You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
The two zeros of a polynomial are
andMy approach to such kinds of problem is to divide the polynomial by the two given factors to obtain the other factor and then the zero.
Can Someone suggest a quicker and more efficient method?
Last edited by Agnishom (2012-09-24 20:16:07)
'And fun? If maths is fun, then getting a tooth extraction is fun. A viral infection is fun. Rabies shots are fun.'
'God exists because Mathematics is consistent, and the devil exists because we cannot prove it'
I'm not crazy, my mother had me tested.
Offline
I'm not sure what exactly your approach would be. Originally, I just posted my approach:
If 2 is a zero of the polynomial, then (x - 2) is a factor.
(By polynomial long-division)
Therefore, the other zero is -1
But having re-read your first post, I think that might be what you would have done anyway. I'm not sure that I know any more efficient method. But I suggest you just divide once and then factorise, that - at least - might make things a little faster?
Last edited by Au101 (2012-09-24 21:46:43)
Offline
hi Agnishom and Au101
That approach looks like the most straight forward to me.
For this particular problem
you might notice that
which means you know (x+1) is factor straight away by the factor theorem.
In general, dividing by known factors is the way.
Bob
ps. For typical exam questions, they cannot choose factors that would take a long time to find, so I always do a quick mental check for x = +/-1, +/-2, +/-3. If I haven't found a factor by then I do another quicker question first.
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
Sometimes I deliberately make mistakes, just to test you! …………….Bob
Offline
So, Is division the only way?
'And fun? If maths is fun, then getting a tooth extraction is fun. A viral infection is fun. Rabies shots are fun.'
'God exists because Mathematics is consistent, and the devil exists because we cannot prove it'
I'm not crazy, my mother had me tested.
Offline
Well, as you know that cubic = linear x quadratic you can sort of figure out the quadratic coefficients as you go. It takes less time but amounts to short cut division so it's not really a new method.
Also you could call the quadratic coefficients a, b and c and do a bit of algebra to get them, but it's still pretty much the same.
In short, I think you have the optimum method already.
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
Sometimes I deliberately make mistakes, just to test you! …………….Bob
Offline
Hi;
You can use the theory of equations to try another way. It says there is a relationship between the roots and the coefficients.
The sum of the roots of a nth degree polynomial
are equal to
So you have this equation to solve
solving for r3 you get r3 = -1 which is the third root.
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
Hi bobbym!
I've never seen the generalized "sum of roots" formula you gave in post#6. That's really nifty!
Thanks for sharing it.
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
Hi noelevans;
It is nifty. Neat and clean and simple enough for everyone to grasp. That is what math should be like.
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
Hi again bobbym!
I couldn't agree more that math should be neat, clean and simple enough for everyone to grasp.
That's been my passion and my focus most of my career --- viewing math as a language and
trying to see if the symbolism, definitions, algorithms, etc. can be simplified and improved. It
really needs close scrutiny since it evolved over many centuries by folks that had no chance to
communicate with each other to try to make it really consistent, coordinated, correct, concise, and
any other word we can think of that starts with a "c".
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
Hi;
Clever and compact.
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
I'm not sure what exactly your approach would be. Originally, I just posted my approach:
I am sure that his approach is
because that's also what I would do.Actually I never watch Star Wars and not interested in it anyway, but I choose a Yoda card as my avatar in honor of our great friend bobbym who has passed away.
May his adventurous soul rest in peace at heaven.
Offline
Pages: 1