MHB Zeros of reciprocal functions and transformed

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding the mechanisms behind the reciprocal roots of the polynomial function f(x) = x^3 - x - 1. Kaliprasad's method shows that if a, b, c are roots of f(x), then the reciprocals 1/a, 1/b, 1/c are roots of the transformed function f(1/x). Anemone's approach demonstrates that shifting the roots by one unit results in the new polynomial f(x - 1), which has roots a+1, b+1, c+1. Both methods emphasize the relationship between the roots of the original polynomial and those of its transformed versions. The discussion concludes with a call for clarity on the proofs supporting these transformations.
Amad27
Messages
409
Reaction score
1
Hello,

I was recently browsing the thread,

http://mathhelpboards.com/challenge-questions-puzzles-28/evaluate-1-1-1-b-1-b-1-c-1-c-12074.html

And I was browsing both, Kaliprasad's method and anemone's method.

Lets take Kaliprasad's approach first. My question is about the reciprocal zeros, NOT the actual problem... =)

Anywho, it says at the start of his answer,

$a, b, c$ are roots of $x^3 - x - 1 = 0$ and therefore,
$\frac{1}{a} , \frac{1}{b}, \frac{1}{c}$ are the roots of $\frac{1}{x^3} - \frac{1}{x} - 1$

I just want to know the mechanism, behind this. How is this true, what makes this true (more or less)? SECONDLY, anemone's answer, she states,

"We're told that $a, b, c$ are the roots of $f(x) = x^3 - x - 1$, hence the function,

$f(x - 1) = (x-1)^3 - (x-1) - 1 = x^3 - 3x^2 + 2x - 1$ has roots $(a+1), (b+1), (c+1)$

Again, what is the mechanism?

Is there are proof for any of the two?

THANKS!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Olok said:
Hello,

I was recently browsing the thread,

http://mathhelpboards.com/challenge-questions-puzzles-28/evaluate-1-1-1-b-1-b-1-c-1-c-12074.html

And I was browsing both, Kaliprasad's method and anemone's method.

Lets take Kaliprasad's approach first. My question is about the reciprocal zeros, NOT the actual problem... =)

Anywho, it says at the start of his answer,

$a, b, c$ are roots of $x^3 - x - 1 = 0$ and therefore,
$\frac{1}{a} , \frac{1}{b}, \frac{1}{c}$ are the roots of $\frac{1}{x^3} - \frac{1}{x} - 1$

I just want to know the mechanism, behind this. How is this true, what makes this true (more or less)? SECONDLY, anemone's answer, she states,

"We're told that $a, b, c$ are the roots of $f(x) = x^3 - x - 1$, hence the function,

$f(x - 1) = (x-1)^3 - (x-1) - 1 = x^3 - 3x^2 + 2x - 1$ has roots $(a+1), (b+1), (c+1)$

Again, what is the mechanism?

Is there are proof for any of the two?

THANKS!

Suppose that we have:

$f(x) = x^3 - x - 1 = (x - a)(x - b)(x - c) = 0$.

Suppose further, that we let $y = \dfrac{1}{x}$ (assuming that none of $a,b,c$ are 0).

Then $x = \dfrac{1}{y}$ so:

$f(x) = f\left(\frac{1}{y}\right) = \left(\frac{1}{y} - a\right)\left(\frac{1}{y} - b\right)\left(\frac{1}{y} - c\right)$.

If this is 0, one of the three factors must be 0, so, for example, if:

$\frac{1}{y} - a = 0$ then:

$\frac{1}{y} = a$, and thus:

$y = \frac{1}{\left(\frac{1}{y}\right)} = \frac{1}{a}$.

This is because if $c,d \neq 0$ then:

$c = d \iff \frac{1}{c} = \frac{1}{d}$.

Remember we decide equality of two fractions by "cross-multiplying":

if $\frac{1}{c} = \frac{1}{d}$, this means that $(1)(d) = (c)(1)$, that is $c = d$.

Now there is one thing we need to be careful of: we need to be sure 0 is not a root of $f$.

But $f$ has a non-zero constant term, that is: $f(0) \neq 0$, so we are good.

See if you can do the same thing with your second question, letting $y = x + 1$.
 
