# Official TSR Mathematical Society

Watch
Please feel free to discuss interesting mathematical problems here.

If you want to join, please see this page.

================================ ==========================

beauford

Ralfskini

shiny

It'sPhil...

lou p lou

chrisbphd

lgs98jonee

Hoofbeat

silent p...?

kikzen

Babygal

Leeroy

FaerieLand

Daveo

Chud

Eddie87-04

Mysticmin

chandoug

orange_soap

Bosslady

IntegralAnomaly

ruth_lou

Katie Heskins

Zapsta

mikesgt2

ZJewelH

4Ed

Euler

zombie

JamesF

me!

capslock

jimmy_c

samdavyson

meepmeep

KOH

jyuk

Drederick Tatum

happysunshine

burje-t

musicboy

Kaiel

®eAl ©uTe Eye$

Mathemagician

David Frank

SiAnY

TheWolf

tammypotato

kamsingh

hornblower

IZZY!

jinsisi

Hawk

r perry

Undryl

shushimeng

mrjoe

sumi2000

Rustyk1

Kupo nut

ogs

jamierwilliams

Chinesegirl

Mr_Homosexual

freemyice

amo1

Widowmaker

Wherewathuwen?

James.R

D.S.

RobbieC

Ben.S

Jaq

BCHL85

distortedgav

choco_frog_chic

dvs

Eugene_Newton

eurasianfeline

bodomx

Newton

Invisible

jumpunderaboat

MRLX69

Simba

RDoh

riks2004

mandoman

Feria

franks

Amohan

ConfidentGenius

JFN

Hags

helpless

Nick Sutcliffe

Euclid

aiman

staylor

hajira

cktlee1

e-unit

AhmadMujtaba

JohnC

LHMarsh10

thescorpio

coldfusion

tokay

Sparkling_Jules

everybodylaughs

ashy2005

frixis

Phil23

Arvinda

saudia khan

ErastF

Madprof

Spenceman_

geekypoo

masterasg

Roger Kirk

darth_vader05

Master Gee

Zuber

KAISER_MOLE

goku999

rpotter

yazan_l

Theron

Scottus_Mus

Gexko

einsci

mizfissy815

SketchyCanvas

sayed_samed

flick

Metal_Mistress

HTale

alexsmithson

winged_one

Enfalas

ali p

kishan11

ljfrugn

Starsailor

joyous_zhang

wickedways99

Piggy

Hitonagashi

frixis

Hay_Hay

Abu

StudentTazzy

xx007

anterminator

Clark Black

sarz777

i_luv_maths

groseille

joe8232

Girdag

JamesEpsilon

saasmi

drumking1088

Aphrodite

pkiy

geekypoo

Esquire

Sentooran

vector771

rawkingpunkster

celeritas

little.princess.1991

zrancis

Yasser Hayatli

westhamfan

MatchDancer

davmarksman

foxygreg

mspen

adel_kadrah

n0b0dy

wackymathgal

DeathAwaitsU

Harryok

RdotR

Sarokrae

Dadeyemi

HBKss

nish81

soulsister_16

sweetfloss

erode87

thedemon13666

andrewlee89

katieinnit

fmathsgirly

MatchDancer

andco

shazzylai

GHOSH-5

RocTheMic

calicoeannecash

chinqu

Adampolar

davidcy147

amberlivable

advice_guru

Khodu

nchen5

IBiot Ash '08

Mitchy0283

Ninja Keg

alexmahone

Ignoramus

SprinterJr

Tallon

rapha

GHOSH-5

somepeople

GHOSH-5

RocTheMic

calicoeannecash

chinqu

Adampolar

davidcy147

amberlivable

================================ ==========================

If you want to join, please see this page.

