Cubic polynomial unable to be factored nicely

  • Thread starter Thread starter anniecvc
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cubic Polynomial
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The cubic polynomial 6x³ - 3x² + 12 cannot be factored nicely using the rational roots theorem, as confirmed by synthetic division which yields no rational roots. The polynomial simplifies to 3[ x²(2x-1) + 4], but further attempts to factor reveal one irrational and two complex roots when analyzed with Wolfram Alpha. This indicates that the polynomial is not factorable in a straightforward manner, likely due to a typographical error in the original exam question.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of cubic polynomials
  • Familiarity with the rational roots theorem
  • Knowledge of synthetic division
  • Experience using computational tools like Wolfram Alpha
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of the rational roots theorem in polynomial factorization
  • Learn advanced techniques for factoring polynomials, including numerical methods
  • Explore the use of Wolfram Alpha for polynomial analysis and root finding
  • Investigate common typographical errors in mathematical examinations and their implications
USEFUL FOR

High school mathematics students, educators preparing algebra curriculum, and anyone interested in polynomial factorization techniques.

anniecvc
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
Found this on a test for an integrated algebra 2 high school math class!

Factor completely.

6x3 - 3x2 + 12

The Attempt at a Solution



3( 2x3 - x2 + 4) eq.1

At this point I checked for rational roots using the rational roots theorem and synthetically dividing. I got nothing.

Although this doesn't get us anywhere x2 can be factored out of the first two terms:

3[ x2(2x-1) +4)] eq. 2

I then plugged this guy into Wolfram and it is giving me 1 nasty irrational and 2 nasty complex roots. I'm convinced this is NOT "nicely" factorable. Does anyone have any insights?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You're correct that it can't be factorized using the rational root theorem, so as such, I wouldn't go any further with it. Since it was in a past exam, I'm sure it was a typo that they ended up correcting for the students on the day.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
6K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K