B Properties of roots of polynomials

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding the properties of polynomial roots as outlined in "Mathematical Methods for Physics and Engineering." It clarifies why a polynomial can be expressed in terms of its roots, emphasizing that the polynomial's degree and the number of roots must align, allowing for a constant factor. The derivation of properties 1.12, 1.13, and 1.14 is explained through coefficient comparison after polynomial expansion. Additionally, the conversation addresses the potential confusion regarding repeated roots and how they are represented in polynomial expressions. Overall, the explanations provided help clarify the foundational concepts of polynomial roots and their properties.
Rishabh Narula
Messages
61
Reaction score
5
i have some doubts from chapter 1 of the book Mathematical methods for physics and engineering.
i have attached 2 screenshots to exactly point my doubts.
in the first screenshot...could you tell me why exactly the 3 values of f(x) are equal.
the first is the very definition of polynomials...but why is f(x) also equal to product of those factors(i.e the other two equations of f(x))?
And in the second screenshot...how exactly are properties 1.12,1.13,1.14 derived from those 3 equations of f(x)?
Also how do you use property 1.14...how do you evaluate that double summation?
 

Attachments

  • a.jpg
    a.jpg
    50.9 KB · Views: 309
  • b.jpg
    b.jpg
    49.4 KB · Views: 350
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The book is a bit sloppy as it doesn't explain the roots very well, at least on what you copied. I assume it is done beforehand.

We start with ##f(x)=a_nx^n+a_{n-1}x^{n-1}+\ldots +a_1x+a_0##.
##f(x)## has at most ##n## zeros ##\alpha_1,\ldots ,\alpha_n##, that is ##f(\alpha_i)=0##.

Now by the Euclidean algorithm (division with remainder) we can see that ##(x-\alpha_i)## divides ##f(x)##.
If we then multiply all terms ##(x-\alpha_i)## we get a polynomial of degree ##n## which divides ##f(x)##.
Because they have the same degree, they can only differ by a constant factor. This factor has to be ##a_n##, because we have
\begin{align*}
f(x)&=a_nx^n+a_{n-1}x^{n-1}+\ldots +a_1x+a_0\\ &=a_n\cdot \left( x^n+\dfrac{a_{n-1}}{a_n}x^{n-1}+\ldots +\dfrac{a_1}{a_n}x+\dfrac{a_0}{a_n} \right) \\ &= a_n \cdot (x-\alpha_1)\cdot \ldots \cdot (x-\alpha_n)
\end{align*}
Formula ##(1.12)## is what we get by comparison of the coefficients at the term ##x^0=1##, i.e. the absolute term of the two polynomial expressions after we multiplied it out.
Formula ##(1.13)## is what we get by comparison of the coefficients at the term ##x^{n-1}##, i.e. the second term of the two polynomial expressions after we multiplied it out.
Formula ##(1.14)## is what we get by comparison of the coefficients at the term ##x^{n-2}##, i.e. the third term of the two polynomial expressions after we multiplied it out.

What might be a bit confusing is the second line of our polynomial expressions. It reads
$$
f(x) = a_n\cdot (x-\alpha_1)^{m_1} \cdot \ldots \cdot (x-\alpha_r)^{m_r}
$$
This is because until now we haven't considered, that some of the ##\alpha_i## might occur multiple times. So as sets we have ##\{\,\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n\,\}=\{\,\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_r\,\}##, that is we have only ##r## distinct roots. Each of the ##\alpha_i## occurs ##m_i## times. So the second row in your copy is simply achieved by gathering all identical ##\alpha_i##. At the end we get ##n=m_1+\ldots +m_r## and the ##\{\,\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_r\,\}## are pairwise distinct, whereas the ##\{\,\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n\,\}## are not.
 
fresh_42 said:
The book is a bit sloppy as it doesn't explain the roots very well, at least on what you copied. I assume it is done beforehand.

We start with ##f(x)=a_nx^n+a_{n-1}x^{n-1}+\ldots +a_1x+a_0##.
##f(x)## has at most ##n## zeros ##\alpha_1,\ldots ,\alpha_n##, that is ##f(\alpha_i)=0##.

Now by the Euclidean algorithm (division with remainder) we can see that ##(x-\alpha_i)## divides ##f(x)##.
If we then multiply all terms ##(x-\alpha_i)## we get a polynomial of degree ##n## which divides ##f(x)##.
Because they have the same degree, they can only differ by a constant factor. This factor has to be ##a_n##, because we have
\begin{align*}
f(x)&=a_nx^n+a_{n-1}x^{n-1}+\ldots +a_1x+a_0\\ &=a_n\cdot \left( x^n+\dfrac{a_{n-1}}{a_n}x^{n-1}+\ldots +\dfrac{a_1}{a_n}x+\dfrac{a_0}{a_n} \right) \\ &= a_n \cdot (x-\alpha_1)\cdot \ldots \cdot (x-\alpha_n)
\end{align*}
Formula ##(1.12)## is what we get by comparison of the coefficients at the term ##x^0=1##, i.e. the absolute term of the two polynomial expressions after we multiplied it out.
Formula ##(1.13)## is what we get by comparison of the coefficients at the term ##x^{n-1}##, i.e. the second term of the two polynomial expressions after we multiplied it out.
Formula ##(1.14)## is what we get by comparison of the coefficients at the term ##x^{n-2}##, i.e. the third term of the two polynomial expressions after we multiplied it out.

What might be a bit confusing is the second line of our polynomial expressions. It reads
$$
f(x) = a_n\cdot (x-\alpha_1)^{m_1} \cdot \ldots \cdot (x-\alpha_r)^{m_r}
$$
This is because until now we haven't considered, that some of the ##\alpha_i## might occur multiple times. So as sets we have ##\{\,\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n\,\}=\{\,\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_r\,\}##, that is we have only ##r## distinct roots. Each of the ##\alpha_i## occurs ##m_i## times. So the second row in your copy is simply achieved by gathering all identical ##\alpha_i##. At the end we get ##n=m_1+\ldots +m_r## and the ##\{\,\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_r\,\}## are pairwise distinct, whereas the ##\{\,\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n\,\}## are not.
okay.thanks.i also tried expanding the formulas for n=2 and 3 and on comparing could see why the identities are true..thanks for explaing though.helpful.
 
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Back
Top