Why do we automatically assume that when we divide a polynomial by a second degree polynomial the remainder...
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
Given question:
If a polynomial leaves a remainder of 5 when divided by x − 3 and a remainder of −7 when divided by x + 1,
what is the remainder when the polynomial is divided by x^2 − 2x − 3?
Solution:
We observe that when we divide by a second degree polynomial the remainder will generally be linear. Thus
the division statement becomes
p(x) = (x^2 − 2x − 3)q(x) + ax + b
Can someone please explain at a PRE-CALCULUS level? Thanks
algebra-precalculus functions
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
Given question:
If a polynomial leaves a remainder of 5 when divided by x − 3 and a remainder of −7 when divided by x + 1,
what is the remainder when the polynomial is divided by x^2 − 2x − 3?
Solution:
We observe that when we divide by a second degree polynomial the remainder will generally be linear. Thus
the division statement becomes
p(x) = (x^2 − 2x − 3)q(x) + ax + b
Can someone please explain at a PRE-CALCULUS level? Thanks
algebra-precalculus functions
3
Compare to long division with whole numbers: if you divide by $10$, say, then the remainder will be less than $10$. Why? Because if not, then you stopped dividing too early.
– Théophile
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
Given question:
If a polynomial leaves a remainder of 5 when divided by x − 3 and a remainder of −7 when divided by x + 1,
what is the remainder when the polynomial is divided by x^2 − 2x − 3?
Solution:
We observe that when we divide by a second degree polynomial the remainder will generally be linear. Thus
the division statement becomes
p(x) = (x^2 − 2x − 3)q(x) + ax + b
Can someone please explain at a PRE-CALCULUS level? Thanks
algebra-precalculus functions
Given question:
If a polynomial leaves a remainder of 5 when divided by x − 3 and a remainder of −7 when divided by x + 1,
what is the remainder when the polynomial is divided by x^2 − 2x − 3?
Solution:
We observe that when we divide by a second degree polynomial the remainder will generally be linear. Thus
the division statement becomes
p(x) = (x^2 − 2x − 3)q(x) + ax + b
Can someone please explain at a PRE-CALCULUS level? Thanks
algebra-precalculus functions
algebra-precalculus functions
asked 4 hours ago
Ke Ke
575
575
3
Compare to long division with whole numbers: if you divide by $10$, say, then the remainder will be less than $10$. Why? Because if not, then you stopped dividing too early.
– Théophile
1 hour ago
add a comment |
3
Compare to long division with whole numbers: if you divide by $10$, say, then the remainder will be less than $10$. Why? Because if not, then you stopped dividing too early.
– Théophile
1 hour ago
3
3
Compare to long division with whole numbers: if you divide by $10$, say, then the remainder will be less than $10$. Why? Because if not, then you stopped dividing too early.
– Théophile
1 hour ago
Compare to long division with whole numbers: if you divide by $10$, say, then the remainder will be less than $10$. Why? Because if not, then you stopped dividing too early.
– Théophile
1 hour ago
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
10
down vote
accepted
Because by definition the quotient and the remainder of the division of a polynomial $p_1(x)$ by a polynomial $p_2(x)$ are polynomials $q(x)$ (the quotient) and $r(x)$ (the remainder) such that
$p_1(x)=p_2(x)q(x)+r(x)$;
$r(x)=0$ or its degree is smaller than the degree of $p_2(x)$.
In particular, if $p_2(x)$ is quadratic, then the degree of $r(x)$ is at most $1$.
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
While José Carlos Santos's answer is correct, I think it might be useful to talk about why $r(x)$ is defined to have degree less than $p_2(x)$. (J.G. explains this, but at a higher level than I suspect someone wanting "pre-calculus" would follow.)
If the degree of $r(x)$ is the same size or greater than $p_2(x)$, then you can subtract off a multiple of $p_2(x)$ from $r(x)$ to get a new remainder of lower degree. I.e., we can continue the division process until $r(x)$ is of lower degree than $p_2(x)$. It is only then that we have to stop and call anything left over the remainder.
For example, dividing $3x^3 - 2x^2 + x - 5$ by $x^2 + 1$ follows these steps:
- Note that the ratio of the leading terms is $frac {3x^3}{x^2} = 3x$
- Multiply $x^2 + 1$ by $3x$ and subtract the result ($3x^3 + 3x$) from $3x^3 - 2x^2 + x - 5$, leaving $-2x^2 - 2x - 5$. I.e.,$$3x^3 - 2x^2 + x - 5 = (3x)(x^2 + 1) + (-2x^2 - 2x - 5)$$
- Note that the ratio of the leading terms of the remainder and $x^2 + 1$ is $frac {-2x^2}{x^2} = -2$.
