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)
 
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 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K