Partial Fractions: Numerator vs Denominator | Explained in 5:30

AI Thread Summary
In partial fraction decomposition, the degree of the numerator must be less than that of the denominator by at least one to ensure proper splitting of the expression. If the numerator's degree is equal to or greater than the denominator's, polynomial division is necessary to simplify the expression. This results in a polynomial part and a proper fraction where the numerator has a lower degree than the denominator. The numerator can have any degree up to one less than that of the denominator, and it's possible for the leading term's coefficient to be zero. Understanding this relationship is crucial for correctly applying partial fraction decomposition.
therajinator
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Why in partial fractions does the power of the denominator have to be one more than that of the numerator, when splitting up the expression. Skip to 5:30. Thanks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org


If the numerator (N(x)) power were greater than or equal to that of the denominator (D(x)) then you could do a polynomial division to obtain N(x)/D(x) = P(x) + Q(x)/D(x), where Q has lower degree than N.
The numerator therefore has a lower degree than the denominator.
In general, it can have any degree in that range. For the purposes of calculating it, you allow it to be up to one degree less than the denominator. The coefficient of the leading term might turn out to be zero.
 
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...
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top