is meant by factoring a polynomial.
 
oops i think i know now

(x-1)(x^(n-1) + 1) =(x^n - 1), where n is a positive integer greater than or equal to 2
 
Not quite! I suggest trying long division! If there is no remainder then x-1 is a factor. :)
 
To help with the long division, you might want to try it in the special cases where n=2, 3, 4, ... or as many as needed before you see a pattern. Then try to prove this pattern works for a general n.

Or you can avoid long division by using the remainder theorem.

Or you can do both and be even more convinced.
 
More simply, when x= 1, xn- 1 becomes 1-1= 0. Therefore, x- 1 is a factor (I just noticed that shmoe referred to the "remainder theorem"- that's what this is).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
29
Views
3K