- Multiply $x^2 + 1$ by $-2$ and subtract the result ($-2x^2 - 2$) from $-2x^2 - 2x - 5$, leaving $-2x - 3$. I.e., $$-2x^2 - 2x - 5 = (-2)(x^2 + 1) + (-2x-3)$$
- Note that the ratio of the leading terms is now $frac {-2x}{x^2} = frac {-2}x$, which is not a polynomial, so we cannot continue.
Combining the results from steps 2 and 4:
$$begin{align}3x^3 - 2x^2 + x - 5 &= (3x)(x^2 + 1) + (-2)(x^2 + 1) + (-2x-3)\&=(3x - 2)(x^2 + 1) + (-2x-3)end{align}$$
If you stop at step 2, then $r(x)$ is indeed not linear. But at that stage, we could continue the division to get something smaller. It was only when the remainder was of lower degree that we had to stop.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
The point is we can prove as much. Let the quadratic be $q:=ax^2+bx+c$. Working moduli $q$, $x^2=-(bx+c)/a$. Each $x^n$ is then of the form $cx+d$ modulo $q$; you can prove this by induction (you can even get recursion relations on the coefficients). For example, $x^3=-(bx^2+cx)/a$, but we can turn replace $x^2$ as above.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
An explanation rather than a full proof. Trying to describe it more simply:
Suppose your first polynomial is
$$P=ax^4+bx^3+cx^2+d$$
and you want to divide it by
$$Q=ex^2+fx+g$$
The first step is to multiply $Q$ by something which will turn its first term into $ax^4$. You've now got a polynomial which, when you subtract it from $P$, will make $ax^4$ disappear.
Then you do the same again, except you arrange for the $x^3$ term to disappear.
Now you have two quadratics: what's left of $P$, and $Q$.
So, multiply $Q$ by a suitable constant to make the $x^2$ terms match, and subtract it. Now all that's left is a multiple of $x$ and a constant, since you've got rid of all the higher order terms—and that's your linear remainder.
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
10
down vote
accepted
Because by definition the quotient and the remainder of the division of a polynomial $p_1(x)$ by a polynomial $p_2(x)$ are polynomials $q(x)$ (the quotient) and $r(x)$ (the remainder) such that
$p_1(x)=p_2(x)q(x)+r(x)$;
$r(x)=0$ or its degree is smaller than the degree of $p_2(x)$.
In particular, if $p_2(x)$ is quadratic, then the degree of $r(x)$ is at most $1$.
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
accepted
Because by definition the quotient and the remainder of the division of a polynomial $p_1(x)$ by a polynomial $p_2(x)$ are polynomials $q(x)$ (the quotient) and $r(x)$ (the remainder) such that
$p_1(x)=p_2(x)q(x)+r(x)$;
$r(x)=0$ or its degree is smaller than the degree of $p_2(x)$.
In particular, if $p_2(x)$ is quadratic, then the degree of $r(x)$ is at most $1$.
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
accepted
up vote
10
down vote
accepted
Because by definition the quotient and the remainder of the division of a polynomial $p_1(x)$ by a polynomial $p_2(x)$ are polynomials $q(x)$ (the quotient) and $r(x)$ (the remainder) such that
$p_1(x)=p_2(x)q(x)+r(x)$;
$r(x)=0$ or its degree is smaller than the degree of $p_2(x)$.
In particular, if $p_2(x)$ is quadratic, then the degree of $r(x)$ is at most $1$.
Because by definition the quotient and the remainder of the division of a polynomial $p_1(x)$ by a polynomial $p_2(x)$ are polynomials $q(x)$ (the quotient) and $r(x)$ (the remainder) such that
$p_1(x)=p_2(x)q(x)+r(x)$;
$r(x)=0$ or its degree is smaller than the degree of $p_2(x)$.
In particular, if $p_2(x)$ is quadratic, then the degree of $r(x)$ is at most $1$.
answered 4 hours ago
José Carlos Santos
146k22115215
146k22115215
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
While José Carlos Santos's answer is correct, I think it might be useful to talk about why $r(x)$ is defined to have degree less than $p_2(x)$. (J.G. explains this, but at a higher level than I suspect someone wanting "pre-calculus" would follow.)
