Continuity and Integration by Partial Fractions

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves proving that if F(x)/Q(x) = G(x)/Q(x) for all x except where Q(x) = 0, then F(x) = G(x) for all x. This is situated within the context of continuity and integration of rational functions by partial fractions.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the implications of the equality of the two rational functions and the necessity of proving it holds for all x. There is an exploration of using limits to approach the proof, with some questioning the validity of this method given the potential for limits not to exist.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants offering different perspectives on the limits argument and the continuity of the functions involved. Some suggest that the contradiction approach may be more effective, while others express uncertainty about the concepts of limits and continuity as they relate to the problem.

Contextual Notes

There is a recognition that the problem does not need to hold for values where Q(a) = 0, as the initial condition specifies the equality holds except at those points. Participants also note the challenge in applying rigorous limit definitions as presented in the referenced material.

qspeechc
Messages
839
Reaction score
15

Homework Statement


The problem is from Stewart, Appendix G, A58, no.45.

Suppose that F, G, and Q are polynomials, and:
F(x)/Q(x) = G(x)/Q(x)
for all x except when Q(x) = 0. Prove that F(x) = G(x) for all x. [Hint: Use Continuity]

The Attempt at a Solution



I thought the statement was obvious, but ofcourse it isn't if they want you to prove it.

This is under the section "Integration of Rational Functions by Partial Fractions", so I guess the proof must somehow use this technique.

I guess we know it is true for real numbers a, b, c, that if a/c = b/c then a = b. We just haven't proved it for functions, and I think that is what this is about- am I correct? So the proof needs to be based on the fact that it is true for real numbers- is this correct?
That in mind, I decided to take the limit as x approaches a (except if Q(a) = 0) on both sides (sorry about not using Latex- I am in a rush):
lim [F(x)/Q(x)] = lim [G(x)/Q(x)]
lim[F(x)]/lim[Q(x)] = lim[G(x)]/lim[Q(x)]
And because they are all polynomials:
F(a)/Q(a) = G(a)/Q(a)
Now these are all real numbers, and thus F(a) = G(a).

This seems a little dodgy to me, because it does not hold for a when Q(a) = 0, and the questions says prove for all a. Also, we say, when we have:
F(a)/Q(a) = G(a)/Q(a)
that F(a), Q(a), G(a) are all real numbers, but the answer claims they are functions all-of-sudden!
Help is much appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It does not need to hold for when Q(a)=0, since you have at the very beginning that this must hold true besides for those x-is, this also icludes x=a such that Q(a)=0.
 
I'm sorry, I don't quite get that?
 
The trouble with the limits argument applied to the quotients F(x)/Q(x) and G(x)/Q(x) is that those limits may not exist. Argue by contradiction. Assume F(a) is not equal to G(a). Then you can write F(a)=G(a)+c for some non-zero c. Since F and G are continuous there is a value of e>0 such that |F(x)-F(a)|<|c|/2 and |G(x)-G(a)|<|c|/2 for |x-a|<e. But F(x)=G(x) if x is not equal to a. Do you see the contradiction?
 
Shouldn't we say:
F(x) = G(x) + P(x)? Where P(x) is some polynomial.
I'm not quite sure I have learned the stuff about limits you use in your proof, but I vaguely get it, I think. Stewart relegates this stuff to an appendix (rigorous treatment of limits). I'll go over it and get back to you.
Thank-you for helping.
 
The point is just that if F(a) and G(a) are different then if x is close enough to a, F(x)=G(x) CAN'T be close to BOTH F(a) and G(a). The rest of the words are just an attempt to express that using the limit definition.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K