Partial fraction decomposition

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the partial fraction decomposition of the expression ##\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^4 + 2x^2 \cosh (2 \alpha) + 1}##. The transformation using the identity ##\displaystyle \cosh (2 \alpha) = \frac{e^{2 \alpha} + e^{- 2\alpha}}{2}## simplifies the expression to ##\displaystyle \frac{1}{(x^2 + e^{2 \alpha})(x^2 + e^{- 2 \alpha})}##. Participants clarify that while linear terms in the numerator are typically expected, they can have coefficients of zero when the denominator consists solely of quadratic factors. This leads to the conclusion that it is not necessary to assume linear terms in this specific case.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of partial fraction decomposition
  • Familiarity with hyperbolic functions, specifically ##\cosh##
  • Basic algebraic manipulation of rational functions
  • Knowledge of quadratic equations and their properties
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of partial fraction decomposition for rational functions with quadratic factors
  • Explore the implications of hyperbolic identities in calculus
  • Investigate cases where coefficients of linear terms in numerators can be zero
  • Learn about the general theory behind partial fraction decomposition and its applications
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in mathematics, particularly those studying calculus and algebra, as well as anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of partial fraction decomposition techniques.

Mr Davis 97
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
44

Homework Statement


Find the partial fraction decomposition of ##\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^4 + 2x^2 \cosh (2 \alpha) + 1}##

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


Using the identity ##\displaystyle \cosh (2 \alpha) = \frac{e^{2 \alpha} + e^{- 2\alpha}}{2}##, we can get the fraction to the form ##\displaystyle \frac{1}{(x^2 + e^{2 \alpha})(x^2 + e^{- 2 \alpha})}##. Since we have two irreducible quadratic factors, it would seem that we would now try to find A, B C, and D such that ##\displaystyle \frac{1}{(x^2 + e^{2 \alpha})(x^2 + e^{- 2 \alpha})} = \frac{Ax + B}{x^2 + e^{2 \alpha}} + \frac{Cx + D}{x^2 + e^{-2 \alpha}} ##. But in the solutions to my book, it just directly says to find A and B such that ##\displaystyle \frac{1}{(x^2 + e^{2 \alpha})(x^2 + e^{- 2 \alpha})} = \frac{A}{x^2 + e^{2 \alpha}} + \frac{B}{x^2 + e^{-2 \alpha}} ##. Why am I wrong in assuming that the numerators must be linear factors?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Mr Davis 97 said:

Homework Statement


Find the partial fraction decomposition of ##\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^4 + 2x^2 \cosh (2 \alpha) + 1}##

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


Using the identity ##\displaystyle \cosh (2 \alpha) = \frac{e^{2 \alpha} + e^{- 2\alpha}}{2}##, we can get the fraction to the form ##\displaystyle \frac{1}{(x^2 + e^{2 \alpha})(x^2 + e^{- 2 \alpha})}##. Since we have two irreducible quadratic factors, it would seem that we would now try to find A, B C, and D such that ##\displaystyle \frac{1}{(x^2 + e^{2 \alpha})(x^2 + e^{- 2 \alpha})} = \frac{Ax + B}{x^2 + e^{2 \alpha}} + \frac{Cx + D}{x^2 + e^{-2 \alpha}} ##. But in the solutions to my book, it just directly says to find A and B such that ##\displaystyle \frac{1}{(x^2 + e^{2 \alpha})(x^2 + e^{- 2 \alpha})} = \frac{A}{x^2 + e^{2 \alpha}} + \frac{B}{x^2 + e^{-2 \alpha}} ##. Why am I wrong in assuming that the numerators must be linear factors?

It is not wrong but not necessary to assume linear terms. You can take y=x2 the variable, then you have the fraction as ##\frac{1}{(y + e^{2 \alpha})(y + e^{- 2 \alpha})}##
 
ehild said:
It is not wrong but not necessary to assume linear terms. You can take y=x2 the variable, then you have the fraction as ##\frac{1}{(y + e^{2 \alpha})(y + e^{- 2 \alpha})}##
Why isn't it necessary to assume linear terms? For example, if we were to do the PFD of ##\displaystyle \frac{1}{x(x^2 + 1)}##, we have to assume that ##x^2 + 1## has a linear term in the numerator. Why would these two cases be different?
 
Mr Davis 97 said:
Why isn't it necessary to assume linear terms? For example, if we were to do the PFD of ##\displaystyle \frac{1}{x(x^2 + 1)}##, we have to assume that ##x^2 + 1## has a linear term in the numerator. Why would these two cases be different?
The fraction has only powers of x2.But try to do as you started, having linear and constant terms in the numerator and see what you get.
 
ehild said:
The fraction has only powers of x2.But try to do as you started, having linear and constant terms in the numerator and see what you get.
I get the same answer as I would if I had just constants. In other words, the coefficients of x in each numerator are just 0... What's the general theory behind this? I always thought that quadratic terms had to have linear factors in the numerator, at least that's what it says in articles on partial fraction decomposition. Are they wrong?
 
Last edited:
Mr Davis 97 said:
I get the same answer as I would if I had just constants. In other words, the coefficients of x in each numerator are just 0... What's the general theory behind this? I always thought that quadratic terms had to have linear factors in the numerator, at least that's what it says in articles on partial fraction decomposition. Are they wrong?
No, they have to have linear factors, but the coefficients can be zero.
As I wrote in Post#2, the fraction does not have linear terms in x. You can take y=x2 the variable, then you have the fraction as ##\frac{1}{(y+e^{2α})(y+e^{-2α})} ##, and it has only constant term in the numerator of the partial fractions.
 
ehild said:
No, they have to have linear factors, but the coefficients can be zero.
As I wrote in Post#2, the fraction does not have linear terms in x. You can take y=x2 the variable, then you have the fraction as ##\frac{1}{(y+e^{2α})(y+e^{-2α})} ##, and it has only constant term in the numerator of the partial fractions.
So are you saying that since the denominator just has factors with squares of x, it's a special case in which the linear terms in the numerator will have coefficients of 0 for x?
 
Mr Davis 97 said:
So are you saying that since the denominator just has factors with squares of x, it's a special case in which the linear terms in the numerator will have coefficients of 0 for x?
Yes.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K