If the degree of $r(x)$ is the same size or greater than $p_2(x)$, then you can subtract off a multiple of $p_2(x)$ from $r(x)$ to get a new remainder of lower degree. I.e., we can continue the division process until $r(x)$ is of lower degree than $p_2(x)$. It is only then that we have to stop and call anything left over the remainder.
For example, dividing $3x^3 - 2x^2 + x - 5$ by $x^2 + 1$ follows these steps:
- Note that the ratio of the leading terms is $frac {3x^3}{x^2} = 3x$
- Multiply $x^2 + 1$ by $3x$ and subtract the result ($3x^3 + 3x$) from $3x^3 - 2x^2 + x - 5$, leaving $-2x^2 - 2x - 5$. I.e.,$$3x^3 - 2x^2 + x - 5 = (3x)(x^2 + 1) + (-2x^2 - 2x - 5)$$
- Note that the ratio of the leading terms of the remainder and $x^2 + 1$ is $frac {-2x^2}{x^2} = -2$.
- Multiply $x^2 + 1$ by $-2$ and subtract the result ($-2x^2 - 2$) from $-2x^2 - 2x - 5$, leaving $-2x - 3$. I.e., $$-2x^2 - 2x - 5 = (-2)(x^2 + 1) + (-2x-3)$$
- Note that the ratio of the leading terms is now $frac {-2x}{x^2} = frac {-2}x$, which is not a polynomial, so we cannot continue.
Combining the results from steps 2 and 4:
$$begin{align}3x^3 - 2x^2 + x - 5 &= (3x)(x^2 + 1) + (-2)(x^2 + 1) + (-2x-3)\&=(3x - 2)(x^2 + 1) + (-2x-3)end{align}$$
If you stop at step 2, then $r(x)$ is indeed not linear. But at that stage, we could continue the division to get something smaller. It was only when the remainder was of lower degree that we had to stop.
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
While José Carlos Santos's answer is correct, I think it might be useful to talk about why $r(x)$ is defined to have degree less than $p_2(x)$. (J.G. explains this, but at a higher level than I suspect someone wanting "pre-calculus" would follow.)
If the degree of $r(x)$ is the same size or greater than $p_2(x)$, then you can subtract off a multiple of $p_2(x)$ from $r(x)$ to get a new remainder of lower degree. I.e., we can continue the division process until $r(x)$ is of lower degree than $p_2(x)$. It is only then that we have to stop and call anything left over the remainder.
For example, dividing $3x^3 - 2x^2 + x - 5$ by $x^2 + 1$ follows these steps:
- Note that the ratio of the leading terms is $frac {3x^3}{x^2} = 3x$
- Multiply $x^2 + 1$ by $3x$ and subtract the result ($3x^3 + 3x$) from $3x^3 - 2x^2 + x - 5$, leaving $-2x^2 - 2x - 5$. I.e.,$$3x^3 - 2x^2 + x - 5 = (3x)(x^2 + 1) + (-2x^2 - 2x - 5)$$
- Note that the ratio of the leading terms of the remainder and $x^2 + 1$ is $frac {-2x^2}{x^2} = -2$.
- Multiply $x^2 + 1$ by $-2$ and subtract the result ($-2x^2 - 2$) from $-2x^2 - 2x - 5$, leaving $-2x - 3$. I.e., $$-2x^2 - 2x - 5 = (-2)(x^2 + 1) + (-2x-3)$$
- Note that the ratio of the leading terms is now $frac {-2x}{x^2} = frac {-2}x$, which is not a polynomial, so we cannot continue.
Combining the results from steps 2 and 4:
$$begin{align}3x^3 - 2x^2 + x - 5 &= (3x)(x^2 + 1) + (-2)(x^2 + 1) + (-2x-3)\&=(3x - 2)(x^2 + 1) + (-2x-3)end{align}$$
If you stop at step 2, then $r(x)$ is indeed not linear. But at that stage, we could continue the division to get something smaller. It was only when the remainder was of lower degree that we had to stop.
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
While José Carlos Santos's answer is correct, I think it might be useful to talk about why $r(x)$ is defined to have degree less than $p_2(x)$. (J.G. explains this, but at a higher level than I suspect someone wanting "pre-calculus" would follow.)
