Math Is Fun Forum
  Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun.   Useful symbols: √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ π -

Login

Username

Password

Not registered yet?

Post a reply

Go back

Write your message and submit
:) :| :( :D :o ;) :/ :P :lol: :mad: :rolleyes: :cool: | :dizzy :eek :kiss :roflol :rolleyes :shame :down :up :touched :sleep :wave :swear :tongue :what :faint :dunno
Options

Go back

Topic review (newest first)

noelevans
2012-11-25 15:52:17

Hi! smile

Or if we evaluate f(-1) by the remainder theorem the signs in the quotient followed by the
remainder strictly alternate in sign:  + - + - + - + so there are no negative roots less than or
equal to -1.  (Lower bound theorem)

Similarly if we evaluate f(1) by the remainder theorem the signs in the quotient followed by
the remainder are all positive.  So there are no positive roots greater than or equal to 1.
(Upper bound theorem)

If |x|<=1 we have  x+3>=2.  Also the even powered terms cannot be negative.   Hence the
complete sum is >= 2 for all x in [-1,1]. 

Hence f(x)=0 has no real roots, and in fact is always positive since if there were a value a outside
of [-1,1] for which f(a)<0 then the intermediate value theorem would guarantee a root between
either 1 and a if a>1 or between -1 and a if a<-1.


Or more elegantly along the lines that Jack pointed out:  Completing the square on x^2+x+3 we get

x^2+x+3 = (x+1/2)^2 - 1/4 + 3 = (x+1/2)^2 + 11/4 which has minimum 11/4.

Also x^6 + x^4 is always >= zero.  Hence f(x) >= 11/4 (actually strictly >) for all x in the reals.
f(-1/2) = 181/65 = 2.828125.

Have a very blessed day!

bobbym
2012-11-25 14:39:56

Hi jacks;

I forgot that idea. That is best.

jacks
2012-11-25 14:18:26

Thanks bobym and bob bundy

I have solved it like this way....





Now
and


So


So the equation has no real Roots.

bobbym
2012-11-22 20:18:55

Hi;

There are many variants of the Cauchy bound. I am using 2 of them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturm%27s_theorem

and

http://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/polyn … zeros.html

zetafunc.
2012-11-22 20:09:44

Sorry, (-7,7), not closed interval.

zetafunc.
2012-11-22 20:07:56

bobbym wrote:

Hi;

The first thing you can do is use a Cauchy bound to determine that all real roots would have to be in the closed interval [-4,4].

How did you get that? With Cauchy's bound I am getting it in [-7,7]... since



where c is a root.

bob bundy
2012-11-22 19:53:32

hi jacks,

I thought I'd start by looking at the graph y = F(x)

It has a single minimum as you can see and y > 0 for all x.

That's enough to show it has no real roots.

But a graph alone doesn't constitute a proof as it relies on a tool and doesn't show all values of x.

So one approach would be to prove that the graph truely has those properties.

Bob

bobbym
2012-11-22 19:50:58

Hi;

The first thing you can do is use a Cauchy bound to determine that all real roots would have to be in the closed interval [-4,4].

Another improved bound proves the real roots if they exist are between [-2,2].

Interesting but non essential for the following method.

Form a Sturm chain:













Substitute two endpoints of of -∞ and ∞ into x.

You will get the 7 x 2 matrix



Count the number of sign changes in the first column and subtract the number of sign changes in the second column.

3 - 3 = 0

There are no real roots!

jacks
2012-11-22 13:30:45

Prove that the equation



has no real roots.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB