MHB No Rational Roots of $x^n+\cdots+1=0$

  • Thread starter Thread starter melese
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rational Roots
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on proving that the equation $\frac{x^n}{n!}+\frac{x^{n-1}}{(n-1)!}+\cdots+\frac{x^2}{2!}+\frac{x^1}{1!}+1=0$ has no rational roots for any integer $n>1$. The participants reference a proof from BGR (1989) to support this claim. The equation's structure suggests that the coefficients derived from factorials contribute to the absence of rational solutions. The conversation emphasizes the mathematical reasoning behind the proof and the implications of the findings. Ultimately, the conclusion reinforces the assertion that rational roots do not exist for this polynomial equation.
melese
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
(BGR,1989) Prove that for any integer $n>1$ the equation $\displaystyle \frac{x^n}{n!}+\frac{x^{n-1}}{(n-1)!}\cdots+\frac{x^2}{2!}+\frac{x^1}{1!}+1=0$ has no rational roots.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
melese said:
(BGR,1989) Prove that for any integer $n>1$ the equation $\displaystyle \frac{x^n}{n!}+\frac{x^{n-1}}{(n-1)!}\cdots+\frac{x^2}{2!}+\frac{x^1}{1!}+1=0$ has no rational roots.
$\displaystyle \frac{x^n}{n!}+\frac{x^{n-1}}{(n-1)!}\cdots+\frac{x^2}{2!}+\frac{x^1}{1!}+1=0----(*)$
if n=2 then we have :$x^2+2x+2=0$ no real solution
if m is a solution of original equation then m<0
multiply both sides with n ! we obtain :
$x^n+nx^{n-1}+-----+n! x+ n!=0$
using "the rational zero theorem"
if the original equation has a rational solution m<0 then n! must be a multiple of it(m is a negative integer)
replacing x with any negative factor of n! to (*)will not be zero ,so no rational root exists
in fact :
---+$\displaystyle \frac{x^n}{n!}+\frac{x^{n-1}}{(n-1)!}\cdots+\frac{x^2}{2!}+\frac{x^1}{1!}+1=e^x$
[FONT=&#32048](Maclaurin expasion of $e^x$)
 
Last edited:
I agreed with you up to
Albert said:
replacing x with any negative factor of n! to (*)will not be zero
This part is a little vauge to me. To see what I mean, what if my orginal question was to show that there are no integer solutions? - Then your step appears hasty.
መለሰ
 
Albert said:
$\displaystyle \frac{x^n}{n!}+\frac{x^{n-1}}{(n-1)!}\cdots+\frac{x^2}{2!}+\frac{x^1}{1!}+1=0----(*)$
if n is even and m (a negative integer ) is a root then (*) becomes
$\displaystyle \frac{m^n}{n!}+\frac{m^{n-2}}{(n-2)!}\cdots+\frac{m^2}{2!}+1$
$- \dfrac{k^{n-1}}{(n-1)!}- \dfrac{k^{n-3}}{(n-3)!}\cdots-\dfrac{k}{1!}$
will not be zero,(the calculation is very tedious)
here k=-m is a positive integer
likewise if n is odd then (*) becomes
$\displaystyle -\frac{k^n}{n!}-\frac{k^{n-2}}{(n-2)!}\cdots-\frac{k^2}{2!}+1$
$+ \dfrac{m^{n-1}}{(n-1)!}+ \dfrac{m^{n-3}}{(n-3)!}\cdots+\dfrac{m}{1!}$
also will not be zero
so there is no integer root for original equation
 
Last edited:
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Is it possible to arrange six pencils such that each one touches the other five? If so, how? This is an adaption of a Martin Gardner puzzle only I changed it from cigarettes to pencils and left out the clues because PF folks don’t need clues. From the book “My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles”. Dover, 1994.
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