How To Find The Exact Solution Of An Equation
How to Solve Polynomial Equations
Copyright � 2002�2022 by Stan Brownish, BrownMath.com
Summary: In algebra you spend lots of fourth dimension solving polynomial equations or factoring polynomials (which is the same thing). It would be piece of cake to get lost in all the techniques, simply this newspaper ties them all together in a coherent whole.
Contents:
- The Primary Plan
- Factor = Root
- Exact or Guess?
- Step past Stride
- Cubic and Quartic Formulas
- Footstep ane. Standard Form and Simplify
- Pace 2. How Many Roots?
- Descartes� Rule of Signs
- Complex Roots
- Irrational Roots
- Multiple Roots
- Step three. Quadratic Factors
- Stride 4. Notice 1 Factor or Root
- Monomial Factors
- Special Products
- Rational Roots
- Graphical Clues
- Boundaries on Roots
- Step 5. Dissever by Your Factor
- Stride half dozen. Numerical Methods
- Consummate Example
- What�s New?
The Master Program
Brand sure you lot aren�t confused by the terminology. All of these are the aforementioned:
- Solving a polynomial equation p(x) = 0
- Finding roots of a polynomial equation p(x) = 0
- Finding zeroes of a polynomial function p(ten)
- Factoring a polynomial function p(x)
There�s a factor for every root, and vice versa. (x−r) is a cistron if and simply if r is a root. This is the Factor Theorem: finding the roots or finding the factors is essentially the same thing. (The chief difference is how you treat a abiding factor.)
Exact or Judge?
Most ofttimes when we talk most solving an equation or factoring a polynomial, we mean an exact (or analytic) solution. The other type, estimate (or numeric) solution, is always possible and sometimes is the just possibility.
When you can detect it, an exact solution is improve. You lot can always observe a numerical approximation to an verbal solution, just going the other way is much more than difficult. This page spends most of its fourth dimension on methods for verbal solutions, only also tells y'all what to exercise when analytic methods fail.
Footstep by Step
How do y'all find the factors or zeroes of a polynomial (or the roots of a polynomial equation)? Basically, you whittle. Every time you lot chip a factor or root off the polynomial, you�re left with a polynomial that is one degree simpler. Employ that new reduced polynomial to discover the remaining factors or roots.
At any stage in the process, if you lot go to a cubic or quartic equation (degree 3 or 4), you have a choice of continuing with factoring or using the cubic or quartic formulas. These formulas are a lot of piece of work, so nearly people prefer to keep factoring.
Follow this procedure step by stride:
- If solving an equation, put it in standard grade with 0 on one side and simplify. [ details ]
- Know how many roots to look. [ details ]
- If you�re downwards to a linear or quadratic equation (degree one or 2), solve past inspection or the quadratic formula. [ details ]
So go to footstep 7. - Find one rational factor or root. This is the hard part, but there are lots of techniques to assistance you. [ details ]
If you can find a factor or root, continue with stride v below; if you can�t, go to footstep 6. - Split by your cistron. This leaves you with a new reduced polynomial whose caste is i less. [ details ]
For the residue of the problem, you�ll work with the reduced polynomial and not the original. Continue at pace 3. - If you tin�t find a factor or root, plow to numerical methods. [ details ]
Then go to footstep vii. - If this was an equation to solve, write down the roots. If it was a polynomial to gene, write information technology in factored grade, including any constant factors yous took out in pace 1.
This is an example of an algorithm, a ready of steps that will lead to a desired result in a finite number of operations. It�s an iterative strategy, considering the eye steps are repeated as long every bit necessary.
Cubic and Quartic Formulas
The methods given here�find a rational root and apply synthetic division�are the easiest. But if y'all can�t notice a rational root, there are special methods for cubic equations (degree three) and quartic equations (degree 4), both at Mathworld. An alternative arroyo is provided past Dick Nickalls in PDF for cubic and quartic equations.
