Division Algorithm for Polynomials in R[x] confusing me

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the Division Algorithm for polynomials in R[x], specifically addressing the validity of certain polynomial values. The polynomials given are q(x) = 2x + 3, f(x) = 3x + 4, r(x) = 3x^2, and g(x) = 9x^2 + 17x + 12. The key issue is that while the equation g(x) = q(x)f(x) + r(x) may hold, the remainder r(x) does not satisfy the condition that its degree must be less than that of f(x). Therefore, the values provided for q(x) and r(x) do not conform to the requirements of the Division Algorithm, invalidating their use in this context.
PsychonautQQ
Messages
781
Reaction score
10
I will be using /= to mean 'does not equal'.

From my textbook:
Division Algorithm: Let R be any ring and let f(x) and g(x) be polynomials in R[x]. Assume that f(x) /= 0 and that the leading coefficient of f(x) is a unit in R. then unique determined polynomials q(x) and r(x) exist such that
1) g(x) = q(x)f(x) + r(x)
2) Either r(x) = 0 or deg[r(x)] < deg[f(x)]

Can somebody explain to me why the following values for the given functions is invalid?
q(x) = 2x+3
f(x) = 3x+4
r(x) = 3x^2
g(x) = 9x^2 +17x+12

These polynomials work and deg[r(x)] = deg[f(x)], more importantly, deg[r(x)] is not less than deg[f(x)].

I'm assuming part of the reason why what I said is invalid is because f(x) and g(x) aren't polynomails in R[x] or something? Need some math guru to help this noob :D
 
Physics news on Phys.org
PsychonautQQ said:
I will be using /= to mean 'does not equal'.

From my textbook:
Division Algorithm: Let R be any ring and let f(x) and g(x) be polynomials in R[x]. Assume that f(x) /= 0 and that the leading coefficient of f(x) is a unit in R. then unique determined polynomials q(x) and r(x) exist such that
1) g(x) = q(x)f(x) + r(x)
2) Either r(x) = 0 or deg[r(x)] < deg[f(x)]

Can somebody explain to me why the following values for the given functions is invalid?
q(x) = 2x+3
f(x) = 3x+4
r(x) = 3x^2
g(x) = 9x^2 +17x+12

These polynomials work and deg[r(x)] = deg[f(x)], more importantly, deg[r(x)] is not less than deg[f(x)].

I'm assuming part of the reason why what I said is invalid is because f(x) and g(x) aren't polynomails in R[x] or something? Need some math guru to help this noob :D

Let's unscramble your post a bit.

You are given two polynomials
f(x) = 3x+4
g(x) = 9x2 +17x+12

and asked something about two other polynomials which supposedly result from doing the operation g(x) / f(x), where

q(x) = 2x+3
r(x) = 3x2

IOW, q(x) is supposed to represent the quotient of g(x) / (f(x), and r(x) is supposed to represent any remainder from this operation.

According to 1) above, the first order of business is to check to see if

1) g(x) = q(x)f(x) + r(x)

and second, to determine if

2) Either r(x) = 0 or deg[r(x)] < deg[f(x)]

Now, q(x) and r(x) as given may result g(x) when inserted into 1) and all of the algebra is carried out. However, the conditions in 2) are not met, since r(x) ≠ 0 and the degree of r(x), namely 2, is not less than the degree of f(x), which is 1. Your statement that deg [r(x)] = deg [f(x)] is incorrect.

Since conditions 1) and 2) are not satisfied jointly, q(x) and r(x) are not the proper quotient and remainder polynomials which should be produced by the operation g(x) / f(x).
 
  • Like
Likes PsychonautQQ
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
847
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
48
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
835
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K