Proving Polynomial Identities Using Induction

  • Thread starter nietzsche
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Proof
In summary: I don't know... you're like a lighthouse in the fog of mathematics; always there to help people find their way. In summary, we use induction to show that for any polynomial function f and any number a, there exists a polynomial function g and a number b such that f(x) = (x-a)g(x) + b for all x. This is done by assuming the statement holds true for a polynomial of degree n, and then showing it holds true for a polynomial of degree n+1. We use the base case of n=1 to show the validity of the statement, and then use the induction hypothesis to prove the case for n+1. Finally, we can write f(x) as (x-a)
  • #1
nietzsche
186
0

Homework Statement



Prove that for any polynomial function f, and any number a, there is a polynomial function g, and a number b, such that f(x) = (x-a)g(x) + b for all x.

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



Base Case: Let f(x) be a polynomial of degree n = 1. Then:

[tex]
\begin{align*}
f(x) &= c_1x+c_0\\
f(x) &= c_1x - c_1a + c_1a + c_0\\
f(x) &= (x-a)c_1 + c_1a + c_0\\
f(x) &= (x-a)g(x) + b
\end{align*}
[/tex]

where g(x) = c1 and b = (c1a + c0).

Let P(n) be the statement that every polynomial function of degree n can be written as f(x) = (x-a)g(x) + b.

Take P(n+1) and assume P(n) is true:

[tex]
\begin{align*}
f(x) &= c_{n+1}x^{n+1} + c_{n}x^{n}+...+c_1x + c_0\\
f(x) &= c_{n+1}x^{n+1} + (x-a)q(x) + k_0\\
f(x) &= c_{n+1}x^{n+1} - c_{n+1}x^na + c_{n+1}x^na + (x-a)q(x) + k_0\\
f(x) &= (x-a)(c_{n+1}x^n) + c_{n+1}x^na + (x-a)q(x) + k_0\\
f(x) &= (x-a)(c_{n+1}x^n) + (x-a)r(x) + k_1 + (x-a)q(x) + k_0\\
f(x) &= (x-a)(c_{n+1}x^n + r(x) + q(x)) + k_1 + k_0\\
f(x) &= (x-a)g(x) + b
\end{align*}
[/tex]

where g(x) = cn+1xn + r(x) + q(x)
and b = k1 + k0.

I think it's right, but I'm always so unsure of myself when it comes to induction.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
That seems ok to me. It might help a bit if you explicitly say why you can make certain substitutions because of the induction hypothesis. But I think it's basically ok. And as a technical point you can't just prove P(n+1) from P(n). c_n might be 0. P(n) should really be "every polynomial function of degree k<=n can be written as f(x) = (x-a)g(x) + b". But that's really just a legal fine point.
 
  • #3
thanks very much.
 
  • #4
Hi,
could someone explain how we go from 1. to 2. in the expressions below?
I fail to see how [tex]c_{n+1}x^na=(x-a)r(x)+k_1[/tex]
Thanks.

[tex]
\begin{align*}
1.f(x) &= (x-a)(c_{n+1}x^n) + c_{n+1}x^na + (x-a)q(x) + k_0\\
2.f(x) &= (x-a)(c_{n+1}x^n) + (x-a)r(x) + k_1 + (x-a)q(x) + k_0\\
\end{align*}
[/tex]
 
  • #5
It's the induction hypothesis. You assume every polynomial of degree <=n can be written as (x-a)*r(x)+k. Think about it. The OP didn't state this as clearly as should have been done. See if you can do better. Look at the n=1 case. If you understand that, you understand everything. Also think about posting your own threads.
 
  • #6
Dick said:
It's the induction hypothesis. You assume every polynomial of degree <=n can be written as (x-a)*r(x)+k. Think about it.
Since we show that [tex]f(x)[/tex] can be written as [tex](x-a)g(x)+b[/tex] for the [tex]n=1[/tex] case, we can assume that it holds for [tex]k \leq n[/tex], just as you wrote in an earlier post. Then we check to see if the statement holds for the [tex]n+1[/tex] case. I understand that (to the extent I can understand anything).

Dick said:
Look at the n=1 case. If you understand that, you understand everything.
[tex]f(x)=c_1x+c_0[/tex]

if [tex](x-a)[/tex] is a factor of [tex]f(x)[/tex] then [tex]f(a)=0[/tex].