Step 1. Standard Form and Simplify
This is an like shooting fish in a barrel footstep�easy to overlook, unfortunately. If you have a polynomial equation, put all terms on i side and 0 on the other. And whether it�s a factoring trouble or an equation to solve, put your polynomial in standard form, from highest to lowest power.
For example, you cannot solve this equation in this form:
x� + 6x� + 12x = −8
You must change information technology to this form:
x� + six10� + 1210 + 8 = 0
Also make sure you have simplified, past factoring out any mutual factors. This may include factoring out a −ane so that the highest ability has a positive coefficient. Example: to factor
7 − half-dozen10 − xvx� − 2x�
begin past putting it in standard form:
−2ten� − 1510� − 610 + 7
and then factor out the −ane
−(2ten� + 1510� + vix − 7) or (−i)(2x� + 15ten� + vix − 7)
If you�re solving an equation, you lot tin can throw away whatever common abiding factor. But if you�re factoring a polynomial, you must keep the common factor.
Instance: To solve 8x� + 16x + viii = 0, you tin divide left and right by the common factor 8. The equation 10� + 2x + i = 0 has the same roots as the original equation.
Example: To gene 810� + 16ten + 8 , you recognize the common gene of 8 and rewrite the polynomial as 8(x� + 2x + 1), which is identical to the original polynomial. (While it�s true that yous will focus your further factoring efforts on x� + 2x + one, it would be an mistake to write that the original polynomial equals 10� + 2x + 1.)
Your �mutual factor� may be a fraction, because yous must cistron out any fractions so that the polynomial has integer coefficients.
Example: To solve (1/iii)10� + (3/four)x� − (one/ii)x + 5/vi = 0, y'all recognize the common factor of 1/12 and separate both sides by 1/12. This is exactly the same as recognizing and multiplying by the lowest mutual denominator of 12. Either way, you get 4x� + ninex� − half dozenx + 10 = 0, which has the same roots equally the original equation.
Case: To factor (ane/three)x� + (3/four)x� − (1/2)x + 5/six, you recognize the common factor of one/12 (or the everyman common denominator of 12) and factor out 1/12. You get (1/12)(4x� + 9ten� − 610 + 10), which is identical to the original polynomial.
Stride 2. How Many Roots?
A polynomial of degree north will have northward roots, some of which may be multiple roots.
How do you know this is truthful? The Key Theorem of Algebra tells you that the polynomial has at least 1 root. The Gene Theorem tells you that if r is a root then (x−r) is a gene. But if you divide a polynomial of caste n past a cistron (ten−r), whose degree is ane, you get a polynomial of degree northward−1. Repeatedly applying the Cardinal Theorem and Factor Theorem gives y'all north roots and northward factors.
Descartes� Rule of Signs
Descartes� Dominion of Signs tin tell y'all how many positive and how many negative real zeroes the polynomial has. This is a large labor-saving device, especially when you lot�re deciding which possible rational roots to pursue.
To utilise Descartes� Rule of Signs, you need to understand the term variation in sign. When the polynomial is arranged in standard class, a variation in sign occurs when the sign of a coefficient is unlike from the sign of the preceding coefficient. (A zero coefficient is ignored.) For instance,
p(x) = 10 v − 2x 3 + 2x 2 − 3ten + 12
has iv variations in sign.
Descartes� Dominion of Signs:
- The number of positive roots of p(x)=0 is either equal to the number of variations in sign of p(10), or less than that by an even number.
- The number of negative roots of p(10)=0 is either equal to the number of variations in sign of p(−x), or less than that past an even number.
Example: Consider p(10) above. Since information technology has four variations in sign, there must exist either four positive roots, two positive roots, or no positive roots.