Deveno said:
Suppose that we have:

$f(x) = x^3 - x - 1 = (x - a)(x - b)(x - c) = 0$.

Suppose further, that we let $y = \dfrac{1}{x}$ (assuming that none of $a,b,c$ are 0).

Then $x = \dfrac{1}{y}$ so:

$f(x) = f\left(\frac{1}{y}\right) = \left(\frac{1}{y} - a\right)\left(\frac{1}{y} - b\right)\left(\frac{1}{y} - c\right)$.

If this is 0, one of the three factors must be 0, so, for example, if:

$\frac{1}{y} - a = 0$ then:

$\frac{1}{y} = a$, and thus:

$y = \frac{1}{\left(\frac{1}{y}\right)} = \frac{1}{a}$.

This is because if $c,d \neq 0$ then:

$c = d \iff \frac{1}{c} = \frac{1}{d}$.

Remember we decide equality of two fractions by "cross-multiplying":

if $\frac{1}{c} = \frac{1}{d}$, this means that $(1)(d) = (c)(1)$, that is $c = d$.

Now there is one thing we need to be careful of: we need to be sure 0 is not a root of $f$.

But $f$ has a non-zero constant term, that is: $f(0) \neq 0$, so we are good.

See if you can do the same thing with your second question, letting $y = x + 1$.

Hi, just a remark,

$f(x) = f\left(\frac{1}{y}\right) = \left(\frac{1}{y} - a\right)\left(\frac{1}{y} - b\right)\left(\frac{1}{y} - c\right)$.

Then you get (properly),

$\frac{1}{y} - a = 0$
Which becomes

$\frac{1}{y} = a$
Finally,

$y = \frac{1}{\left(\frac{1}{y}\right)} = \frac{1}{a}$

This proves the zero is at $y = \frac{1}{a}$

We were wondering how it proves the zero is at $x = \frac{1}{a}$??
 
Deveno said:
Suppose that we have:

$f(x) = x^3 - x - 1 = (x - a)(x - b)(x - c) = 0$.

Suppose further, that we let $y = \dfrac{1}{x}$ (assuming that none of $a,b,c$ are 0).

Then $x = \dfrac{1}{y}$ so:

$f(x) = f\left(\frac{1}{y}\right) = \left(\frac{1}{y} - a\right)\left(\frac{1}{y} - b\right)\left(\frac{1}{y} - c\right)$.

If this is 0, one of the three factors must be 0, so, for example, if:

$\frac{1}{y} - a = 0$ then:

$\frac{1}{y} = a$, and thus:

$y = \frac{1}{\left(\frac{1}{y}\right)} = \frac{1}{a}$.

This is because if $c,d \neq 0$ then:

$c = d \iff \frac{1}{c} = \frac{1}{d}$.

Remember we decide equality of two fractions by "cross-multiplying":

if $\frac{1}{c} = \frac{1}{d}$, this means that $(1)(d) = (c)(1)$, that is $c = d$.

Now there is one thing we need to be careful of: we need to be sure 0 is not a root of $f$.

But $f$ has a non-zero constant term, that is: $f(0) \neq 0$, so we are good.

See if you can do the same thing with your second question, letting $y = x + 1$.

I reflected upon this, and came up with a new, better idea.

$f(x) = x^3 - x + 1$

$f(\frac{1}{x}) = \frac{1}{x^3} - \frac{1}{x} + 1 = (\frac{1}{x}-a)(\frac{1}{x}-b)(\frac{1}{x}-c)$Considering $a, b, c$ being the roots.

Let's set $f(\frac{1}{x}) = 0$ This would imply,

$(\frac{1}{x}-a)(\frac{1}{x}-b)(\frac{1}{x}-c) = 0$

Which breaks up into three parts,

$(\frac{1}{x}-a) = 0 \implies x = \frac{1}{a}$
$(\frac{1}{x}-b) = 0 \implies x = \frac{1}{b}$
$(\frac{1}{x}-c) = 0 \implies x = \frac{1}{c}$

We have proved that the reciprocal,

$f(x) \implies f(\frac{1}{x})$ has zeros, which are reciprocals themselves, since.

$f(\frac{1}{x}) = \frac{1}{f(x)}$

Thanks! (There is no question involved, I just want to put this out there, if anyone else was confused!)
 
