Find the Sum of Roots^16 | x3 - x + 1 = 0 Equation | Homework Solution

  • Thread starter Thread starter terryds
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Roots Sum
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on solving the cubic equation x3 - x + 1 = 0 to find the sum of the 16th powers of its roots, denoted as a16 + b16 + c16. Participants suggest using Vieta's formulas and Newton's theorem to derive expressions for higher powers of the roots efficiently. The final result for a16 + b16 + c16 is determined to be 90, achieved through systematic squaring and substitution of lower powers. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding the relationships between the roots and their coefficients.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of cubic equations and their roots
  • Familiarity with Vieta's formulas
  • Knowledge of Newton's theorem for sums of powers of roots
  • Ability to manipulate polynomial expressions and perform substitutions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study Vieta's formulas in depth to understand relationships between roots and coefficients
  • Learn about Newton's theorem and its application in finding sums of powers of roots
  • Practice solving cubic equations and deriving higher power sums
  • Explore recurrence relations for sums of powers of roots for efficient calculations
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, educators, and anyone preparing for university entrance exams who are interested in polynomial equations and root analysis.

terryds
Messages
392
Reaction score
13

Homework Statement



Roots of the equation x3 - x + 1 = 0 are a, b, and c.
Determine the value of a16+b16+c16 !

Homework Equations



For ax3+bx2+cx+d = 0
x1+x2+x3 = -b/a
x1 * x2 * x3= -d/a

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
I know how to determine the value of a + b+ c but not a^16+b^16+c^16...
I think I can factor a^16+b^16+c^16 using binomial (Pascal's triangle) but I think it will take too much time
Such a crazy problem in a two-hour test with 100 questions and no calculator...
Please help me how to solve this easily


 
Physics news on Phys.org
Try to determine a b and c and then you can find out the value of any polynomial in a, b and c! You know a+b+c, ab+bc+ca and abc!?
 
Last edited:
Let'sthink said:
Try to determine a b and c and then you can find out the value of any polynomial in a, b and c!
How to?
I figured out 1 and -1 are not the roots.
How to find out the roots of the equation?
 
There is a third equation relating the three roots of a cubic to its coefficients.
The trick is to massage these three equations into the form you need.

Take it in stages. Start with just squaring the equation for b/a.
 
haruspex said:
There is a third equation relating the three roots of a cubic to its coefficients.
The trick is to massage these three equations into the form you need.

Take it in stages. Start with just squaring the equation for b/a.

I still don't get it. I don't understand what you meant
 
Last edited:
terryds said:
I still don't get it. I don't understand what you meant
You quoted two standard equations, one involving b/a and one involving d/a. There is a third one, involving c/a. Look up Vieta.
If you take the one involving b/a and square both sides, on the left you will have a sum of squares of the roots and some other terms. The other terms can be replaced using the equation you are missing. The result is that you can effectively extend Vieta's equations to obtain one for the sum of the squares of the roots.
Continuing in the same way, you can get expressions for sums of higher powers of the roots.
 
haruspex said:
You quoted two standard equations, one involving b/a and one involving d/a. There is a third one, involving c/a. Look up Vieta.
If you take the one involving b/a and square both sides, on the left you will have a sum of squares of the roots and some other terms. The other terms can be replaced using the equation you are missing. The result is that you can effectively extend Vieta's equations to obtain one for the sum of the squares of the roots.
Continuing in the same way, you can get expressions for sums of higher powers of the roots.
##
(a+b+c)^2 = -\frac{B}{A} \\
a^2 + b^2 + c^2 - 2 (ab+ac+bc) =\frac{B^2}{A^2} \\
a^2 + b^2 + c^2 - 2 (\frac{C}{A}) = \frac{B^2}{A^2}\\
a^2 + b^2 + c^2 = \frac{B^2}{A^2} + 2 (\frac{C}{A})\\
##

But, it's just power of 2.
So, should I square it again and again till the power reaches 16 ?
Is it the only way to do it?
 
terryds said:
##
(a+b+c)^2 = -\frac{B}{A} \\
a^2 + b^2 + c^2 - 2 (ab+ac+bc) =\frac{B^2}{A^2} \\
a^2 + b^2 + c^2 - 2 (\frac{C}{A}) = \frac{B^2}{A^2}\\
a^2 + b^2 + c^2 = \frac{B^2}{A^2} + 2 (\frac{C}{A})\\
##

But, it's just power of 2.
So, should I square it again and again till the power reaches 16 ?
Is it the only way to do it?
I don't know a better way.
You have a sign error in the second line above.
 
haruspex said:
I don't know a better way.
You have a sign error in the second line above.