Now form p(−x), by replacing x with (−x) in the above:
p(−x) =(−x)5 − 2(−ten)3 + two(−x)ii − 3(−x) + 12
p(−x) = −10 5 + iix iii + 2x ii + 3x + 12
p(−x) has i variation in sign, and therefore the original p(x) has one negative root. Since you know that p(x) must have a negative root, but it may or may not have any positive roots, you would look first for negative roots.
p(x) is a fifth-degree polynomial, and therefore information technology must have five zeros. Since x is non a gene, you know that 10=0 is not a zero of the polynomial. (For a polynomial with real coefficients, like this 1, complex roots occur in pairs.) Therefore there are three possibilities:
| number of zeroes that are | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| positive | negative | complex non real | |
| first possibility | 4 | 1 | 0 |
| second possibility | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| 3rd possibility | 0 | 1 | 4 |
Complex Roots
If a polynomial has real coefficients, then either all roots are real or at that place are an even number of non-existent complex roots, in conjugate pairs.
For case, if five+2i is a nix of a polynomial with real coefficients, then 5−2i must also be a zero of that polynomial. It is equally true that if (ten−5−2i) is a factor then (x−5+2i) is also a factor.
Why is this true? Considering when you take a factor with an imaginary part and multiply it past its complex conjugate you get a existent result:
(x−5−2i)(x−5+2i) = x�−10ten+25−4i� = x�−tenten+29
If (x−five−2i) was a factor but (x−5+2i) was non, then the polynomial would end upward with imaginaries in its coefficients, no matter what the other factors might be. If the polynomial has merely real coefficients, and then any circuitous roots must occur in conjugate pairs.
Irrational Roots
For similar reasons, if the polynomial has rational coefficients then the irrational roots involving foursquare roots occur (if at all) in conjugate pairs. If (ten−2+√3) is a factor of a polynomial with rational coefficients, so (x−2−√3) must also be a gene. To see why, recollect how you rationalize a binomial denominator; or but check what happens when yous multiply those 2 factors.
As Jeff Beckman pointed out (20 June 2006), this is emphatically not true for odd roots. For case, 10�−2 = 0 has three roots, 2^(1/3) and 2 circuitous roots.
It�s an interesting problem whether irrationals involving even roots of order ≥4 must also occur in conjugate pairs. I don�t accept an immediate answer. I�m working on a proof, as I accept time.
Multiple Roots
When a given gene (ten−r) occurs m times in a polynomial, r is called a multiple root or a root of multiplicity m .
- If the multiplicity thou is an even number, the graph touches the x centrality at x=r but does non cross it.
- If the multiplicity thou is an odd number, the graph crosses the x axis at x=r. If the multiplicity is 3, 5, vii, and then on, the graph is horizontal at the point where it crosses the axis.
Examples: Compare these two polynomials and their graphs:
f(x) = (10−one)(x−iv)2 = x 3 − 910 two + 24x − 16
thou(x) = (ten−1)3(x−four)ii = 10 5 − eleventen 4 + 43x 3 − 73x ii + 56ten − 16
These polynomials take the same zeroes, but the root 1 occurs with dissimilar multiplicities. Look at the graphs:
Both polynomials accept zeroes at ane and 4 but. f(x) has caste 3, which means three roots. Yous see from the factors that 1 is a root of multiplicity 1 and 4 is a root of multiplicity 2. Therefore the graph crosses the axis at x=1 (just is not horizontal there) and touches at x=4 without crossing.
By dissimilarity, g(x) has degree 5. (1000(x) = f(x) times (10−i)2.) Of the 5 roots, one occurs with multiplicity 3: the graph crosses the axis at ten=1 and is horizontal there; 4 occurs with multiplicity 2, and the graph touches the axis at ten=four without crossing.
Step 3. Quadratic Factors
When you take quadratic factors (Ax�+Bx+C), information technology may or may non exist possible to factor them farther.
Sometimes you tin can but meet the factors, as with x�−ten−6 = (x+2)(x−3). Other times it�s not and so obvious whether the quadratic tin exist factored. That�s when the quadratic formula (shown at right) is your friend.
