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

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on finding the coefficient of \( x^{21} \) in the product of two polynomials, \( f(x) \) and \( g(x) \), without explicitly calculating the product. The coefficients of \( f(x) \) and \( g(x) \) are determined based on their respective terms, leading to the equation \( c_{21} = a_0 b_{21} + a_6 b_{15} + a_{12} b_9 \). The solution involves solving modular equations to find valid indices for \( k \), specifically \( k = 0 \text{ (mod } 6) \). The final calculated coefficient is confirmed to be 219, and the method used is deemed correct and acceptable. The discussion concludes with affirmation of the solution's validity.
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 am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

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