If the degree of $r(x)$ is the same size or greater than $p_2(x)$, then you can subtract off a multiple of $p_2(x)$ from $r(x)$ to get a new remainder of lower degree. I.e., we can continue the division process until $r(x)$ is of lower degree than $p_2(x)$. It is only then that we have to stop and call anything left over the remainder.
For example, dividing $3x^3 - 2x^2 + x - 5$ by $x^2 + 1$ follows these steps:
- Note that the ratio of the leading terms is $frac {3x^3}{x^2} = 3x$
- Multiply $x^2 + 1$ by $3x$ and subtract the result ($3x^3 + 3x$) from $3x^3 - 2x^2 + x - 5$, leaving $-2x^2 - 2x - 5$. I.e.,$$3x^3 - 2x^2 + x - 5 = (3x)(x^2 + 1) + (-2x^2 - 2x - 5)$$
- Note that the ratio of the leading terms of the remainder and $x^2 + 1$ is $frac {-2x^2}{x^2} = -2$.
- Multiply $x^2 + 1$ by $-2$ and subtract the result ($-2x^2 - 2$) from $-2x^2 - 2x - 5$, leaving $-2x - 3$. I.e., $$-2x^2 - 2x - 5 = (-2)(x^2 + 1) + (-2x-3)$$
- Note that the ratio of the leading terms is now $frac {-2x}{x^2} = frac {-2}x$, which is not a polynomial, so we cannot continue.
Combining the results from steps 2 and 4:
$$begin{align}3x^3 - 2x^2 + x - 5 &= (3x)(x^2 + 1) + (-2)(x^2 + 1) + (-2x-3)\&=(3x - 2)(x^2 + 1) + (-2x-3)end{align}$$
If you stop at step 2, then $r(x)$ is indeed not linear. But at that stage, we could continue the division to get something smaller. It was only when the remainder was of lower degree that we had to stop.
While José Carlos Santos's answer is correct, I think it might be useful to talk about why $r(x)$ is defined to have degree less than $p_2(x)$. (J.G. explains this, but at a higher level than I suspect someone wanting "pre-calculus" would follow.)
If the degree of $r(x)$ is the same size or greater than $p_2(x)$, then you can subtract off a multiple of $p_2(x)$ from $r(x)$ to get a new remainder of lower degree. I.e., we can continue the division process until $r(x)$ is of lower degree than $p_2(x)$. It is only then that we have to stop and call anything left over the remainder.
For example, dividing $3x^3 - 2x^2 + x - 5$ by $x^2 + 1$ follows these steps:
- Note that the ratio of the leading terms is $frac {3x^3}{x^2} = 3x$
- Multiply $x^2 + 1$ by $3x$ and subtract the result ($3x^3 + 3x$) from $3x^3 - 2x^2 + x - 5$, leaving $-2x^2 - 2x - 5$. I.e.,$$3x^3 - 2x^2 + x - 5 = (3x)(x^2 + 1) + (-2x^2 - 2x - 5)$$
- Note that the ratio of the leading terms of the remainder and $x^2 + 1$ is $frac {-2x^2}{x^2} = -2$.
- Multiply $x^2 + 1$ by $-2$ and subtract the result ($-2x^2 - 2$) from $-2x^2 - 2x - 5$, leaving $-2x - 3$. I.e., $$-2x^2 - 2x - 5 = (-2)(x^2 + 1) + (-2x-3)$$
- Note that the ratio of the leading terms is now $frac {-2x}{x^2} = frac {-2}x$, which is not a polynomial, so we cannot continue.
Combining the results from steps 2 and 4:
$$begin{align}3x^3 - 2x^2 + x - 5 &= (3x)(x^2 + 1) + (-2)(x^2 + 1) + (-2x-3)\&=(3x - 2)(x^2 + 1) + (-2x-3)end{align}$$
If you stop at step 2, then $r(x)$ is indeed not linear. But at that stage, we could continue the division to get something smaller. It was only when the remainder was of lower degree that we had to stop.