For example, suppose you have a factor of 12x�−x−35. Tin can that exist factored further? By trial and fault you�d have to attempt a lot of combinations! Instead, use the fact that factors correspond to roots, and employ the formula to discover the roots of 12x�−x−35 = 0, similar this:
x = [ −(−ane) � √1 − 4(12)(−35) ] / 2(12)
x = [ 1 � √1681 ] / 24
√1681 = 41, and therefore
10 = [ ane � 41 ] / 24
x = 42/24 or −40/24
ten = seven/iv or −5/3
If 7/four and −v/3 are roots, then (x−7/4) and (x+five/3) are factors. Therefore
1210�−x−35 = (fourx−vii)(310+5)
What about x�−510+7? This one looks similar it�southward prime, merely how can you exist sure? Again, use the formula:
x = [ −(−5) � √25 − 4(1)(7) ] / 2(one)
x = [ 5 � √−3 ] / 2
What you lot practise with that depends on the original problem. If it was to cistron over the reals, then x�−5x+7 is prime. Just if that factor was function of an equation and you were supposed to observe all complex roots, you have two of them:
ten = v/2 + (√3/ii)i, x = five/ii − (√3/two)i
Since the original equation had real coefficients, these complex roots occur in a conjugate pair.
Step 4. Find One Factor or Root
This step is the eye of factoring a polynomial or solving a polynomial equation. There are a lot of techniques that can assistance y'all to find a gene.
Sometimes you tin observe factors by inspection (run across the first two sections that follow). This provides a bully shortcut, so check for easy factors before starting more strenuous methods.
Monomial Factors
Always start by looking for any monomial factors you can run across. For instance, if your role is
f(x) = 4x 6 + 12x 5 + 12x 4 + 4x three
you should immediately factor it as
f(x) = 410 3(10 3 + threex two + iiix + 1)
Getting the 4 out of there simplifies the remaining numbers, the x 3 gives you a root of x = 0 (with multiplicity 3), and at present you have only a cubic polynomial (caste three) instead of a sextic (degree six). In fact, you should now recognize that cubic every bit a special product, the perfect cube (x+1)3.
When yous factor out a common variable cistron, be sure you lot call back it at the end when you�re listing the factor or roots. x�+threex�+3x+1 = 0 has certain roots, merely x�(10�+3x�+threeten+ane) = 0 has those same roots and besides a root at x=0 (with multiplicity 3).
Special Products
Be alarm for applications of the Special Products. If you lot can apply them, your task becomes much easier. The Special Products are
- perfect square (2 forms): A� � 2A B + B� = (A � B)�
- sum of squares: A� + B� cannot exist factored on the reals, in general (for exceptional cases see How to Factor the Sum of Squares)
- difference of squares: A� − B� = (A + B)(A − B)
- perfect cube (ii forms): A� � 3A�B + 3A B� � B� = (A � B)�
- sum of cubes: A� + B� = (A + B)(A� − A B + B�)
- difference of cubes: A� − B� = (A − B)(A� + A B + B�)
The expressions for the sum or divergence of two cubes look as though they ought to factor further, just they don�t. A��A B+B� is prime over the reals.
Consider
p(x) = 27ten� − 64
You should recognize this as
p(x) = (3x)� − four�
You know how to cistron the difference of 2 cubes:
p(x) = (3x−4)(9x�+12x+xvi)
Bingo! Equally before long every bit y'all get down to a quadratic, yous tin can apply the Quadratic Formula and y'all�re done.
Here�s some other example:
q(x) = x 6 + 16x 3 + 64
This is just a perfect foursquare trinomial, but in 10 three instead of x. You factor it exactly the same manner:
q(ten) = (ten iii)2 + 2(8)(10 3) + 82
q(x) = (x 3 + eight)ii
And you can easily cistron (ten iii+8)ii as (x+two)two(x 2−2ten+4)2.
Rational Roots
Assuming you�ve already factored out the easy monomial factors and special products, what do y'all do if yous�ve however got a polynomial of caste 3 or higher?
The answer is the Rational Root Test. It tin can prove you some candidate roots when you don�t encounter how to cistron the polynomial, every bit follows.
Consider a polynomial in standard course, written from highest degree to lowest and with only integer coefficients:
f(x) = a n ten n + ... + ao
The Rational Root Theorem tells you that if the polynomial has a rational zero and so it must exist a fraction p/q, where p is a factor of the trailing constant a o and q is a factor of the leading coefficient a northward .