Olok said:
Let's set $f(\frac{1}{x}) = 0$ This would imply,

$(\frac{1}{x}-a)(\frac{1}{x}-b)(\frac{1}{x}-c) = 0$

Which breaks up into three parts,

$(\frac{1}{x}-a) = 0 \implies x = \frac{1}{a}$
$(\frac{1}{x}-b) = 0 \implies x = \frac{1}{b}$
$(\frac{1}{x}-c) = 0 \implies x = \frac{1}{c}$

We have proved that the reciprocal,
Up to here it makes sense.

Olok said:
$f(x) \implies f(\frac{1}{x})$ has zeros, which are reciprocals themselves
I would say, $x_0$ is a root of $f(x)$ $\implies$ $1/x_0$ is a root of $f(1/x)$ (provided $x_0\ne0$).

Olok said:
since.

$f(\frac{1}{x}) = \frac{1}{f(x)}$
But this is definitely not true, even for this $f(x)$.

Olok said:
$a, b, c$ are roots of $x^3 - x - 1 = 0$ and therefore,
$\frac{1}{a} , \frac{1}{b}, \frac{1}{c}$ are the roots of $\frac{1}{x^3} - \frac{1}{x} - 1$

...

We're told that $a, b, c$ are the roots of $f(x) = x^3 - x - 1$, hence the function,

$f(x - 1) = (x-1)^3 - (x-1) - 1 = x^3 - 3x^2 + 2x - 1$ has roots $(a+1), (b+1), (c+1)$

Again, what is the mechanism?
In general, suppose that $f(x_0)=y_0$ and let $F(x)=f(g(x))$. Let $x_1=g^{-1}(x_0)$, i.e., $g(x_1)=x_0$, if such $x_1$ exists. Then $F(x_1)=y_0$. Indeed, $F(x_1)=f(g(x_1))=f(x_0)=y_0$. What you are doing in forming $F$ is pre-applying $g$ to the argument before applying $f$. But $x_1$ cancels this because it applies the inverse of $g$ to $x_0$. We have the following chain.
\[
x_0\overset{g^{-1}}{\longmapsto} x_1\mathrel{\overbrace{\overset{g}{\longmapsto} x_0\overset{f}{\longmapsto}}^F} y_0
\]
In Kaliprasad's approach, $g(x)=1/x$ and $x_1=1/x_0$, so that $g(x_1)=x_0$. In anemone's approach, $g(x)=x-1$ and $x_1=x_0+1$, so that $g(x_1)=x_0$.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
Up to here it makes sense.

I would say, $x_0$ is a root of $f(x)$ $\implies$ $1/x_0$ is a root of $f(1/x)$ (provided $x_0\ne0$).

But this is definitely not true, even for this $f(x)$.

In general, suppose that $f(x_0)=y_0$ and let $F(x)=f(g(x))$. Let $x_1=g^{-1}(x_0)$, i.e., $g(x_1)=x_0$, if such $x_1$ exists. Then $F(x_1)=y_0$. Indeed, $F(x_1)=f(g(x_1))=f(x_0)=y_0$. What you are doing in forming $F$ is pre-applying $g$ to the argument before applying $f$. But $x_1$ cancels this because it applies the inverse of $g$ to $x_0$. We have the following chain.
\[
x_0\overset{g^{-1}}{\longmapsto} x_1\mathrel{\overbrace{\overset{g}{\longmapsto} x_0\overset{f}{\longmapsto}}^F} y_0
\]
In Kaliprasad's approach, $g(x)=1/x$ and $x_1=1/x_0$, so that $g(x_1)=x_0$. In anemone's approach, $g(x)=x-1$ and $x_1=x_0+1$, so that $g(x_1)=x_0$.

Yeah, just realized, but I hope you knew what I meant.

I did not means

$f(\frac{1}{x}) = \frac{1}{f(x)}$, I meant this for the roots! Sorry =)

We could take a similar approach to anemone's approach.

$f(x) = x^3 - x - 1$

$f(x) = (x - a)(x - b)(x - c) $

$f(x - 1) = (h - a)(h - b)(h - c)$ where $h = x - 1$

Now here we also have three simple equations,

$x = a + 1$
$x = b + 1$
$x = c + 1$

Thanks!
 
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
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...
Back
Top