MHB Prove a_0+a_1+…+a_2016>3^(2017)−1

  • Thread starter Thread starter lfdahl
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The polynomial P(x) has 2017 real roots, denoted as λ_k, and the polynomial P(Q(x)) has no real roots, where Q(x) = (1/4)x^2 + x - 1. Since the minimum value of Q(x) is -2, all roots λ_k must be less than -2. Evaluating P(1) leads to the conclusion that P(1) > 3^2017, which implies that the sum of the coefficients a_0 + a_1 + ... + a_{2016} is greater than 3^2017 - 1. This establishes the required inequality.
lfdahl
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
747
Reaction score
0
Suppose, that the polynomial $P(x) = x^{2017}+a_{2016}x^{2016}+ a_{2015}x^{2015}+ … + a_1x + a_0$ has $2017$ real roots,

while the polynomial $P(Q(x))$, where $Q(x) = \frac{1}{4}x^2+x-1$, has no real root.

Prove, that $a_0 + a_1 + … + a_{2016} > 3^{2017}-1.$
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
lfdahl said:
Suppose, that the polynomial $P(x) = x^{2017}+a_{2016}x^{2016}+ a_{2015}x^{2015}+ … + a_1x + a_0$ has $2017$ real roots,

while the polynomial $P(Q(x))$, where $Q(x) = \frac{1}{4}x^2+x-1$, has no real root.

Prove, that $a_0 + a_1 + … + a_{2016} > 3^{2017}-1.$
[sp]If $\lambda_1,\,\lambda_2,\ldots,\lambda_{2017}$ are the real roots of $P(x)$ then $P(x) = (x - \lambda_1)(x - \lambda_2)\cdots (x - \lambda_{2017}).$

If there is a real number $x$ such that $Q(x) = \lambda_k$ for some $k$, then $x$ would be a real root of $P(Q(x))$. Therefore none of the roots $\lambda_k$ can be in the range of the polynomial $Q(x)$.

The minimum value of $Q(x)$ is $Q(-2) = -2$, so the range of $Q(x)$ is $[-2,\infty)$. Therefore $\lambda_k < -2$ for all $k$. It follows that $$\begin{aligned}P(1) &= (1 - \lambda_1)(1 - \lambda_2)\cdots (1 - \lambda_{2017}) \\ &> (1 - (-2))(1 - (-2))\cdots (1 - (-2)) = 3^{2017}.\end{aligned}$$ But $P(1) = 1+a_{2016} + a_{2015} + \ldots + a_1 + a_0$. Thus $a_0 + a_1 + \ldots + a_{2016} > 3^{2017}-1.$
[/sp]
 
Opalg said:
[sp]If $\lambda_1,\,\lambda_2,\ldots,\lambda_{2017}$ are the real roots of $P(x)$ then $P(x) = (x - \lambda_1)(x - \lambda_2)\cdots (x - \lambda_{2017}).$

If there is a real number $x$ such that $Q(x) = \lambda_k$ for some $k$, then $x$ would be a real root of $P(Q(x))$. Therefore none of the roots $\lambda_k$ can be in the range of the polynomial $Q(x)$.

The minimum value of $Q(x)$ is $Q(-2) = -2$, so the range of $Q(x)$ is $[-2,\infty)$. Therefore $\lambda_k < -2$ for all $k$. It follows that $$\begin{aligned}P(1) &= (1 - \lambda_1)(1 - \lambda_2)\cdots (1 - \lambda_{2017}) \\ &> (1 - (-2))(1 - (-2))\cdots (1 - (-2)) = 3^{2017}.\end{aligned}$$ But $P(1) = 1+a_{2016} + a_{2015} + \ldots + a_1 + a_0$. Thus $a_0 + a_1 + \ldots + a_{2016} > 3^{2017}-1.$
[/sp]

The ink has hardly dried, before you came up with this excellent solution, Opalg!
Thankyou very much for your participation!(Clapping)
 
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

Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Back
Top