Example:
p(x) = 2ten four − 1110 iii − half-dozen10 2 + 6410 + 32
The factors of the leading coefficient (2) are two and 1. The factors of the constant term (32) are one, 2, 4, eight, 16, and 32. Therefore the possible rational zeroes are �i, 2, 4, viii, 16, or 32 divided past two or one:
� any of ane/ii, 1/i, 2/2, 2/1, 4/2, 4/i, 8/2, 8/ane, 16/2, 16/1, 32/two, 32/1
reduced: � whatsoever of �, one, 2, four, 8, 16, 32
What do nosotros mean past maxim this is a list of all the possible rational roots? We hateful that no other rational number, like � or 32/7, can be a zero of this particular polynomial.
Caution: Don�t make the Rational Root Test out to exist more information technology is. It doesn�t say those rational numbers are roots, just that no other rational numbers tin can exist roots. And it doesn�t tell yous anything about whether some irrational or even circuitous roots exist. The Rational Root Examination is only a starting betoken.
Suppose you have a polynomial with non-integer coefficients. Are you stuck? No, yous can gene out the to the lowest degree mutual denominator (LCD) and get a polynomial with integer coefficients that mode. Example:
(1/2)x� − (iii/2)ten� + (ii/3)x − 1/ii
The LCD is i/6. Factoring out 1/6 gives the polynomial
(1/vi)(3x� − 9x� + ivx − 3)
The two forms are equivalent, and therefore they accept the same roots. But y'all can�t use the Rational Root Test to the first course, only to the 2d. The test tells you that the but possible rational roots are � any of 1/3, 1, 3.
Once you�ve identified the possible rational zeroes, how can you screen them? The brute-force method would be to take each possible value and substitute it for x in the polynomial: if the consequence is cypher then that number is a root. Simply there�s a better style.
Employ Constructed Division to come across if each candidate makes the polynomial equal nil. This is better for iii reasons. Offset, it�s computationally easier, considering you lot don�t have to compute college powers of numbers. Second, at the same fourth dimension it tells you whether a given number is a root, it produces the reduced polynomial that y'all�ll use to find the remaining roots. Finally, the results of synthetic sectionalisation may give you an upper or lower bound even if the number yous�re testing turns out not to be a root.
Sometimes Descartes� Dominion of Signs can help yous screen the possible rational roots farther. For example, the Rational Root Examination tells you that if
q(ten) = two10 4 + 13x 3 + 20x ii + 28ten + 8
has any rational roots, they must come from the list � whatsoever of �, ane, 2, 4, viii. But don�t just outset off substituting or synthetic dividing. Since at that place are no sign changes, there are no positive roots. Are there any negative roots?
q(−ten) = 2ten 4 − xiii10 3 + 20x 2 − 28x + 8
has four sign changes. Therefore there could exist equally many as iv negative roots. (There could also exist ii negative roots, or none.) In that location�s no guarantee that any of the roots are rational, but whatsoever root that is rational must come from the list −�, −1, −ii, −4, −8.
(If you have a graphing estimator, you can pre-screen the rational roots by graphing the polynomial and seeing where information technology seems to cross the ten axis. But you still need to verify the root algebraically, to meet that f(10) is exactly 0 there, non just virtually 0.)
Call up, the Rational Root Test guarantees to notice all rational roots. But it will completely miss real roots that are not rational, similar the roots of x�−2=0, which are �√2, or the roots of 10�+4=0, which are �2i.
Finally, call back that the Rational Root Exam works only if all coefficients are integers. Look over again at this function, which is graphed at right:
p(x) = 2x 4 − elevenx 3 − six10 2 + 64x + 32
The Rational Root Theorem tells you that the but possible rational zeroes are ��, 1, ii, iv, eight, 16, 32. Simply suppose you lot factor out the 2 (every bit I one time did in class), writing the equivalent function
p(x) = 2(ten 4 − (eleven/two)x three − threex ii + 32x + 16)
This role is the aforementioned every bit the before one, but yous can no longer apply the Rational Root Examination because the coefficients are not integers. In fact −� is a nil of p(10), but it did non bear witness up when I (illegally) applied the Rational Root Test to the second grade. My mistake was forgetting that the Rational Root Theorem applies only when all coefficients of the polynomial are integers.
