Why Include Different Powers in Partial Fraction Expansion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Swapnil
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Expansion Partial
Swapnil
Messages
459
Reaction score
6
Why is it that when you have a repeated root in the denominator of a rational proper function, you include different powers of the same root in the function's partial fraction expansion?

For example,
\frac{x^2 + 4x + 7}{(x-3)^3} = \frac{k_1}{(x-3)} + \frac{k_2}{(x-3)^2} + \frac{k_3}{(x-3)^3}

why do you do this?
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
It let's you achieve the different powers on the numerator. Eg To get the same denominator, for the first part we must multiply by (x-3)^2, giving us an x^2, then for the 2nd part we must multiply by (x-3), giving us the x, and 3rd part gives us our constant. Subtracting and multiplying these in the end gives up our original expression.

Lets see how this works out in this example.

\frac{x^2 + 4x + 7}{(x-3)^3} = \frac{k_1}{(x-3)} + \frac{k_2}{(x-3)^2} + \frac{k_3}{(x-3)^3}

Multiply to get a common denominator.

\frac{x^2 + 4x + 7}{(x-3)^3} = \frac {k_1 \cdot(x-3)^2 + k_2\cdot(x-3) + k_3}{(x-3)^3}

Expand.

\frac{x^2 + 4x + 7}{(x-3)^3} = \frac {k_1 \cdot x^2 - k_1 \cdot 6x +9 \cdot k_1 +k_2 \cdot x -k_2 \cdot 3 + k_3}{(x-3)^3}

Simplify Like terms etc.

\frac{x^2 + 4x + 7}{(x-3)^3} = \frac {k_1\cdot x^2 + (k_2 -6k_1) \cdot x + (k_3 -3k_2 + 9)}{(x-3)^3}

Phew, that was a bit of confusing tex[/tex]. <br /> <br /> Anyway, The simplest way to solve is to equate co-efficients on both sides :D.<br /> <br /> So we get:<br /> k_1 = 1<br /> (k_2 -6k_1)=4<br /> (k_3 -3k_2 + 9) =7<br /> <br /> YAY! Simultaneous Equations! <br /> <br /> For the 2nd equation, since k_1=1[/tex], the equation simplifies to&lt;br /&gt; k_2 -6=4&lt;br /&gt; k_2 =10&lt;br /&gt; Put that into equation 3. &lt;br /&gt; k_3 -30 + 9 = 7&lt;br /&gt; k_3=28&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; YAY we have our question solved!&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; \frac{x^2 + 4x + 7}{(x-3)^3} = \frac{1}{(x-3)} + \frac{10}{(x-3)^2} + \frac{28}{(x-3)^3}&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; HOORAH!
 
Last edited:
thank you Gib Z. that was very well explained.
 
Gib Z said:
It let's you achieve the different powers on the numerator. Eg To get the same denominator, for the first part we must multiply by (x-3)^2, giving us an x^2, then for the 2nd part we must multiply by (x-3), giving us the x, and 3rd part gives us our constant. Subtracting and multiplying these in the end gives up our original expression.
Oh, I see. Makes sense. Thanks.
 
Gib Z said:
It let's you achieve the different powers on the numerator. Eg To get the same denominator, for the first part we must multiply by (x-3)^2, giving us an x^2, then for the 2nd part we must multiply by (x-3), giving us the x, and 3rd part gives us our constant. Subtracting and multiplying these in the end gives up our original expression.

Lets see how this works out in this example.

\frac{x^2 + 4x + 7}{(x-3)^3} = \frac{k_1}{(x-3)} + \frac{k_2}{(x-3)^2} + \frac{k_3}{(x-3)^3}

Multiply to get a common denominator.

\frac{x^2 + 4x + 7}{(x-3)^3} = \frac {k_1 \cdot(x-3)^2 + k_2\cdot(x-3) + k_3}{(x-3)^3}

Expand.

\frac{x^2 + 4x + 7}{(x-3)^3} = \frac {k_1 \cdot x^2 - k_1 \cdot 6x +9 \cdot k_1 +k_2 \cdot x -k_2 \cdot 3 + k_3}{(x-3)^3}

Simplify Like terms etc.

\frac{x^2 + 4x + 7}{(x-3)^3} = \frac {k_1\cdot x^2 + (k_2 -6k_1) \cdot x + (k_3 -3k_2 + 9)}{(x-3)^3}

Phew, that was a bit of confusing tex[/tex]. <br /> <br /> Anyway, The simplest way to solve is to equate co-efficients on both sides :D.<br /> <br /> So we get:<br /> k_1 = 1<br /> (k_2 -6k_1)=4<br /> (k_3 -3k_2 + 9) =7<br /> <br /> YAY! Simultaneous Equations! <br /> <br /> For the 2nd equation, since k_1=1[/tex], the equation simplifies to&lt;br /&gt; k_2 -6=4&lt;br /&gt; k_2 =10&lt;br /&gt; Put that into equation 3. &lt;br /&gt; k_3 -30 + 9 = 7&lt;br /&gt; k_3=28&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; YAY we have our question solved!&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; \frac{x^2 + 4x + 7}{(x-3)^3} = \frac{1}{(x-3)} + \frac{10}{(x-3)^2} + \frac{28}{(x-3)^3}&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; HOORAH!
&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; When your rusty, it&amp;#039;s best to peack over someone shoulders.&lt;img src=&quot;https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png&quot; class=&quot;smilie smilie--emoji&quot; loading=&quot;lazy&quot; width=&quot;64&quot; height=&quot;64&quot; alt=&quot;:rolleyes:&quot; title=&quot;Roll Eyes :rolleyes:&quot; data-smilie=&quot;11&quot;data-shortname=&quot;:rolleyes:&quot; /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; I use to remember how to that, 1st year Calculus.&lt;br /&gt; Excellent job.
 
Lol thanks guys, Its fine. If you guys look over to my thread on Integrals, I am horrible :P
 
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...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top