Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    https://5c59854d0ccd29d489c9e5e689a8...%20Edexcel.pdf

    Question 6.

    Now, I have always done the method in plugging in numbers that makes two other brackets = 0 so you are left with one unknown constant, but seeing the domain in this question leads me to believe, aren't we being blasphemous?

    Clearly, not just by the domain, but x =/= -2 or 1/3, due to the 1/0 epidemic, how can we commit such crime without falter?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I don't quite follow what you're saying.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    :confused:
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bobjim12)
    https://5c59854d0ccd29d489c9e5e689a8...%20Edexcel.pdf

    Question 6.

    Now, I have always done the method in plugging in numbers that makes two other brackets = 0 so you are left with one unknown constant, but seeing the domain in this question leads me to believe, aren't we being blasphemous?

    Clearly, not just by the domain, but x =/= -2 or 1/3, due to the 1/0 epidemic, how can we commit such crime without falter?
    You can safely ignore that. For the purpose of finding the values of A and B it is irrelevant. I believe. (correct me if im wrong)
    Offline

    18
    I think it's showing that we can't use -2 or 1/3 in the function, but we most definitely can use it to rearrange the function into a form we like

    The domain is the set of values that can be used in the function and when we're expressing a function in partial fractions, we're not really performing the function are we?

    I'm probably wrong
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bobjim12)
    https://5c59854d0ccd29d489c9e5e689a8...%20Edexcel.pdf

    Question 6.

    Now, I have always done the method in plugging in numbers that makes two other brackets = 0 so you are left with one unknown constant, but seeing the domain in this question leads me to believe, aren't we being blasphemous?

    Clearly, not just by the domain, but x =/= -2 or 1/3, due to the 1/0 epidemic, how can we commit such crime without falter?
    You'll want to read this: http://math.stackexchange.com/questi...vision-by-zero

    But essentially, when you're doing partial fractions, you do this:

    1. Start off with a bunch of fractions and domains where points are removed because of 1/0.

    2. Guess a partial fraction form and multiply so that you have a polynomial equation. Something like Ax + B = C(x+1) + D(x+2).

    You're very much right that we can't just substitute in x=-1 and x=-2 since those were not in the domain of the question.

    3. What we do is ignore the problem we are solving. We no longer care about partial fractions, we only care about finding C, D such that the equation Ax + B = C(x+1) + D(x+2) is satisfied for all real values of x.

    4. Once we have that, we've got a polynomial identity that is satisfied for all real values of x, we then remove the points that were ill-defined in the partial fractions so it's still true for all the other values of x (namely not -1 and -2), and then divide by (x+1)(x+2) to get the partial fraction identity we want. We originally proved it for all x, but we must now remove x=-1, -2 as per the original domain.

    tl;dr partial fractions is fractions -> polynomial identity -> forget about partial fractions -> solve polynomial identity -> remember partial fractions -> apply original restriction and get partial fraction.

    I'm not sure I explained that very well.
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Someboady)
    You can safely ignore that. For the purpose of finding the values of A and B it is irrelevant. I believe. (correct me if im wrong)
    Well, yes, you can safely ignore that - but are you not interested in why this is so?
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zacken)
    Well, yes, you can safely ignore that - but are you not interested in why this is so?
    I was just about to message you XD
    Is that the explanation above?
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Someboady)
    I was just about to message you XD
    Why is it?
    I've posted above.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zacken)
    .....

    Well, i guess we could just ignore the problem, seems a little too cheeky, but alright then. Thanks for the explanation.
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bobjim12)
    Well, i guess we could just ignore the problem, seems a little too cheeky, but alright then. Thanks for the explanation.
    *shrugs*, if you want...

    Consider f(x) / h(x) = g(x) / h(x) for x in some infinite field (say R) satisfying h(x) =/= 0.

    This implifies that f(x) = g(x) since p(x) = f(x) - g(x) is some polynomial with infinitely many roots, except the finitely many that have the property h(x) = 0. This implies that p is the zero polynomial since a non-zero polynomial over a field has finitely many roots. So f(x) - g(x) = 0 means f(x) = g(x).

    Hence, to solve for variables that appear in g, it is enough to find constants satisfying f(x) = g(x) for all x in your infinite field, even if they contain the roots of h. i.e: you can plug in any x in R.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zacken)
    *shrugs*, if you want...

    Consider f(x) / h(x) = g(x) / h(x) for x in some infinite field (say R) satisfying h(x) =/= 0.

    This implifies that f(x) = g(x) since p(x) = f(x) - g(x) is some polynomial with infinitely many roots, except the finitely many that have the property h(x) = 0. This implies that p is the zero polynomial since a non-zero polynomial over a field has finitely many roots. So f(x) - g(x) = 0 means f(x) = g(x).

    Hence, to solve for variables that appear in g, it is enough to find constants satisfying f(x) = g(x) for all x in your infinite field, even if they contain the roots of h. i.e: you can plug in any x in R.
    Right, i see. wow, this has opened my mind

    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bobjim12)
    Right, i see. wow, this has opened my mind
    Which is why I led with the slightly more actually-makes-sense approach.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zacken)
    Which is why I led with the slightly more actually-makes-sense approach.
    True-say
 
 
 
    Discussions on TSR

  • Latest
  • Personalise
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Make your revision easier

Maths

Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

Equations

How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

Student revising

Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

Study Planner

Create your own Study Planner

Never miss a deadline again

Polling station sign

Thinking about a maths degree?

Chat with other maths applicants

Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.