[tex]f(\frac{-c_0}{c_1})=c_1(-\frac{c_o}{c_1})+c_0 =0 [/tex]

The Remainder Theorem gives that:
[tex]f(a)=b[/tex], so

[tex]f(x)=(x-(-\frac{c_o}{c_1}))c_1+c_1(-\frac{c_o}{c_1})+c_0[/tex]

I guess this is all good and well if [tex](x-a)[/tex] is a factor of [tex]f(x)[/tex]. But if it isn't then,
[tex]f(x)=(x-a)c_1 + c_1(a)+c_0[/tex]

I've successfully managed to confuse myself.

As for making my own threads, I always read how one should do a proper search before posting. I thought it would be better not to make my own thread about something that has been covered in the past. Will do so in the future though, thanks.
 
  • #7
n=1. f(x)=c1*x+c0=c1*x-c1*a+c1*a+c0=c1*(x-a)+(c1*a+c0). c1*a+c0 is a number. c1 is a 'polynomial' of degree less than 1. Now let's do n=2. f(x)=c2*x^2+c1*x+c0=c2*x^2-c2*x*a+c2*x*a+c1*x+c0=c2*x*(x-a)+(c2*x*a+c1*x+c0). Since (c2*x*a+c1*x+c0) is a polynomial of degree one, by the induction hypothesis (and as we showed above) it can be written as p(x)(x-a)+b where p(x) has degree <1 (e.g. it's really just a constant). So f(x)=c2*x*(x-a)+p(x)(x-a)+b=(c2*x+p(x))*(x-a)+b. So f(x)=q(x)*(x-a)+b where q(x)=c2*x+p(x) has degree 1. Try doing n=3 explicitly.

Yep, researching is a great idea. In preparation for solving the problem or posting your own thread. I don't necessarily even pay much attention to add ons to ancient posts unless there are my own. If I see some other post with 5+ replies to it, I'll figure the problem is already being dealt with and move on. You'll get more replies faster if it's a new thread.
 
  • #8
Hi,

Here's my try at the n=3 case:

[tex]
\begin{tabular}{ r c l }
\(f(x)\) & \(=\) & c_3x^3+c_2x^2+c_1x+c_0\) \\
& \(=\) & c_3x^3-c_3x^2a+c_3x^2a+c_2x^2+c_1x+c_0\) \\
& \(=\) & (x-a)c_3x^2+c_3x^2a+c_2x^2+c_1x+c_0\)
\end{tabular}
[/tex]

[tex]c_3x^2a+c_2x^2+c_1x+c_0[/tex] is a polynomial of degree two, and can, by the induction hypothesis be written as [tex](x-a)p(x)+b[/tex].

[tex]
\begin{tabular}{ r c l }
\(f(x)\) & \(=\) & (x-a)c_3x^2+(x-a)p(x)+b\) \\
& \(=\) & (x-a)\left(c_3x^2+p(x)\right)+b\) \\
\end{tabular}
[/tex]

[tex]q(x)=c_3x^2+p(x)[/tex] has degree 2, and [tex]b[/tex] has degree 1.

Thank you for being patient!
 
  • #9
That's nice. It was worth waiting for.
 
  • #10
You are too kind, thanks. I feel comfortable with this now.
 

1. What is the purpose of asking if my proof makes sense?

Asking if your proof makes sense is important because it allows you to critically evaluate your own work and identify any potential errors or flaws. It also helps to ensure that your argument is logical and convincing.

2. How can I tell if my proof makes sense?

One way to tell if your proof makes sense is to read it over carefully and check for any inconsistencies or illogical statements. You can also ask a colleague or mentor to review your proof and provide feedback.

3. What should I do if my proof does not make sense?

If your proof does not make sense, do not panic. Instead, take a step back and try to identify where the problem lies. It could be a simple mistake or a more fundamental issue with your argument. In either case, make the necessary corrections and continue to revise until your proof makes sense.

4. Can I use computer software to check if my proof makes sense?

Yes, there are many computer programs and software specifically designed to check the validity and logical consistency of mathematical proofs. However, it is important to understand the underlying concepts and principles of your proof in order to use these tools effectively.

5. Is it ever too late to ask if my proof makes sense?

No, it is never too late to ask if your proof makes sense. In fact, seeking feedback and constructive criticism from others is an important part of the scientific process. It can help you identify any potential weaknesses in your argument and improve the overall quality of your work.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
416
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
620
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
521
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
460
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
308
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
24
Views
797
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
365
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
944
Back
Top