MHB Find the coefficient of x^{21} without calculating the product

mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

"Let the polynomials
$$f(x)=1+\sum_{k=1}^{8}{(2k)x^{2k}} \text{ and } g(x)=1+ \sum_{k=1}^{8}{(3k)x^{3k}}$$
of $\mathbb{Q}$. Without calculating $f(x)g(x)$, find the coefficient of $x^{21}$ at $f(x)g(x)$."
Let's consider $f(x)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}{a_kx^k}$ and $g(x)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}{b_kx^k}$

So the following coefficients exist:
\begin{matrix}
a_0 & b_0 \\
a_2 & b_3 \\
a_4 & b_6 \\
a_6 & b_9 \\
a_8 & b_{12} \\
a_{10} & b_{15} \\
a_{12} & b_{18} \\
a_{14} & b_{21} \\
a_{16} & b_{24} \\
\end{matrix}

Since $c_{21}=\sum_{i+j=21}{a_i b_j}$, we have to find each time two coefficients for which the sum of their indices is equal to $21$. So:
$a_0, b_{21}$
$a_6, b_{15}$
$a_{12}, b_9$

Therefore, $c_8=a_0 b_{21}+a_6 b_{15}+ a_{12} b_9=21+6 \cdot 15+ 12 \cdot 9=219$.

Is this correct?
Is the way I solved it ok, or is there a better way to write it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
That's fine.

What you are doing is solving:

$k = 0\text{ (mod }2)$
$21 - k = 0\text{ (mod }3)$

The second equation is clearly the same as:

$k = 0\text{ (mod }3)$ so together we get:

$k = 0\text{ (mod }6)$

Then we just find these values of $k$ with $0 \leq k \leq 16$ (since that's as high as the non-zero a's go).

*****

You should probably have used another index besides $k$, in your second formulation of $f$ and $g$. What you are interested in is the non-zero terms (technically ALL the terms "exist").
 
Deveno said:
That's fine.

What you are doing is solving:

$k = 0\text{ (mod }2)$
$21 - k = 0\text{ (mod }3)$

The second equation is clearly the same as:

$k = 0\text{ (mod }3)$ so together we get:

$k = 0\text{ (mod }6)$

Then we just find these values of $k$ with $0 \leq k \leq 16$ (since that's as high as the non-zero a's go).

*****

You should probably have used another index besides $k$, in your second formulation of $f$ and $g$. What you are interested in is the non-zero terms (technically ALL the terms "exist").

Aha! Ok!
So is the way I formulated the solution nice? Or is there a better way to express it?
 
What you have done is fine, and correct.
 
Deveno said:
What you have done is fine, and correct.

Great! Thanks a lot! (Smirk)
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
Back
Top