Graphical Clues
By graphing the part�either by hand or with a graphing calculator�y'all can get a sense of where the roots are, approximately, and how many existent roots exist.
Example: If the Rational Root Examination tells y'all that �2 are possible rational roots, you lot can expect at the graph to see if it crosses (or touches) the x axis at two or −ii. If so, use constructed sectionalization to verify that the suspected root actually is a root. Yeah, you ever need to check�from the graph you tin can never be sure whether the intercept is at your possible rational root or just nigh it.
Boundaries on Roots
Some techniques don�t tell you the specific value of a root, only rather that a root exists between ii values or that all roots are less than a certain number of greater than a sure number. This helps narrow down your search.
Intermediate Value Theorem
This theorem tells you that if the graph of a polynomial is above the x axis for i value of ten and below the x axis for another value of x, it must cross the ten axis somewhere between. (If you lot can graph the function, the crossings will usually be obvious.)
Case:
p(x) = 3x� + ivx� − xxx −32
The rational roots (if whatsoever) must come from the list � any of i/3, ii/3, 1, 4/3, 2, 8/iii, 4, 16/three, 8, 32/iii, xvi, 32. Naturally y'all�ll look at the integers offset, because the arithmetic is easier. Trying synthetic division, you lot find p(ane) = −45, p(ii) = −22, and p(4) = 144. Since p(2) and p(4) accept opposite signs, you know that the graph crosses the axis between x=ii and 10=4, and then there is at to the lowest degree one root betwixt those numbers. In other words, either 8/iii is a root, or the root(due south) between ii and 4 are irrational. (In fact, constructed division reveals that 8/three is a root.)
The Intermediate Value Theorem tin tell you lot where there is a root, merely information technology can�t tell you where there is no root. For case, consider
q(x) = 410� − 16ten + 15
q(1) and q(three) are both positive, but that doesn�t tell you whether the graph might bear on or cross the axis between. (It actually crosses the axis twice, at 10 = 3/two and 10 = 5/2.)
Upper and Lower Bounds
Ane side upshot of synthetic division is that even if the number you�re testing turns out as not a root, it may tell you that all the roots are smaller or larger than that number:
- If you do constructed division by a positive number a, and every number in the bottom row is positive or cipher, and then a is an upper bound for the roots, pregnant that all the real roots are ≤a.
- If you do constructed division by a negative number b, and the numbers in the bottom row alternate sign, then b is a lower jump for the roots, significant that all the real roots are ≥b.
What if the lesser row contains zeroes? A more than complete statement is that alternate nonnegative and nonpositive signs, later on synthetic sectionalization by a negative number, show a lower leap on the root. The side by side two examples analyze that.
(By the manner, the rule for lower bounds follows from the rule for upper bounds. Lower limits on roots of p(x) equal upper limits on roots of p(−x), and dividing by (−x+r) is the same as dividing by −(x−r).)
Case:
q(x) = x 3 + 210 2 − iiix − 4
Using the Rational Root Test, you identify the only possible rational roots as �four, �2, and �1. You lot determine to try −2 equally a possible root, and you lot test it with synthetic segmentation:
-two | one two -iii -4 | -2 0 6 |------------------ 1 0 -3 ii
−two is not a root of the equation f(x)=0. The third row shows alternate signs, and yous were dividing by a negative number; however, that naught mucks things upwardly. Call back that you have a lower spring only if the signs in the lesser row alternate nonpositive and nonnegative. The 1 is positive (nonnegative), and the 0 tin can count every bit nonpositive, simply the −3 doesn�t qualify as nonnegative. The alternation is broken, and you practise not know whether there are roots smaller than −two. (In fact, graphical or numerical methods would show a root around −2.5.) Therefore you lot demand to endeavor the lower possible rational root, −four:
-4 | one ii -three -4 | -4 8 -20 |------------------ one -2 five -24
Here the signs do alternating; therefore you know there are no roots below −4. (The remainder −24 shows you that −4 itself isn�t a root.)
