Roots of Cubic Polynomials over R

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving a property of cubic polynomials over a subfield of the real numbers, specifically regarding the roots of the polynomial when one root is expressed in the form \( p + q\sqrt{r} \) with \( \sqrt{r} \notin F \). The participants explore various approaches to establish the relationship between the roots of the polynomial.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes that if \( ax^3 + bx^2 + cx + d \) has a root \( p + q\sqrt{r} \), then \( p - q\sqrt{r} \) should also be a root, and attempts to prove this using coefficient comparison.
  • Another participant points out an error in the initial reasoning regarding the relationship between the roots and suggests writing the polynomial in a specific factored form to analyze the implications for the roots.
  • A different participant claims to have derived a relationship between the roots based on the coefficients of the polynomial, concluding that certain conditions must hold for the roots to satisfy the polynomial equation.
  • One participant expresses confidence in their understanding of the problem but does not provide further details or justification.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion contains multiple competing views and approaches to the proof, with no consensus reached on the validity of the proposed methods or conclusions.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the implications of the assumption \( \sqrt{r} \notin F \) and how it affects their reasoning. There are also unresolved mathematical steps in the derivations presented.

alexfloo
Messages
192
Reaction score
0
I'm trying to prove the following, which is left unproven in something I'm reading on ruler-and-compass constructions:

If [itex]ax^3+bx^2+cx+d[/itex] is a polynomial over a subfield F of ℝ, and [itex]p+q\sqrt{r}[/itex] is a root (with [itex]\sqrt{r}\notin F[/itex]) then [itex]p-q\sqrt{r}[/itex] is also a root.

The theorem immediately before this made use of expanding [itex]a(x-r_1)(x-r_2)(x-r_3)[/itex] and equating coefficients to get a system of three equations in the roots and coefficients. The book suggested that this proof was similar, but I was't able to derive anything useful from that.

I also tried defining [itex]g(t)=f(p-t\sqrt{r})-f(p+t\sqrt{r})[/itex], and noting that [itex]g(q)=f(p-q\sqrt{r})[/itex] and [itex]-g(-t)=g(t)[/itex].

Then we see that

[itex]f(p-q\sqrt{r})=g(q)=-g(-q)=-f(p+q\sqrt{r})=0[/itex].

However, I know this must be flawed, because I don't believe I ever used the assumption that [itex]\sqrt{r}\notin F[/itex]. Any thoughts?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
alexfloo said:
[itex]-g(-q)=-f(p+q\sqrt{r})[/itex]

This step is wrong.

Basically, you know that you can write your polynomial in the form

[tex]a(x-p-q\sqrt{r})(x-r_2)(x-r_3)[/tex]

What do you get when you work that out??

For example, you must get that

[tex]-(p+q\sqrt{r})r_2r_3\in F[/tex]

Do you see why?? Does that imply something for r2 and r3??
 
I think I got it but I just want to check.

From the first and third coefficient equations, we have [itex]\prod r_i\in F[/itex] and [itex]\sum r_i\in F[/itex]. Therefore, [itex]r_1r_2=f(p-q\sqrt r)[/itex] and [itex]r_1 + r_2 = t-q\sqrt r[/itex].

Then we use the middle equation to get

[itex]r_{2}r_{3}+r_{1}r_{3}+r_{1}r_{2} =<br /> \left(r_{2}+r_{1}\right)r_{3}+r_{1}r_{2} = <br /> \left(t-q\sqrt{r}\right)\left(p+q\sqrt{r}\right)+x\left(p-q\sqrt{r}\right) = <br /> pt-q^{2}r+xp+\left(t-x-p\right)q\sqrt{r}[/itex]

Therefore, [itex]t-x-p = f\sqrt r[/itex]. Since all three terms are in F, it must be that f = 0. This gives us t = x+p, so [itex]r_1 + r_2 = x+p-q\sqrt r[/itex].

Of course, the unique pair of numbers with that sum and product are x and [itex]p-q\sqrt r[/itex]
 
I think it's ok.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K