MHB Prove Polynomial Remainder: -2x+5 When Divided by (x-1)(x-2)

  • Thread starter Thread starter gobindo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Polynomial
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around proving that a polynomial P(x) leaves a remainder of -2x + 5 when divided by (x-1)(x-2). Participants agree that the problem may have been misquoted, suggesting that the remainders for P(1) and P(2) were reversed. By applying the division algorithm and the remainder theorem, they establish a linear function for the remainder. A system of equations is proposed to solve for the parameters of the linear remainder. The consensus is that the correct remainder is indeed -2x + 5.
gobindo
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
A polynomial P(x) when divided by(x-1) leaves a remainder 1 and when divided by (x-2) leaves a remainder of3. prove that when divided by(x-1(x-2) it leaves a remainder -2x=5.
thank you.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Re: I'm having trouble with this question:

By the division algorithm, we may state:

$$P(x)=(x-1)(x-2)Q(x)+R(x)$$

We know the remainder must be a linear function (right?), and so we may state:

(1) $$P(x)=(x-1)(x-2)Q(x)+ax+b$$

And from the remainder theorem we know:

$$P(1)=1$$

$$P(2)=3$$

I suspect the problem has been misquoted, since the given remainder is not correct, whether the "=" should be "+" or "-". I am assuming then that the constant remainders have been reversed, and the linear remainder is in fact $-2x+5$. So, we have instead:

$$P(1)=3$$

$$P(2)=1$$

Using the two equations above and (1), we may get a 2 X 2 linear system in the parameters $a$ and $b$, which will have a unique solution. Can you put all of this together?
 
Re: I'm having trouble with this question:

MarkFL said:
I suspect the problem has been misquoted, since the given remainder is not correct, whether the "=" should be "+" or "-". I am assuming then that the constant remainders have been reversed, and the linear remainder is in fact $-2x+5$.
You are going to win the "most psychic member" award this year... Good call.

-Dan
 
Here's an alternate approach:

$$\frac{P(x)}{x-2}=Q_2(x)+\frac{1}{x-2}$$

$$\frac{P(x)}{x-1}=Q_1(x)+\frac{3}{x-1}$$

Subtract the second equation from the first:

$$P(x)\left(\frac{1}{x-2}-\frac{1}{x-1} \right)=\left(Q_2(x)-Q_1(x) \right)+\left(\frac{1}{x-2}-\frac{3}{x-1} \right)$$

What do you find upon simplification, and using the definition:

$$Q(x)\equiv Q_2(x)-Q_1(x)$$ ?
 
Re: I'm having trouble with this question:

thank you mark for the quick response ,also you guessed it right that it was misquoted as =.well done.
MarkFL said:
By the division algorithm, we may state:

$$P(x)=(x-1)(x-2)Q(x)+R(x)$$

We know the remainder must be a linear function (right?), and so we may state:

(1) $$P(x)=(x-1)(x-2)Q(x)+ax+b$$

And from the remainder theorem we know:

$$P(1)=1$$

$$P(2)=3$$

I suspect the problem has been misquoted, since the given remainder is not correct, whether the "=" should be "+" or "-". I am assuming then that the constant remainders have been reversed, and the linear remainder is in fact $-2x+5$. So, we have instead:

$$P(1)=3$$

$$P(2)=1$$

Using the two equations above and (1), we may get a 2 X 2 linear system in the parameters $a$ and $b$, which will have a unique solution. Can you put all of this together?
 
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...
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...
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...
Back
Top