Proof of the Remainder Theorem: Is this proof of the Remainder Theorem valid?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the validity of a proof for the Remainder Theorem, which states that for any polynomial function f and a number a, there exists a polynomial function g and a number b such that f(x) = (x-a)g(x) + b. The proof presented utilizes mathematical induction and references the Division Algorithm for Polynomials. Participants clarify that the proof aligns with the Division Algorithm rather than the traditional statement of the Remainder Theorem, which asserts that the remainder r when dividing P by (x-a) is equal to P(a). The proof is deemed valid, although it is noted that the terminology used may not align with standard definitions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of polynomial functions and their properties.
  • Familiarity with mathematical induction techniques.
  • Knowledge of the Division Algorithm for Polynomials.
  • Basic concepts of polynomial division and remainders.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Division Algorithm for Polynomials in detail.
  • Learn about mathematical induction and its applications in proofs.
  • Review the traditional statement of the Remainder Theorem and its implications.
  • Explore examples of polynomial division to solidify understanding of remainders.
USEFUL FOR

Students of mathematics, particularly those studying algebra and polynomial functions, as well as educators seeking to clarify the distinctions between the Remainder Theorem and the Division Algorithm.

avec_holl
Messages
15
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Prove that for any polynomial function [tex]f[/tex] and number [tex]a[/tex], there exists a polynomial function [tex]g[/tex] and number [tex]b[/tex] such that: [tex]f(x) = (x-a)g(x) + b[/tex]

Homework Equations



N/A

The Attempt at a Solution



Proof: Let [tex]P(n)[/tex] be the statement that for some natural number [tex]n[/tex],

[tex]f(x) = a_nx^n + \dots + a_0 = (x-\alpha)g(x) + \beta[/tex]

Clearly [tex]P(1)[/tex] is true since we have that [tex]a_1x + a_0 = (x-\alpha)(a_1) + \beta[/tex]. Now suppose that [tex]P(k)[/tex] holds. To complete the proof, we need only show that if [tex]P(k)[/tex] holds then [tex]P(k+1)[/tex] also holds. Considering the polynomial function [tex]f[/tex] defined such that,

[tex]f(x) = a_{k+1}x^{k+1} + \dots + a_0 = a_{k+1}x^{k+1}\; + \;(x-\alpha)g(x)\; + \;b_1[/tex]

[tex]f(x) = a_{k+1}(x)(x^k)\; + \;(x-\alpha)g(x)\; + \;b_1[/tex]

Applying the Remainder Theorem to the polynomials [tex]a_{k+1}x[/tex] and [tex]x^k[/tex] - we've already proved this when [tex]n=1[/tex] and assumed that it holds for [tex]n=k[/tex] so we can apply it to those polynomials. This yields,

[tex]f(x) = [(x-\alpha)(a_{k+1}) + b_2][(x-\alpha)h(x) + b_3] + (x-\alpha)g(x) + b_1[/tex]

[tex]f(x) = a_{k+1}(x-\alpha)^2h(x) + b_2(x-\alpha)h(x) + a_{k+1}b_3(x-\alpha) + (x-\alpha)g(x) + b_1 + b_2b_3[/tex]

[tex]f(x) = (x-\alpha)[a_{k+1}(x-\alpha)h(x) + b_2h(x) + g(x) + a_{k+1}b_3] + b_1+b_2b_3[/tex]

Letting [tex]L(x) = a_{k+1}(x-\alpha)h(x) + b_2h(x) + g(x) + a_{k+1}b_3[/tex] and [tex]\beta = b_1 + b_2b_3[/tex] we find that,

[tex]f(x) = (x-\alpha)L(x) + \beta[/tex]

Is this a valid proof? It seems awfully fishy . . . if anyone could point out mistakes and make suggestions it would be much appreciated. Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The statement you have is not the usual statement of the Remainder Theorem that I am familiar with. I usually see it stated as:

For any polynomial P and real number a, if r is the remainder when P is divided by (x -a ), then r = P(a).

What you stated is a specific instance of the Division Algorithm for Polynomials. But your proof seems to have met the challenge of the original question regardless. Induction works, but if you are assuming the Division Algorithm for Polynomials is established then you can prove your statement more directly.

For reference:

DIVISION ALGORITHM FOR POLYNOMIALS
Given any two polynomials f and d (d not identically 0), there exist unique polynomials q and r so that

[tex]f(x)=d(x)\cdot{q(x)}+r(x)[/tex]

where either r(x) = 0 or [itex]deg(r) < deg(d)[/itex].

EDIT: Changed [itex]\leq[/itex] to < in previous line.

--Elucidus
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your reply! Sorry about the misnomer, my textbook refers to this result as the Remainder Theorem but I guess it isn't.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K