MHB Factoring Polynomial Equations

AI Thread Summary
Determining if a polynomial has rational roots without trial and error is challenging. The Rational Root Theorem can guide potential candidates, but there is no straightforward method to ascertain irreducibility over the rationals for all polynomials. Techniques like reduction modulo a prime and Eisenstein's criterion can sometimes help identify irreducibility. Additionally, calculus can assist in analyzing the polynomial's behavior to narrow down potential rational roots. Ultimately, for polynomials of degree four or higher, finding a general solution remains complex and often requires testing.
Thetheorist
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I would like to know if it is possible to determine if a polynomial has rational zeroes, or, in other words, is unfactorable using whole numbers.

For example 4x^3+2x^2-4x+25.

I know you can use trial and error to sub in the factors of 25, and I understand the rational root theorem. However, I was wondering if there is a way to look at that equation and determine right away that it is not factorable using whole numbers without going through the process of trial and error subbing (helps to save time on tests).
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
For us to provide help we expect you to mention what you have tried. Secondly because the coefficient of x^3 is 4 and not one you should try $\pm 5$,$\pm 1$,$\pm \frac{5}{2}$, $\pm \frac{5}{4}$,$\pm \frac{1}{2}$,$\pm \frac{1}{4}$. (that is factors of 5 divided by factors of 4)
by quick inspection as coefficient of all terms except constant are even so there is no integer solution
 
Sorry if I was unclear, but my question is not about finding the roots for that specific function. My question is, can you look at a polynomial in standard form and determine right away that it will have rational roots? As of right now, I go through trial and error of subbing in whole numbers, and if that doesn't work then I assume it has rational roots. But on a test, there is limited time to do this.
 
Thetheorist said:
Sorry if I was unclear, but my question is not about finding the roots for that specific function. My question is, can you look at a polynomial in standard form and determine right away that it will have rational roots? As of right now, I go through trial and error of subbing in whole numbers, and if that doesn't work then I assume it has rational roots. But on a test, there is limited time to do this.
As a general theorem you have the one word answer: Nope.

-Dan
 
What you are asking is-is there a general way to determine if a polynomial with integer coefficients is *irreducible* over the rationals.

No, but there are some "shortcuts" that sometimes work:

1. Reduction modulo $p$, a prime. If it factors over the integers, it will still factor over the integers mod $p$, and sometimes this is easier to determine.

2. Eisenstein's criteria: If a prime $p$ divides every coefficient but the leading one, and $p^2$ does not divide the constant term, the polynomial is irreducible (and thus has no factorizations at all, much less any roots).

3. One can use calculus to determine where the "humps" and "valleys" lie, and thus determine which intervals are "all one sign". This isn't always the easiest approach, but it can sometimes narrow down the search enough to save time on the rational root test.

In general, determining whether a polynomial factors over a field is a "hard" question. Polynomials of degree $4$ are already extremely complicated to factor, and for polynomials of degree $5$ of higher, there is no "general" solution.

kaliprasad's comment is worth a few extra words, in this case we have:

$2x(2 - x - 2x^2) = 25$

if $x$ was an integer, we would have $25$ as an even number, contradiction.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
4K
Back
Top