Hither�south another example:
r(x) = x� + 3x� − 3
The Rational Root Test tells yous that the possible rational roots are �1 and �3. With synthetic segmentation for −3:
-three | i 3 0 -3 | -three 0 0 |------------------ 1 0 0 -3
−3 is not a root, merely the signs do alternate here, since the first 0 counts as nonpositive and the second as nonnegative. Therefore −3 is a lower bound to the roots, meaning that the equation has no real roots lower than −3.
Coefficients and Roots
There is an interesting relationship between the coefficients of a polynomial and its zeroes. I mention it concluding because information technology is more suited to forming a polynomial that has zeroes with desired properties, rather than finding zeroes of an existing polynomial. However, if yous know all the roots of a polynomial but 1 or two, you can hands use this technique to find the remaining root.
Consider the polynomial
f(ten) = a n x northward + a north−1 ten n−1 + a due north−2 x n−2 + ... + a 2 10 2 + a 1 10 + a o
The following relationships exist:
- −a due north−1�a n = sum of all the roots
- +a n−2�a n = sum of the products of roots taken ii at a fourth dimension
- −a n−3�a due north = sum of the products of roots taken iii at a fourth dimension
- and so along, until
- (−one) due north a 0�a n = product of all the roots
Instance: f(x) = x3 − 6x 2 − 7x − viii has caste iii, and therefore at near 3 real zeroes. If we write the real zeroes every bit r 1, r 2, r three, then the sum of the roots is r one+r ii+r three = −(−half dozen) = six; the sum of the products of roots taken 2 at a time is r i r 2+r i r 3+r 2 r 3 = −seven, and the product of the roots is r 1 r ii r 3 = (−1)3(−eight) = 8.
Instance: Given that the polynomial
g(x) = x 5 − 11x 4 + 43ten iii − 73x 2 + 56x − 16
has a triple root at x=1, find the other ii roots.
Solution: Allow the other 2 roots be c and d. Then you know that the sum of the all roots is 1+1+1+c+d = −(−11) = 11, or c+d = 8. You likewise know that the product of all the roots is 1�ane�1�c d = (−i)5(−16) = 16, or c d = 16. c+d = viii, c d = 16; therefore c = d = iv, so the remaining roots are a double root at x=four.
More Coefficients and Roots
There are several farther theorems well-nigh the relationship between coefficients and roots. Wikipedia�s article Properties of Polynomial Roots gives a good though somewhat terse summary.
Footstep 5. Divide by Your Factor
Remember that r is a root if and but if x−r is a cistron; this is the Factor Theorem. So if you want to check whether r is a root, you lot tin divide the polynomial past x−r and meet whether information technology comes out even (remainder of 0). Elizabeth Stapel has a nice case of dividing polynomials by long sectionalization.
But it�s easier and faster to practise constructed division. If your synthetic partitioning is a trivial rusty, you lot might want to await at Dr. Math�south brusk Synthetic Division tutorial; if you need a longer tutorial, Elizabeth Stapel�s Synthetic Division is excellent. (Dr. Math likewise has a page on why Synthetic Division works.)
Synthetic division also has some side benefits. If your suspected root really is a root, synthetic division gives you lot the reduced polynomial. And sometimes you also luck out and synthetic sectionalization shows you an upper or lower jump on the roots.
You tin utilise synthetic segmentation when you�re dividing by a binomial of the form x−r for a constant r. If you lot�re dividing by x−3, you�re testing whether 3 is a root and you synthetic divide by 3 (not −3). If you�re dividing by x+11, you�re testing whether −11 is a root and yous synthetic dissever by −xi (not eleven).