================================ ==========================

**Current Members:**beauford

Ralfskini

shiny

It'sPhil...

lou p lou

chrisbphd

lgs98jonee

Hoofbeat

silent p...?

kikzen

Babygal

Leeroy

FaerieLand

Daveo

Chud

Eddie87-04

Mysticmin

chandoug

orange_soap

Bosslady

IntegralAnomaly

ruth_lou

Katie Heskins

Zapsta

mikesgt2

ZJewelH

4Ed

Euler

zombie

JamesF

me!

capslock

jimmy_c

samdavyson

meepmeep

KOH

jyuk

Drederick Tatum

happysunshine

burje-t

musicboy

Kaiel

®eAl ©uTe Eye$

Mathemagician

David Frank

SiAnY

TheWolf

tammypotato

kamsingh

hornblower

IZZY!

jinsisi

Hawk

r perry

Undryl

shushimeng

mrjoe

sumi2000

Rustyk1

Kupo nut

ogs

jamierwilliams

Chinesegirl

Mr_Homosexual

freemyice

amo1

Widowmaker

Wherewathuwen?

James.R

D.S.

RobbieC

Ben.S

Jaq

BCHL85

distortedgav

choco_frog_chic

dvs

Eugene_Newton

eurasianfeline

bodomx

Newton

Invisible

jumpunderaboat

MRLX69

Simba

RDoh

riks2004

mandoman

Feria

franks

Amohan

ConfidentGenius

JFN

Hags

helpless

Nick Sutcliffe

Euclid

aiman

staylor

hajira

cktlee1

e-unit

AhmadMujtaba

JohnC

LHMarsh10

thescorpio

coldfusion

tokay

Sparkling_Jules

everybodylaughs

ashy2005

frixis

Phil23

Arvinda

saudia khan

ErastF

Madprof

Spenceman_

geekypoo

masterasg

Roger Kirk

darth_vader05

Master Gee

Zuber

KAISER_MOLE

goku999

rpotter

yazan_l

Theron

Scottus_Mus

Gexko

einsci

mizfissy815

SketchyCanvas

sayed_samed

flick

Metal_Mistress

HTale

alexsmithson

winged_one

Enfalas

ali p

kishan11

ljfrugn

Starsailor

joyous_zhang

wickedways99

Piggy

Hitonagashi

frixis

Hay_Hay

Abu

StudentTazzy

xx007

anterminator

Clark Black

sarz777

i_luv_maths

groseille

joe8232

Girdag

JamesEpsilon

saasmi

drumking1088

Aphrodite

pkiy

geekypoo

Esquire

Sentooran

vector771

rawkingpunkster

celeritas

little.princess.1991

zrancis

Yasser Hayatli

westhamfan

MatchDancer

davmarksman

foxygreg

mspen

adel_kadrah

n0b0dy

wackymathgal

DeathAwaitsU

Harryok

RdotR

Sarokrae

Dadeyemi

HBKss

nish81

soulsister_16

sweetfloss

erode87

thedemon13666

andrewlee89

katieinnit

fmathsgirly

MatchDancer

andco

shazzylai

GHOSH-5

RocTheMic

calicoeannecash

chinqu

Adampolar

davidcy147

amberlivable

advice_guru

Khodu

nchen5

IBiot Ash '08

Mitchy0283

Ninja Keg

alexmahone

Ignoramus

SprinterJr

Tallon

rapha

GHOSH-5

somepeople

GHOSH-5

RocTheMic

calicoeannecash

chinqu

Adampolar

davidcy147

amberlivable

================================ ==========================

0

reply

Report

#2

Surely (1) is not correct. I.e. the equation x^2-4x+4=0 only has 1 repeated root.

(2) Follows from the definition of the exponent.

a^n = a*a*a*a...*a

so a^x*a^y = a*a*a...(x times)*a*a*a...(y times) = a^(x+y)

(2) Follows from the definition of the exponent.

a^n = a*a*a*a...*a

so a^x*a^y = a*a*a...(x times)*a*a*a...(y times) = a^(x+y)

0

reply

(1) We count the repeated roots as two...

for your information it is correct as its called "the fundamental theorem of algebra"

(2) your argument does not prove e^x.e^y = e^(x+y) as u dont know what e is...is it it an arbitrary number? ur argument merely shows the result but doesnt prove it using first principles...

for your information it is correct as its called "the fundamental theorem of algebra"

(2) your argument does not prove e^x.e^y = e^(x+y) as u dont know what e is...is it it an arbitrary number? ur argument merely shows the result but doesnt prove it using first principles...

0

reply

Report

#4

Righto, I and III are equivalent then aren't they. As they are both formulations of the FTA.

i.e. if the polynomial has n roots then you can always express it as (x-a1)(x-a2)...(x-an), and as the complex roots come in complex conjugate pairs you can multiply those together to get a quadratic with real coefficients.

But for II, I can't see your point.

e can be any number you want and e^x*e^y = e^(x+y), if you take it to be THE e then it is just as valid as if you take e to be 1.

i.e. if the polynomial has n roots then you can always express it as (x-a1)(x-a2)...(x-an), and as the complex roots come in complex conjugate pairs you can multiply those together to get a quadratic with real coefficients.

But for II, I can't see your point.

e can be any number you want and e^x*e^y = e^(x+y), if you take it to be THE e then it is just as valid as if you take e to be 1.

0

reply

First you are certainly right that (3) is formulated from (1)....and the proof of (3) depends on the proof of (1), so if u can prove (1) thenas u said that multipying conjugate pairs of complex roots will give a quadratic with real coefficients thus it can be reduced in linear and quadratic factors with real coefficients (however u might have to prove that complex roots occur in conjugate pairs)

For (2) i mean ur argument SHOWS the desired result but cannot be taken as a valid PROOF...

surely a^n = a.a.a....a (n times)

but u cannot say that exp(x) is the same as e^x we know that it is as exp(2) does equal [exp(1)]^2 but we need a definition of exp(x) and then we can start the proof...so a hint is find how exp(x) is defined and then embark on a proof...

For (2) i mean ur argument SHOWS the desired result but cannot be taken as a valid PROOF...

surely a^n = a.a.a....a (n times)

but u cannot say that exp(x) is the same as e^x we know that it is as exp(2) does equal [exp(1)]^2 but we need a definition of exp(x) and then we can start the proof...so a hint is find how exp(x) is defined and then embark on a proof...

0

reply

Report

#6

I am not sure about whether it is neccesary to prove what you are asking. We can define e^x as an infinite series, but e is still a real number and as such e^x has the same properties as any other exponential function.

0

reply

(Original post by

I am not sure about whether it is neccesary to prove what you are asking. We can define e^x as an infinite series, but e is still a real number and as such e^x has the same properties as any other exponential function.

**AntiMagicMan**)I am not sure about whether it is neccesary to prove what you are asking. We can define e^x as an infinite series, but e is still a real number and as such e^x has the same properties as any other exponential function.

0

reply

Report

#8

(Original post by

infinite series is a good definition, use thsi to prove (2)

**IntegralNeo**)infinite series is a good definition, use thsi to prove (2)

the details are gone from my brain but basically you assume f(z)=0 has no solutions and define g=1/f so g is defined and continuous since f(z) does not equal 0 for any z. using some complex analysis it is shown g is bounded

and using liouville's theorem g is constant.hence only polynomials with no roots are the constant roots.

let a be a root of f(z)=0

then f(z)=(z-a)h(z) for some poly h of degree <f

then apply above to h to show h is constant or has root

so if b is a root

f(z)=(z-a)(z-b)j(z) etc

0

reply

Report

#9

take the infinite series for exp(x), defined as 1+x+(x^2)/2!+(x^3)/3!...., multiply that by exp(y), collect terms, it comes out to exp(x+y)....

(meeheehee )

(meeheehee )

0

reply

Report

#11

(Original post by

================================ ==========================

**IntegralNeo**)================================ ==========================

Problems: (green is solved, red is unsolved)

(1) Prove that every polynomial of degree n with real coefficients has n roots in complex field.

(2) Prove that exp(x).exp(y) = exp(x+y) , where exp(x) is exponential function

(3) Prove that every polynomial of degree n with real coefficients can be reduced to the product of linear and/or quadratic factors.

Problems: (green is solved, red is unsolved)

(1) Prove that every polynomial of degree n with real coefficients has n roots in complex field.

(2) Prove that exp(x).exp(y) = exp(x+y) , where exp(x) is exponential function

(3) Prove that every polynomial of degree n with real coefficients can be reduced to the product of linear and/or quadratic factors.

