What does this math statement mean?

  • Thread starter Thread starter iScience
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mean
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the meaning of the phrase "in x" when referring to polynomials with complex coefficients of degree less than N. The variable x represents the input for the polynomial, distinguishing it from other variables like y or z. This notation is important for maintaining clarity in mathematical contexts, especially when dealing with multiple sets of polynomials. The term "in x" also allows for the exploration of polynomials in other expressions, such as e^x or sin(θ), facilitating the application of polynomial-solving techniques to a broader range of mathematical problems. Understanding this terminology is crucial for formal mathematical discourse and analysis.
iScience
Messages
466
Reaction score
5
"consider the collection of all polynomials (with complex coefficients) of degree less than N in x"

okay so I'm considering a set of polynomials with complex coefficients and degree of the polynomial is less than N. what is this "in x" part that's being referred to? what's x?...
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
iScience said:
"consider the collection of all polynomials (with complex coefficients) of degree less than N in x"

okay so I'm considering a set of polynomials with complex coefficients and degree of the polynomial is less than N. what is this "in x" part that's being referred to? what's x?...
x is the variable in the polynomial. For example, a typical polynomial in this set is f(x) = a0 + a1x + a2x2 + ... + aN-1xN-1. The coefficients a0, a1, etc. are complex, and x can take on complex values.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
As opposed to 2- 3y+ y^2 or 4- 7z^2+ 8z^9 which are "in" y and z rather than x!
 
Admittedly, that's a weird thing to say.

I think it's likely that another set of polynomials is introduced, and so it is a matter of having a consistent notation to follow. It would be strange to just talk about one set of polynomials, and to care about what symbol the variable uses.
 
There are at least two reasons for the introduction of "in x" when describing these polynomials;

1) In a more formal setting, polynomials are treated like strings of symbols where some of the symbols (the coefficients) come from one set and the other symbols (the powers of the "variable(s)") from another. In order to avoid problems, it is usually stipulated that the variable(s) can't also be coefficient symbols, and so one must stipulate what the "variable" symbol is.

In these settings the "variable" usually isn't meant to actually be a variable/place-holder, and the polynomial isn't intended to represent a "function" per se. This idea can be extended to formal "power series over __ in __", which are quite powerful in a somewhat "abstract nonesense" sort of way; one can develop quite a bit of complex analysis, for example, without even talking about complex numbers and functions. Heck, one particularly common way of developing the complex numbers uses formal polynomials.

2) To to those familiar with the "polynomial in __" terminology, one can talk about polynomials in ##e^x## ( ##e^{2x}+2e^x+1##), polynomials in ##\sin\theta## (##\sin^2\theta+2\sin\theta+1##), polynomials in ##y^2## (##y^4+2y^2+1##), etc. Methods for solving equations of these types then become more obvious; i.e. we can use techniques for solving polynomial equations to help us solve equations involving things that wouldn't normally be considered according-to-Hoyle polynomials.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top