##a^2+b^2+c^2 = \frac{B^2}{A^2} - 2 \frac{C}{A}##

Samy_A said:
I did it slightly differently than haruspex, it may or may not be more tedious.

You could notice that ##a³ =a-1##.
⇒ ##a^4 =a²-a##
⇒ ##a^8= (a²-a)² = \cdots ##
##a^8## may contain terms in ##a^4,a^3##,but you can replace them with the simpler expression in terms of ##a²,a##.
And then compute ##a^{16}## by squaring ##a^8##. After again simplifying you should get an expression for ##a^{16}## in terms of ##a²,a##.
The same of course holds for ##b^{16},c^{16}##, so adding the three, and using what you found with Vieta's formulas, should give the desired result.

##
a^8 = (a^2-a)^2 = a^4 - 2a^3 + a^2 = (a^2-a) - 2 (a-1) + a^2 = 2a^2 - 3a + 2 \\
a^{16} = (a^8)^2 = (2a^2 - 3a + 2)^2 = 4a^4 - 12 a^3 + 17 a^2 - 12a + 4 \\
= 4(a^2-a) - 12(a-1) + 17a^2 - 12a + 4 = 4a^2 -16a + 12 + 17a^2 - 12a + 4 \\
= 21a^2 - 28a + 16 \\

b^{16} = 21b^2 - 28b + 16 \\
c^{16} = 21c^2 - 28c + 16 \\

a^{16} + b^{16} + c^{16} = 21(a^2+b^2+c^2) - 28 (a+b+c) + 48 \\
a^{16} + b^{16} + c^{16} = 21((a+b+c)^2 - 2 (ab+ac+cb)) - 28 (a+b+c) + 48 \\
a^{16} + b^{16} + c^{16} = 21(0^2 - 2 (-1)) - 28 (0) + 48 = 21 (2) - 0 + 48 = 42+48 = 90
##

Thank you for your help @haruspex , @Samy_A ,@Let'sthink ! :smile:
 
  • #10
Great!

Given this ...
terryds said:
Such a crazy problem in a two-hour test with 100 questions and no calculator...
... I wonder if there is some smart easy method.
 
  • Like
Likes terryds
  • #11
1 Doubt a question like this comes out of the blue. What have you been studying recently relevant?

2 In your 'relevant equations' you have given two out of three.

3 Look up Newton's theorem about sums of powers of roots.
 
  • Like
Likes terryds
  • #12
Samy_A said:
Great!

Given this ...

... I wonder if there is some smart easy method.
It can be accelerated with a convenient notation.
Define ##a_n=\Sigma_i \alpha_i^{2^n}## and ##b_n=\Sigma_{i< j} (\alpha_i\alpha_j)^{2^n}##.
Since the product of the roots is -1, it is not hard to show that ##a_n^2=a_{n+1}+2b_n## and for n>0 ##b_n^2=b_{n+1}+2a_n##. At n=0, the second equation is the same except for a sign change, but since a0=0 that makes no difference.
Having established those two equations, it is a rapid process to fill in a table even up to powers of 32. And yes, it gives a4=90.

It would be interesting to find the general solution of that pair of recurrence relations. I note that a5=8090, which does not have very many factors.
 
  • Like
Likes Samy_A and terryds
  • #13
epenguin said:
1 Doubt a question like this comes out of the blue. What have you been studying recently relevant?

2 In your 'relevant equations' you have given two out of three.

3 Look up Newton's theorem about sums of powers of roots.

It's a tryout test for university entrance exam.
Newton's theorem is the most efficient way as far as I see. Thanks for your suggestion!
 
  • #14
terryds said:
Newton's theorem is the most efficient way as far as I see. Thanks for your suggestion!
Doesn't look as efficient to me. The reference I found, https://artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Newton's_Sums, shows stepping through all the exponents up to 16, instead of only having to deal with the powers of 2 exponents.
 
  • Like
Likes terryds
  • #15
I think your paras 1 and 2 of #1 are garbled, mixing up definitions or notations of roots and coefficients.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K