1st i'll get back to you.

2nd. we define exp (x) = 1 + x + x^2/2! + x^3/3! + ....

so exp (x) * exp (y) =

(1 + x + x^2/2! + x^3/3! + ....)(1 + y + y^2/2! + x^3/3! + ....) =

1 + x + x^2/2! + x^3/3! + .....

+ y + xy + yx^2/2! + yx^3/3! + ....

+ y^2/2! + xy^2/2! +x^2 y^2/2!2! + ....

+ y^3/3! + .....

etc. looking at the terms diagonally, you have:

1 + (x+y) + 1/2! (x+y)^2 + 1/3! (x+y)^3 + ...

= exp (x+y)

QED.

3. I'll type up the proof tomorrow... it's about 1am atm!

0

reply

Report

#13

*(3) Prove/Disprove that square of an integer a is either 0 or 1 mod 4*

Quadratic residues?

a mod 4 | a^2 mod 4

0 | 0

1 | 1

2 | 4 = 0 mod 4

3 | 9 = 1 mod 4

0

reply

Report

#14

(3) Prove/Disprove that square of an integer a is either 0 or 1 mod 4

It seems joe1212 has beaten me to it and I don't even know what quadratic residues are. I don't know much about modular arithmetic so I hope I'm not missing something but here's an attempt:

suppose a² = 2mod4

a² = 4b + 2 (where b is an integer)

a² is even => a is even => a² is divisible by 4

(a² - 2)/4 = b

since a² is divisible by 4 (a²-2) is not => b is not an integer, which is a contradiction, so a² is never 2mod4

similarly, suppose a² = 3mod4

a² = 4c + 3 (where c is an integer)

a² is odd, so a is odd. Let a = (E+1) where E is even

(E+1)² = 4c + 3

E² + 2E + 1 = 4c +3

(E² + 2E - 2)/4 = c

since E² and 2E are both divisible by 4, (E² + 2E - 2) is not => c is not an integer => contradiction => a² is never 3mod4.

a² is either 0 or 1 mod4.

Also, please could I join?

It seems joe1212 has beaten me to it and I don't even know what quadratic residues are. I don't know much about modular arithmetic so I hope I'm not missing something but here's an attempt:

suppose a² = 2mod4

a² = 4b + 2 (where b is an integer)

a² is even => a is even => a² is divisible by 4

(a² - 2)/4 = b

since a² is divisible by 4 (a²-2) is not => b is not an integer, which is a contradiction, so a² is never 2mod4

similarly, suppose a² = 3mod4

a² = 4c + 3 (where c is an integer)

a² is odd, so a is odd. Let a = (E+1) where E is even

(E+1)² = 4c + 3

E² + 2E + 1 = 4c +3

(E² + 2E - 2)/4 = c

since E² and 2E are both divisible by 4, (E² + 2E - 2) is not => c is not an integer => contradiction => a² is never 3mod4.

a² is either 0 or 1 mod4.

Also, please could I join?

0

reply

Report

#15

Proving that a^2 is 1mod4 or 0mod4 is pretty simple.

Any integer a can be generated by one of these equations:

a=4k

a=4k+1

a=4k+2

a=4k+3

This means that we can write a modular congruence as,

a=0mod4,

a=1mod4,

a=2mod4,

a=3mod4

Squaring each of the above equations, we get (respectively):

a^2=0mod4

a^2=1mod4

a^2=4mod4=0mod4

a^2=9mod4=1mod4

So all a^2 is either 0mod4 or 1mod4.

And please add me to the list

Any integer a can be generated by one of these equations:

a=4k

a=4k+1

a=4k+2

a=4k+3

This means that we can write a modular congruence as,

a=0mod4,

a=1mod4,

a=2mod4,

a=3mod4

Squaring each of the above equations, we get (respectively):

a^2=0mod4

a^2=1mod4

a^2=4mod4=0mod4

a^2=9mod4=1mod4

So all a^2 is either 0mod4 or 1mod4.

And please add me to the list

0

reply

Report

#16

Tour of perfect squares starting from 4 involves adding the next odd number, so add 5 to get the next perfect square, then 7 to get the next, then 9, and so on.

