1) If \(f(x)=\frac{x^n}{n!}+\frac{x^(n-1)}{(n-1)!}...x+1\) then prove that f cannot have repeated roots.

This one I did not expect it:

2) If f(x) is a polynomial with integer coefficients such that f(0)=1 and f(1)=5, then prove that f cannot have integer roots.

Check out my set here

No vote yet

1 vote

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...

Easy Math Editor

`*italics*`

or`_italics_`

italics`**bold**`

or`__bold__`

boldNote: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctlyparagraph 1

paragraph 2

`[example link](https://brilliant.org)`

`> This is a quote`

Remember to wrap math in \( ... \) or \[ ... \] to ensure proper formatting.`2 \times 3`

`2^{34}`

`a_{i-1}`

`\frac{2}{3}`

`\sqrt{2}`

`\sum_{i=1}^3`

`\sin \theta`

`\boxed{123}`

## Comments

Sort by:

TopNewestFor 1., you can use the fact that if \( f(x) \) has a repeated root, then \( f'(x) \) has the same root, say \( a \) .

This implies that \( f(a) - f'(a) = 0 \implies \dfrac{a^{n-1}}{(n-1)!} = 0 \implies a = 0 \). But \( 0 \) is obviously not a root of \( f(x) \).Therefore, there exists no repeated root of \( f(x) \).

For 2, you can see that modulo 2, \( f(a) \equiv f(1) , f(0) \equiv 1 \)( depending on whether a is odd or even). for all integral \( a \). But, if a integral root \( b \) did exist, that would imply that \( f(b) = 0 \equiv 0 \), which leads to a contradiction

Log in to reply

Ya. I used the exact same methods for both the questions. Great minds think alike ; )

Log in to reply

Let us assume that \(f_n(x) = 1+x+\frac{x^2}{2!}+\ldots+\frac{x^n}{n!}\) has no repeated roots.

We now study the function \(f_{n+1}(x)\)

\[f_{n+1}(x) = 1+x+\frac{x^2}{2!}+\ldots+\frac{x^n}{n!}+\frac{x^{n+1}}{(n+1)!}\]

Observe the derivative of \(f_{n+1}(x)\) \[f_{n+1}^{\prime}(x) = 1+x+\frac{x^2}{2!}+\ldots+\frac{x^n}{n!}\]

Clearly, \(f_{n+1}^{\prime}(x)\) has no repeated roots and must have \(n\) distinct roots by our inductive hypothesis. Therefore, by Rolle's Theorem, we must have \(n+1\) distinct roots of \(f_{n+1}(x)\). And thus proved.

Log in to reply

The first one can be done with the help of LMV or Rolles i guess??

Log in to reply

The first one is pretty simple. I don't like using LMV or Rolle's theorem, or at least their terms in anything that can be solved with a rough sketch. Although I don't use it, my method is pretty much related to it. If the function has repeated roots, then it's derivative also has a root at that point. If that's the case, then the \(x^n/n!\) factor in the function has no consequence in altering the value taken by the function. In that case, x must have a repeated root at 0. But substituting 0 in the place of x gives you 1. So 0 is not a root and the function doesn't have any repeated roots.

Log in to reply

@arian tashakkor

Log in to reply

ok these ones are somewhat hard to understand I should say ...

Log in to reply

I've posted some more proof notes.

Log in to reply