Consider the subset U ⊂ R3[x] defined as

  • Thread starter Thread starter Karl Porter
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the subset U of R3[x], specifically focusing on proving that it is a subspace of polynomials of degree 3 or lower that have roots at x=0 and x=-1. Participants are exploring the definitions and properties of vector spaces in relation to polynomial functions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are attempting to prove closure under addition and scalar multiplication for the subset of polynomials. Questions arise regarding the implications of substituting values into the polynomials and the nature of their roots. There is also discussion about the distinction between polynomial operations and vector space operations.

Discussion Status

Participants have engaged in a back-and-forth dialogue, clarifying concepts and exploring the properties of polynomials within the context of vector spaces. Some guidance has been offered regarding the nature of polynomial addition and scalar multiplication, but no consensus has been reached on the completeness of the proof.

Contextual Notes

There is an ongoing examination of the definitions and properties of polynomial functions and vector spaces, with participants questioning assumptions about the operations involved. The discussion reflects a mix of understanding and uncertainty regarding the requirements for proving subspace properties.

Karl Porter
Messages
31
Reaction score
5
Homework Statement
Show that U is a subspace of R3[x]
Relevant Equations
U = {p(x) = a3x^3 + a2x^2 + a1x + a0 such that p(0) = 0 and p(−1) = 0}
so to show its a subspace (from definition) I need to prove its closed under addition and multiplication , contains 0 and for every w there is a -w? has it already been proven to contain 0 as p(-1)=0?
also I did sub in -1 and ended up with the equation a1+a3=a2+a0 but I don't know if that is relevant to solving this question?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Let me try to get the notation clear first.

The sub-space you are talking about is the space of degree 3 (or lower) polynomials that have x=0 and x=-1 as roots.
The space you are talking about is the space of degree 3 (or lower) polynomials.

You are considering these as vector spaces, yes? So you want to prove closure under vector addition and upon multiplication by a scalar.

So, how would you go about proving either one of those for the sub-space?
 
yea that's right
so for addition the sum of two vectors must belong to R3? when I substitute in -1 I get the equation a1+a3=a2+a0 but that leads me to ask how do i know a2+a0 is part of R3? is it a part of R3 because they are real numbers?
 
Karl Porter said:
yea that's right
so for addition the sum of two vectors must belong to R3? when I substitute in -1 I get the equation a1+a3=a2+a0 but that leads me to ask how do i know a2+a0 is part of R3? is it a part of R3 because they are real numbers?
Remember what you are trying to prove.

You are not trying to prove that the sum of two polynomials with roots at 0 and -1 is a polynomial. You already know that. It follows from the fact that third degree (or fewer) polynomials are a vector space in the first place.

You are trying to prove that the sum of two polynomials, each with roots at 0 and -1 is a polynomial with roots at 0 and -1.
 
jbriggs444 said:
Remember what you are trying to prove.

You are not trying to prove that the sum of two polynomials with roots at 0 and -1 is a polynomial.

\You are trying to prove that the sum of two polynomials with roots at 0 and -1 is a polynomial with roots at 0 and -1.
so i would add the equation to itself but one would be x1 and the other x2 and see if its gets me a polynomial with those roots.
however i don't think i can solve that because it would have two unknowns
 
Karl Porter said:
so i would add the equation to itself but one would be x1 and the other x2 and see if its gets me a polynomial with those roots.
however i don't think i can solve that because it would have two unknowns
No. I do not think that you are getting it.

You are adding two polynomials to one another. Polynomials. Not values of the formal parameter x. You are not solving for anything. You are just checking to see if you get a result that has the right property. i.e. that it has roots at 0 and at -1.

The two polynomials would be, for instance, ##(a_3, a_2, a_1, a_0)## and ##(b_3, b_2, b_1, b_0)##.
 
jbriggs444 said:
No. I do not think that you are getting it.

You are adding two polynomials to one another. Polynomials. Not values of the formal parameter x. You are not solving for anything. You are just checking to see if you get a result that has the right property. i.e. that it has roots at 0 and at -1.

The two polynomials would be, for instance, ##(a_3, a_2, a_1, a_0)## and ##(b_3, b_2, b_1, b_0)##.
but what happens to the x values?
 
Karl Porter said:
but what happens to the x values?
What is the sum of ##a_3x^3 + a_2x^2 + a_1x + a_0## and ##b_3x^3 + b_2x^2 + b_1x + b_0## ?

[One step at a time. We will worry about x in a moment.]
 
x^3(a_3+b_3)+x^2(a_2+b_2)+x(a_1+b_1)+(a_0+b_0)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jbriggs444
  • #10
Karl Porter said:
x^3(a_3+b_3)+x^2(a_2+b_2)+x(a_1+b_1)+(a_0+b_0)
Perfect. Now two questions:

1. Is this a degree three (or fewer) polynomial?
2. Does it have roots at x=0 and at x=-1?
 
  • #11
jbriggs444 said:
Perfect. Now two questions:

1. Is this a degree three polynomial?
2. Does it have roots at x=0 and at x=-1?
yes degree 3
how do i know if it has those roots? i am left over with the constant values a_0+b_0?
 
  • #12
Karl Porter said:
yes degree 3
how do i know if it has those roots? i am left over with the constant values a_0+b_0?
Suppose that the two polynomials that you just finished adding together were members of the sub-space.

That means that ##a_3x^3 + a_2x^2 + a_1x + a_0 = 0## when x=0 and when x=-1
That means that ##b_3x^3 + b_2x^2 + b_1x + b_0 = 0## when x=0 and when x=-1.

