You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

- Index
- » Help Me !
- »
**real roots**

Pages: **1**

**jacks****Guest**

Prove that the equation

has no real roots.

**bobbym****bumpkin**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 109,510

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!

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.****If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.**** Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.**

Offline

**bob bundy****Moderator**- Registered: 2010-06-20
- Posts: 7,939

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

Children are not defined by school ...........The Fonz

You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

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.

**zetafunc.****Guest**

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

**bobbym****bumpkin**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 109,510

Hi;

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

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

and

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.****If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.**** Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.**

Offline

**jacks****Member**- Registered: 2012-11-21
- Posts: 132

Thanks bobym and bob bundy

I have solved it like this way....

Now

andSo

So the equation has no real Roots.

Offline

**bobbym****bumpkin**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 109,510

Hi jacks;

I forgot that idea. That is best.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.****If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.**** Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.**

Offline

**noelevans****Member**- Registered: 2012-07-20
- Posts: 236

Hi!

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!

Writing "pretty" math (two dimensional) is easier to read and grasp than LaTex (one dimensional).

LaTex is like painting on many strips of paper and then stacking them to see what picture they make.

Offline

Pages: **1**

- Index
- » Help Me !
- »
**real roots**