answered 2 hours ago
Paul Sinclair
19k21440
19k21440
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
The point is we can prove as much. Let the quadratic be $q:=ax^2+bx+c$. Working moduli $q$, $x^2=-(bx+c)/a$. Each $x^n$ is then of the form $cx+d$ modulo $q$; you can prove this by induction (you can even get recursion relations on the coefficients). For example, $x^3=-(bx^2+cx)/a$, but we can turn replace $x^2$ as above.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
The point is we can prove as much. Let the quadratic be $q:=ax^2+bx+c$. Working moduli $q$, $x^2=-(bx+c)/a$. Each $x^n$ is then of the form $cx+d$ modulo $q$; you can prove this by induction (you can even get recursion relations on the coefficients). For example, $x^3=-(bx^2+cx)/a$, but we can turn replace $x^2$ as above.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
The point is we can prove as much. Let the quadratic be $q:=ax^2+bx+c$. Working moduli $q$, $x^2=-(bx+c)/a$. Each $x^n$ is then of the form $cx+d$ modulo $q$; you can prove this by induction (you can even get recursion relations on the coefficients). For example, $x^3=-(bx^2+cx)/a$, but we can turn replace $x^2$ as above.
The point is we can prove as much. Let the quadratic be $q:=ax^2+bx+c$. Working moduli $q$, $x^2=-(bx+c)/a$. Each $x^n$ is then of the form $cx+d$ modulo $q$; you can prove this by induction (you can even get recursion relations on the coefficients). For example, $x^3=-(bx^2+cx)/a$, but we can turn replace $x^2$ as above.
answered 4 hours ago
J.G.
20.9k21933
20.9k21933
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
An explanation rather than a full proof. Trying to describe it more simply:
Suppose your first polynomial is
$$P=ax^4+bx^3+cx^2+d$$
and you want to divide it by
$$Q=ex^2+fx+g$$
The first step is to multiply $Q$ by something which will turn its first term into $ax^4$. You've now got a polynomial which, when you subtract it from $P$, will make $ax^4$ disappear.
Then you do the same again, except you arrange for the $x^3$ term to disappear.
Now you have two quadratics: what's left of $P$, and $Q$.
So, multiply $Q$ by a suitable constant to make the $x^2$ terms match, and subtract it. Now all that's left is a multiple of $x$ and a constant, since you've got rid of all the higher order terms—and that's your linear remainder.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
An explanation rather than a full proof. Trying to describe it more simply:
Suppose your first polynomial is
$$P=ax^4+bx^3+cx^2+d$$
and you want to divide it by
$$Q=ex^2+fx+g$$
The first step is to multiply $Q$ by something which will turn its first term into $ax^4$. You've now got a polynomial which, when you subtract it from $P$, will make $ax^4$ disappear.
Then you do the same again, except you arrange for the $x^3$ term to disappear.
Now you have two quadratics: what's left of $P$, and $Q$.
So, multiply $Q$ by a suitable constant to make the $x^2$ terms match, and subtract it. Now all that's left is a multiple of $x$ and a constant, since you've got rid of all the higher order terms—and that's your linear remainder.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
An explanation rather than a full proof. Trying to describe it more simply:
Suppose your first polynomial is
$$P=ax^4+bx^3+cx^2+d$$
and you want to divide it by
$$Q=ex^2+fx+g$$
The first step is to multiply $Q$ by something which will turn its first term into $ax^4$. You've now got a polynomial which, when you subtract it from $P$, will make $ax^4$ disappear.
Then you do the same again, except you arrange for the $x^3$ term to disappear.
Now you have two quadratics: what's left of $P$, and $Q$.
So, multiply $Q$ by a suitable constant to make the $x^2$ terms match, and subtract it. Now all that's left is a multiple of $x$ and a constant, since you've got rid of all the higher order terms—and that's your linear remainder.
An explanation rather than a full proof. Trying to describe it more simply:
Suppose your first polynomial is
$$P=ax^4+bx^3+cx^2+d$$
and you want to divide it by
$$Q=ex^2+fx+g$$
The first step is to multiply $Q$ by something which will turn its first term into $ax^4$. You've now got a polynomial which, when you subtract it from $P$, will make $ax^4$ disappear.
Then you do the same again, except you arrange for the $x^3$ term to disappear.
Now you have two quadratics: what's left of $P$, and $Q$.
So, multiply $Q$ by a suitable constant to make the $x^2$ terms match, and subtract it. Now all that's left is a multiple of $x$ and a constant, since you've got rid of all the higher order terms—and that's your linear remainder.
answered 10 mins ago
timtfj
686215
686215
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3036852%2fwhy-do-we-automatically-assume-that-when-we-divide-a-polynomial-by-a-second-degr%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
Compare to long division with whole numbers: if you divide by $10$, say, then the remainder will be less than $10$. Why? Because if not, then you stopped dividing too early.
– Théophile
1 hour ago