What do those facts then allow you to prove about the sum you just wrote down?
 
  • #13
a_0 =0 and b_0=0?
 
  • #14
Karl Porter said:
a_0 =0 and b_0=0?
More basic.

You have two polynomials that are both zero at x=0. You add them together. What is their sum at x=0?
You have two polynomials that are both zero at x=1. You add them together. What is their sum at x=1?
 
  • #15
sum is 0
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jbriggs444
  • #16
Karl Porter said:
sum is 0
Right. So is the sum an element of the sub-space?

1. Is it a polynomial?
2. It is zero at x=0 and at x=-1?
 
  • #17
jbriggs444 said:
Right. So is the sum a member of the sub-space?

1. Is it a polynomial?
2. It is zero at x=0 and at x=-1?
ok so the sum of the two polynomials will equal 0 which is part of the subspace. and since the two polynomials add to give a polynomial to degree 3 its part of R3
 
  • #18
Karl Porter said:
ok so the sum of the two polynomials will equal 0 which is part of the subspace. and since the two polynomials add to give a polynomial to degree 3 its part of R3
Yes. Though I would state it a bit more carefully. The sum of the two polynomials is not the zero polynomial. The sum of the two polynomials is a polynomial which when evaluated at x=0 and at x=-1 yields a result of zero.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Karl Porter
  • #19
jbriggs444 said:
Yes. Though I would state it a bit more carefully. The sum of the two polynomials is not the zero polynomial. The sum of the two polynomials is a polynomial which when evaluated at x=0 and at x=-1 yields a result of zero.
would method be the same for proving its closed under multiplication? wouldn't that give a polynomial to degree 6?
 
  • #20
Karl Porter said:
would method be the same for proving its closed under multiplication? wouldn't that give a polynomial to degree 6?
Look back at post #2. We are not talking about multiplying two polynomials by each other. That is not one of the defined operations for a vector space.

The defined operation for a vector space is the multiplication of a vector by a scalar. i.e. multiplication of a polynomial by a real-valued constant.

On the other hand, perhaps you did not mean to be working with vector spaces. Perhaps you want to work in the ring of formal polynomials or in the ring of polynomial functions over the reals.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Karl Porter
  • #21
jbriggs444 said:
Look back at post #2. We are not talking about multiplying two polynomials by each other. That is not one of the defined operations for a vector space.

The defined operation for a vector space is the multiplication of a vector by a scalar. i.e. multiplication of a polynomial by a real-valued constant.
righhhttt ok so that would give a polynomial to R3 but what about the zero root?
just same as before at x=0 and x=-1?
 
  • #22
Karl Porter said:
righhhttt ok so that would give a polynomial to R3 but what about the zero root?
just same as before at x=0 and x=-1?
Assuming that we are working in the vector space of degree 3 polynomials [as opposed to the ring of formal polynomials or the ring of polynomial functions over the reals] then we can proceed as before.

Suppose that we have a real-valued constant ##b## and a polynomial ##a_3x^3 + a_2x^2 + a_1x + a_0## which is a member of the sub-space.

1. What is the product of that scalar and that polynomial?
2. Does that product evaluate to zero at x=-1 and at x=0? [editted to correct typo in original]
 
Last edited:
  • #23
K(a_3x^3+a_2x^2+a_1x+a_o)
and at x=0 x=-1 its gives 0
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jbriggs444
  • #24
Karl Porter said:
K(a_3x^3+a_2x^2+a_1x+a_o)
and at x=0 x=-1 its gives 0
Good. So on that basis, is the product a member of the sub-space?
 
  • #25
jbriggs444 said:
OK. So on that basis, is the product a member of the sub-space?
yes!is that all that there is to prove to show its part of the vector space?
 
  • #26
Karl Porter said:
yes!is that all that there is to prove to show its part of the vector space?
Well, we've proved closure over addition and under multiplication by a scalar.

Let me take a quick trip to Google and see what other axioms we need...

We need the existence of a zero element in the sub-space. This still needs to be proved.

Everything else, it seems that we inherit because we are a sub-space that is closed under addition and multiplication by a scalar.
 
  • #27
jbriggs444 said:
Well, we've proved closure over addition and under multiplication by a scalar.

Let me take a quick trip to Google and see what other axioms we need...

We need the existence of a zero element in the sub-space. This still needs to be proved.

Everything else, it seems that we inherit because we are a sub-space
so multiplying the polynomial by 0 would give a zero vector right?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jbriggs444
  • #28
Karl Porter said:
so multiplying the polynomial by 0 would give a zero vector right?
Yes. But you have to make sure that the zero vector is a member of the subspace...

... oh right. Since we've already proved closure under multiplication by a scalar, that one we get for free.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Karl Porter
  • #29
the next part asked for the dimension of U
the lack of constants is throwing me off but I put in the values of -1 and 0 and I am left with a matrix
-1 1 -1 1 │ 0
0 0 0 0 │0
so wouldn't the dimension just be 1x4?
 
  • #30
Karl Porter said:
the next part asked for the dimension of U
the lack of constants is throwing me off but I put in the values of -1 and 0 and I am left with a matrix
-1 1 -1 1 │ 0
0 0 0 0 │0
so wouldn't the dimension just be 1x4?
Can you justify the approach that you are taking here?

Personally, I would be thinking in terms of interpolating polynomials as a way to come up with an alternate basis for the vector space and for the sub-space.

You do understand the relationship between "dimension" and a "basis" for a vector space?
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
18K