MHB Factoring Polynomial Equations

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.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

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