Showing an equation has no rational roots

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter XYZeagle
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rational Roots
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem from "A Course of Pure Mathematics" concerning the conditions under which a polynomial equation of the form p1*x^n + p2*x^(n-1) + ... + pn = 0 can have rational roots. Participants explore the implications of the coefficients and the nature of the roots, particularly focusing on whether rational roots exist given specific conditions.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests a strategy involving the relationships between the roots and coefficients of the polynomial, indicating that if the polynomial is primitive, certain properties must hold.
  • Another participant argues that if the polynomial's leading coefficient is 1, then the only possible rational roots could be 1 or -1, and they assert that 1 cannot be a root based on the given conditions.
  • A different participant questions the original problem's formulation, suggesting a possible misinterpretation or error in the equation as presented in the book.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of Gauss's Lemma and how it relates to the primitivity of the polynomial, suggesting that if a rational root exists, it must be an integer.
  • One participant provides a specific example where they substitute values into the polynomial and find that -1 satisfies the equation, raising doubts about the claim that no rational roots exist.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the polynomial can have rational roots, particularly focusing on the potential for -1 to be a root. There is no consensus on the validity of the original problem's statement or the conclusions drawn from it.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential limitations in the problem's formulation and the assumptions made regarding the coefficients and roots. The discussion reflects uncertainty about the implications of the polynomial's properties and the specific conditions outlined in the problem.

XYZeagle
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
I've been working through "A Course of Pure Mathematics" and there is one problem I'm really stuck on. I'm wondering if anyone could help me out. To avoid typing it all out, I here's a link. http://books.google.com/books?id=a3...a=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA7,M1

Here's the problem taken out of context. It's 6 and page 7.

Show that if Pn = 1 and p1+p2+...+pn\neq -1, then p1xn+p2xn-1+p3xn-2+...+pn = 0 can not have a rational root.

I apologize if I put this in the wrong section.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
There is a strategy to solve such problems. Let the roots be a1,a2 ...
now u know that pn=a1*a2...*an
and pn-1= \Sigmaa1*a2
and so on. Try to negate your proof...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The author showed that the equations roots can only be integers and it's very obvious that pn must be divisible by the root. With pn being 1, the root can either be 1 or negative 1. If the root is 1, the two sides aren't equal because p1+p2+...+pn is not -1 and because of that the root can not be rational.

I hope that made sense. I'm really not sure how to convey that using mathematical symbols or what to do in the case that the root is -1.

I made a mistake in creating this thread here. Could someone move this to the homework forum? Thanks.
 
The question doesn't make sense, unless you meant to write p0xn+p1xn-1+p2xn-2+...+pn = 0.

Even so, if n=1 and p0=p1=1 then -1 is a root. I can't see inside that book from your link, so I don't know what it says. Maybe they say positive root?
 
You're right it should be
xn+p1xn-1+p2xn-2+...+pn = 0. It says to show it can't have a rational root. The author showed the equation can't have a rational root other than -1 or 1. I showed its not 1 and I don't know what to do about -1.
 
Last edited:
Clearly 1,p_1,..,p_n have no common factor (the polynomial is 'primative'). Call the polynomial f(x) and suppose that f(x)=g(x)(x-q) for some rational number q and some function g(x)=x^{n-1}+a_1x^{n-2}..+a_{n-1} with rational coefficients. Then there exist integers a,b such that ag(x) and b(x-q) are primative polynomials (proove this!) It is clear that their product ag(x)b(x-q)=abf(x) is also primative. But f(x) is a polynomial, so a and b must be 1 or -1. Hence g(x) is a polynomial and q is an integer. But we already know this is impossible.

This is very similar to Gauss's Lemma which should be in your book or on wikipedia.
 
olliemath said:
Clearly 1,p_1,..,p_n have no common factor (the polynomial is 'primative'). Call the polynomial f(x) and suppose that f(x)=g(x)(x-q) for some rational number q and some function g(x)=x^{n-1}+a_1x^{n-2}..+a_{n-1} with rational coefficients. Then there exist integers a,b such that ag(x) and b(x-q) are primative polynomials (proove this!) It is clear that their product ag(x)b(x-q)=abf(x) is also primative. But f(x) is a polynomial, so a and b must be 1 or -1. Hence g(x) is a polynomial and q is an integer. But we already know this is impossible.

This is very similar to Gauss's Lemma which should be in your book or on wikipedia.

I can't see how that can show the equation's root isn't 1 or -1.

It's easy to see that -1 and 1 are the only possible roots and 1 isn't a root, but with -1 I'm hitting a brick wall.
 
Last edited:
Yes, you're right; gel's comment still holds in the new version you posted (should've checked that!) My post shows that any root has to be an integer, so the only possibility is -1, hence there are no positive rational roots.

Perhaps the book meant x^{2n}+p_1x^{2n-2}+..+p_n?
 
Yes, what I copied is what the book says. What's weird is I can plug in numbers for the integers to that meet the requirements set and show that -1 can be a root.

The equation was xn+p1xn-1+p2xn-2+...+pn = 0.

Let n=2, x=-1, p1=2, p2=1 (because pn was required to be 1)
p1+p2=2+1\neq-1
It meets both of the requirements set to not have a rational root.

x2+p1x1+p2=0

(-1)2+2(-1)1+1=0

1+(-2)+1=0

I really hope what the book said is a misprint, because I can not see how it can't have a negative rational root.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K