Example:
p(x) = 4x iv − 35x ii − 9
You suspect that x−three might be a factor, and you test it past synthetic segmentation, similar this:
3 | 4 0 -35 0 -9 | 12 36 3 9 |-------------------- 4 12 i 3 0
Since the remainder is 0, you know that 3 is a root of p(x) = 0, and x−3 is a factor of p(x). Simply you lot know more. Since 3 is positive and the bottom row of the synthetic sectionalization is all positive or nil, you lot know that all the roots of p(x) = 0 must be ≤ 3. And you besides know that
p(x) = (x−3)(4x 3 + 12x two +x + 3)
410 three + 12x 2 +x + 3 is the reduced polynomial. All of its factors are also factors of the original p(x), but its degree is one lower, so information technology�s easier to work with.
Step vi. Numerical Methods
When your equation has no more rational roots (or your polynomial has no more rational factors), you can turn to numerical methods to find the approximate value of irrational roots:
- The Wikipedia commodity Root-finding Algorithm has a decent summary, with pointers to specific methods.
- Many graphing calculators accept a �Solve� or �Root� or �Zero� control to help you detect gauge roots. For instance, on the TI-83 or TI-84, yous graph the function and then select [second] [Calc] [nada].
Complete Case
Solve for all complex roots:
4x� + xvx − 36 = 0
Step 1. The equation is already in standard form, with only cypher on i side, and powers of x from highest to lowest. There are no common factors.
Pace 2. Since the equation has degree 3, there will be 3 roots. There is one variation in sign, and from Descartes� Rule of Signs you know in that location must be one positive root. Examine the polynomial with −x replacing x:
−4x� − 15x − 36
There are no variations in sign, which means there are no negative roots. The other two roots must therefore exist complex, and conjugates of each other.
Steps 3 and four. The possible rational roots are unfortunately rather numerous: any of ane, two, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, 18, 36 divided by whatever of 4, 2, i. (Only positive roots are listed because you have already determined that there are no negative roots for this equation.) You decide to try i kickoff:
1 | iv 0 15 -36 | 4 4 nineteen |----------------- iv 4 19 -17
ane is not a root, so you test 2:
two | 4 0 xv -36 | viii sixteen 62 |----------------- 4 8 31 26
Alas, two is not a root either. But find that f(ane) = −17 and f(2) = 26. They have opposite signs, which ways that the graph crosses the x axis betwixt x=i and x=2, and a root is between 1 and ii. (In this example it�s the only root, since y'all have determined that there is i positive root and in that location are no negative roots.)
The merely possible rational root betwixt 1 and 2 is 3/two, and therefore either 3/2 is a root or the root is irrational. Y'all endeavor 3/ii past constructed division:
iii/2 | 4 0 fifteen -36 | 6 9 36 |----------------- iv half dozen 24 0
Hooray! 3/2 is a root. The reduced polynomial is 410� + 6x + 24. In other words,
(4x� + xvx − 36) � (x−3/2) = ivx� + 6x + 24
The reduced polynomial has degree two, so in that location is no demand for more than trial and error, and y'all continue to stride v.
Stride 5. Now y'all must solve
4x� + 610 + 24 = 0
First divide out the common cistron of 2:
2ten� + threex + 12 = 0
It�south no employ trying to factor that quadratic, considering you determined using Descartes� Rule of Signs that there are no more real roots. So y'all use the quadratic formula:
ten = [ −3 � √9 − 4(2)(12) ] / 2(two)
10 = [ −3 � √−87 ] / iv
ten = −iii/iv � (√87/4)i
Pace 6. Remember that you found a root in an before step! The full listing of roots is
three/2, −iii/iv + (√87/four)i, −3/four − (√87/4)i
What�s New?
- fourteen/15 November 2021Updated links hither and hither. Updated all http: links to https:.
- 19 Oct 2020: Converted to HTML5. Italicized variables and function names; de-italicized the imaginary i.
- three November 2018: Some formatting changes for clarity, especially with radicals. Noted here that 0 is a triple root in that example.
- (intervening changes suppressed)
- 15 February 2002: First publication.
Source: https://brownmath.com/alge/polysol.htm
Posted by: fieldsforomed.blogspot.com
0 Response to "How To Find The Exact Solution Of An Equation"
Post a Comment