Since we are interested in proving that the next perfect square is NEVER 3q-1, convert all of the above into an expression relating the number to multiples of 3, and then discard the multiples of 3. 4 becomes +1 (multiple of 3 +1), 5 becomes –1, 7 becomes + 1, 9 becomes 0, 11 becomes –1, and so on.

The sequence of odd numbers will then become (starting with 5) –1, +1, 0, -1, +1, 0, -1, +1, 0, and so on. Provable if req.

This sequence is added, in turn, to the starting perfect square 4 (which is converted into +1) You can also start with 1(which is also +1)

Adding each converted odd number in turn gives 0, +1, +1, 0, +1, +1, 0, +1, +1….i.e. always 3q or 3q+1. Interesting.

Please add my name to your list.

Aitch

Since we are interested in proving that the next perfect square is NEVER 3q-1, convert all of the above into an expression relating the number to multiples of 3, and then discard the multiples of 3. 4 becomes +1 (multiple of 3 +1), 5 becomes –1, 7 becomes + 1, 9 becomes 0, 11 becomes –1, and so on.

The sequence of odd numbers will then become (starting with 5) –1, +1, 0, -1, +1, 0, -1, +1, 0, and so on. Provable if req.

This sequence is added, in turn, to the starting perfect square 4 (which is converted into +1) You can also start with 1(which is also +1)

Adding each converted odd number in turn gives 0, +1, +1, 0, +1, +1, 0, +1, +1….i.e. always 3q or 3q+1. Interesting.

Please add my name to your list.

Aitch

0

reply

Report

#17

(Original post by

The sequence of odd numbers will then become (starting with 5) –1, +1, 0, -1, +1, 0, -1, +1, 0, and so on. Provable if req.

**Aitch**)The sequence of odd numbers will then become (starting with 5) –1, +1, 0, -1, +1, 0, -1, +1, 0, and so on. Provable if req.

0

reply

Report

#18

I think it looks OK -

Dividing odd numbers from 5+ by 3 leaves remainders of

-1, +1, 0, -1, +1, 0... etc.

Does this need a formal proof? I suppose it might...

Aitch

Dividing odd numbers from 5+ by 3 leaves remainders of

-1, +1, 0, -1, +1, 0... etc.

Does this need a formal proof? I suppose it might...

Aitch

0

reply

Report

#19

(Original post by

I think it looks OK -

Dividing odd numbers from 5+ by 3 leaves remainders of

-1, +1, 0, -1, +1, 0... etc.

Does this need a formal proof? I suppose it might...

Aitch

**Aitch**)I think it looks OK -

Dividing odd numbers from 5+ by 3 leaves remainders of

-1, +1, 0, -1, +1, 0... etc.

Does this need a formal proof? I suppose it might...

Aitch

So this is exactly what you have to prove.

0

reply

Report

#20

Sequence 5,7,9,11,13,15,17,...

If we divide the list into blocks of 3 terms, then since for any term T(n) we know that T(n) = T (n-3) + 6, we can reduce the list to 3 general terms:

5+6b

7+6b

9+6b

where b is some + integer.

So, since adding 6b to any of these does not change the relationship of the expression to multiples of 3 (as 6b is a multiple of 3), it should be sufficient to prove that

5=(multiple of 3)-1

7=(multiple of 3)+1

9=(multiple of 3)+0

and since all following blocks of 3 terms are of the form

5+6b

7+6b

9+6b

this sequence will be repeated ad infinitum.

If we divide the list into blocks of 3 terms, then since for any term T(n) we know that T(n) = T (n-3) + 6, we can reduce the list to 3 general terms:

5+6b

7+6b

9+6b

where b is some + integer.

So, since adding 6b to any of these does not change the relationship of the expression to multiples of 3 (as 6b is a multiple of 3), it should be sufficient to prove that

5=(multiple of 3)-1

7=(multiple of 3)+1

9=(multiple of 3)+0

and since all following blocks of 3 terms are of the form

5+6b

7+6b

9+6b

this sequence will be repeated ad infinitum.

1

reply

X

### Quick Reply

Back

to top

to top