Finding Relations for Coefficients of Polynomial p(x)=0 to Get Real Roots

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kadmax
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Polynomial
AI Thread Summary
To ensure that a polynomial p(x) = 0 has only real roots, the relationships between its coefficients must be carefully analyzed, particularly through the discriminant for lower-degree polynomials. For a sixth-degree polynomial, there are typically seven coefficients, and their dependency on a single parameter can complicate the determination of real roots. The conditions for real roots can vary significantly based on how these coefficients interact, especially in higher degrees where local minima and maxima influence root behavior. Specific criteria, such as the relationship between the second and third coefficients, can indicate the nature of the roots. Understanding these relationships is crucial for identifying the values of parameters that yield only real roots.
Kadmax
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I'd like to know how to find relations between coefficients of a polynomial p(x) so that equation p(x) = 0 has only real roots.

For example I have quadratic equation:

x^{2}+px+q = 0

then the Discriminant must be >= 0 so p^{2} >= 4q

But I need to find it for equations of higher power of x (like 6), without having the formula for exact solutions - I know it's not possible to solve polynomial equations of order 6 and more.

It may be complicated if there are too many coefficients (there are 5 in 6th order pol.), but they just all depend just on one constant r, so it is like a5 = 2r, a4 = r^{2}, a3 = 1/r, and so on, and I need to know for which values of r the equation has only real roots.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
It may be complicated if there are too many coefficients (there are 5 in 6th order pol.), but they just all depend just on one constant r, so it is like a5 = 2r, a4 = r, a3 = 1/r, and so on, and I need to know for which values of r the equation has only real roots.
First you had better clear up some misconceptions. In the first place, a 6[/sup]th[/sup] degree (not "order") equation would have 7 coefficients (or 6 if you always take the leading coefficient to be 1 and ignore it), not 5. In general, an nth degree equation has n+1 coefficients, not n-1. Again, you could always divide the equation by the leading coefficient and just use the other n.
Secondly, any set of number can be written as functions of one parameter. How many real roots an equation has would depend upon how each coefficient depends on r and that might be very complicated. Even in the very simple case x^3+ bx^2+ cx+ d whether there are non-real roots would depend upon whether the local min and max are on opposite sides of the x-axis- and that alone can be complicated.
 
i don't know about all real roots ,but i can tell you that for all complex roots
in equation of n th degree whose first coefficient is 1
second ceofficient sqaure<2*third coefficient
and if it is = then all the roots are 0
 
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...
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...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top