Ignoring Fundamental Theorem of Polynomials (a^n + b^n)

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the polynomial expression (a^n + b^n) and its relationship to the Fundamental Theorem of Polynomials. Participants are exploring why this expression does not adhere to the principles associated with Pascal's triangle, particularly in the context of odd and even values of n.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Exploratory

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are questioning the application of Pascal's triangle to (a^n + b^n) and discussing the conditions under which this polynomial can be factored. Some are exploring the differences between odd and even n, while others are seeking a deeper understanding of the underlying proofs and derivations related to the factorization of the polynomial.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants providing insights into the nature of the polynomial and its factorization. Some have acknowledged the differences between (a^n + b^n) and (a + b)^n, while others are expressing a desire for more detailed proofs and derivations. There is an indication that participants are actively engaging with the topic, although no consensus has been reached.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention the use of imaginary numbers in the factorization of even powers and refer to the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra, indicating a complex layer of understanding that is being navigated. There is also a mention of the original poster's research context, which may impose additional constraints on the discussion.

Hotsuma
Messages
41
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Okay, basically why does (a_{}n + b_{}n) ignore the Fundamental Theory of Polynomials?

Homework Equations



... I could post them here, but basically when n is odd (a_{n} + b_{n}) = a series that looks like this: (a+b) (a_{n-1} b_{0} - a_{n-2}b +a_{n-3}b_{2} + ... + a_{2}b_{n-3}-a_{1}b_{n-2}+b_{n-1})

The Attempt at a Solution



I have done a lot on paper, but basically what I am looking for is WHY it isn't following Pascal's triangle. I have flipped through tons of mathematical journals and haven't slept in the past two days for other various reasons... I am doing this for a research class and has lost its proof after years and years of assuming that it is truth.

Argh. If anyone can help I would really appreciate it. If anyone has the proof to this that would be great.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not sure what the Fundamental Theorem of Polynomials is, but a^n+b^n factors for odd n but not for even n because a^n=-b^n can be 'solved' for a over the reals for odd n but not for even n. If you work over the complex numbers you can factor the even n case. E.g. a^2+b^2=(a+bi)(a-bi).
 
Pascal's triangle holds for (x+ y)n and this isn't of that kind! If you are doing this for a research class perhaps you have something else in mind. My question would be "Why would you expect it to have anything to do with Pascal's triangle?"
 
The polynomial (a^n+b^n) doesn't "follow Pascal's triangle" because Pascal's triangle doesn't apply to this polynomial. It applies to the polynomial (a+b)^n, which is obviously different from (a^n+b^n) for all n but 1.
 
Okay, fair enough.

I understand that this polynomial does not follow Pascal's triangle and why. That was poorly worded on my part. What I am asking for is the proof for why the factorization of the polynomial exists as it does. I am aware of the fact that it uses imaginary numbers for the even powers. I also know how to derive the (a^n+b^n) formula from the (a^n-b^n) formula. It is complicated and I don't feel like texting the whole thing.

The fundamental theorem of algebra states that every polynomial has n factors based on its degree, yada yada yada. The way the factorization works (If you make the general form) you notice that it establishes a pattern. However, I don't know the steps to factorize it outside of knowing the formula. I am looking to find where this was derived from.

God I wish my brain was being coherent enough to explain what I am trying to say or wasn't being totally lazy and could make up the math text. Sorry.
 
I am about to go on spring break so will be able to work on this more. I am going to get some sleep and then get back to you all.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K