Proving Linear Dependence in Pm(F) Using Polynomials with p_j(2)=0

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around proving that the set of polynomials \( p_0, p_1, \ldots, p_m \) in \( P_m(F) \), where each polynomial satisfies \( p_j(2) = 0 \), is linearly dependent. It is established that if any polynomial in the set is of degree 0, it must be the zero polynomial, indicating linear dependence. Additionally, for the case of \( m=1 \), the polynomials can be expressed in a way that shows they are dependent due to their shared root at \( x=2 \). The argument further develops by noting that dividing the linear combination of these polynomials by \( (x-2) \) results in \( m+1 \) polynomials of lower degree, which cannot form a basis in \( F^m \) due to their maximum dimension being \( m \). Thus, the conclusion is that the polynomials are indeed linearly dependent.
gravenewworld
Messages
1,128
Reaction score
27
Suppose that p_0,p_1,p_2...,p_m are polynomials in Pm(F) such that p_j(2)=0 for each j. Prove that (p_0,...,p_m) is not linearly independent in Pm(F).

So far I have, suppose that there is a polynomial in the list that is of degree 0, then that polynomial must be 0, hence the list is linearly dependent. If there is no polynomial of degree zero, there are at least two polynomials in the list that have the same degree. This where I get stuck, am I going in the right direction?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What in the world is Pm(F)?
 
Sorry maybe I should have explained that. Is P subscript m (F). Its all polynomial s over a field F with degree at most m.
 
Can anyone help me at all? This problem is driving me crazy
 
I think you may construct a weird induction argument on m.
here's my thoughts, anyway:
1. Any such set cannot contain a constant polynomial, sinze that would be the zero polynomial (and hence, the set would be linearly dependent)

2. Take the case of m=1:
We then have two linear polynomials,
p_{0}=a_{0}x+b_{0}
p_{1}=a_{1}x+b_{1}
(the a's distinct from zero)
But the condition p_{0}(2)=p_{1}(2)=0 implies that:
p_{0}=b_{0}(1-\frac{x}{2})
p_{1}=b_{1}(1-\frac{x}{2})
Hence, our polynomials are linearly dependent..
hope this helps a bit..
 
Sorry to resurrect old posts but my linear alg. professor came up with a viable way:

we're trying to prove a_0*P_0 + a_1*P_1 + ... + a_m*P_m = 0 for where anyone a_0 through a_m is nonzero. (Equation 1)

P_0, P_1, ..., P_m are m+1 vectors and you already proved that there can't be a p_i of degree 0 for 0<=i<=m . We also know that each p_i(x)%(x-2) = 0 for 0<=i<=m so dividing Equation 1 by (x-2) we have m+1 polynomials of varying degree i where 0<=i<=m-1. These polynomials have a maximum dimension of m, therefore. m+1 polynomials cannot be a basis of F^m because they're not linearly independent therefore the polynomials are linearly dependent. I hope I translated his thoughts correctly.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top