MHB How to calculate LCM for rational equations ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kupid
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rational
AI Thread Summary
To calculate the least common multiple (LCM) for rational equations, first factor all denominator polynomials completely. Next, create a list of each unique factor, ensuring to include the highest power of each factor present in any denominator. The resulting list of factors and their powers constitutes the LCM. For example, from the denominators 4x, x², and 2x², the LCM is determined to be 4x². Understanding the importance of expressing factors in their simplest form can help clarify the process.
kupid
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
To calculate an LCM for a rational function, follow these steps:
1. Factor all denominator polynomials completely.
2. Make a list that contains one copy of each factor, all multiplied together.
3. The power of each factor in that list should be the highest power that factor is
raised to in any denominator.
4. The list of factors and powers you generated is the LCM.

View attachment 6872

4x = 2.2.x , x2 = x.x , 2x2 =2.x.x

So LCM = 2.2.x.x = 4x2

I still don't understand this clearly ...
 

Attachments

  • rational_equations_1.png
    rational_equations_1.png
    14 KB · Views: 130
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hey kupid,

Let's run through the steps.

kupid said:
To calculate an LCM for a rational function, follow these steps:
1. Factor all denominator polynomials completely.

$4x=2^2\cdot x,\quad x^2,\quad 2x^2 = 2\cdot x^2$

kupid said:
2. Make a list that contains one copy of each factor, all multiplied together.

$2\cdot x$

kupid said:
3. The power of each factor in that list should be the highest power that factor is
raised to in any denominator.

$2^2\cdot x^2$

kupid said:
4. The list of factors and powers you generated is the LCM.

$LCM=2^2\cdot x^2 = 4x^2$
 
Is there any mistake in the above post , because i am a bit confused .

To calculate an LCM
for a rational function, follow these steps:
1. Factor all denominator polynomials completely.
4x = 2.2.x = 22.x , x2 = x.x , 2x2 =2.x.x
2. Make a list that contains one copy of each factor from the "pairs of factors ", all multiplied together.

2.x

3. The power of each factor in that list should be the highest power that factor is
raised to in any denominator.

22.x2

4. The list of factors and powers you generated is the LCM

LCM = 22.x2 = 4x2
 
kupid said:
Is there any mistake in the above post , because i am a bit confused .

No mistake. That's fine. (Nod)

It's just that when we factor completely, there's little point in writing out a power as a product.
We can keep it as a power.
So instead of writing $7x^8=7\cdot x\cdot x\cdot x\cdot x\cdot x\cdot x\cdot x\cdot x$, we can just leave it as $7x^8$.
 
OK , Thanks a lot .
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
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