Polynomials with degree \(n\) always have \(n\) roots, no matter if it's real, complex, or multiple roots.

Obviously, the real roots represent the intersection of x-axis.

But how about complex roots?! Does it say anything about the graph or not? If yes, can we know anything about it? Thank you! ^_^

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:

TopNewestYou could probably think of a polynomial \(f: \mathbb{C} \rightarrow \mathbb{C}\) as a mapping from \(\mathbb{R}^{2}\) to \(\mathbb{R}^{2}\) (since \(\mathbb{R}^{2}\) and \(\mathbb{C}\) can be taken to be equivalent). If \((z, w) = f(x, y)\), then the zeroes are then \(f\)'s intersections with the plane \((z, w) = (0, 0)\).

Since this can be hard to visualise, you could perhaps also graph \(|f(x, y)|\) in 3D. The zeroes would then of course intersect the plane \(|f(x, y)| = 0\). Since \(|f(x, y)|\) is always nonnegative, the zeroes are then also the global minima of the function. Probably.

I might just be spouting nonsense though.

Also, while \(f\) always has \(\deg(f)\) complex roots, without counting for multiplicity you have your good old Fundamental Theorem of Algebra.

Log in to reply

What if we think about simple xy-plane, does this still work?

Log in to reply

Take \(y = x^{2}+1\), which has roots \(\pm i\); you can see that the parabola doesn't intersect the x-axis, but all that tells you is that its roots are nonreal. Maybe the focus and directrix might tell you a bit more, but I doubt it.

If you have a polynomial \(f\) with even \(\deg(f)\) of constant term 0, it passes through the origin. If you compare it with a congruent graph translated in the ±ve y direction with no real roots, you can deduce that the product of the roots is ±ve if the graph is "smiling" and ∓ve if the graph is "frowning", even if all the roots are nonreal.

Log in to reply

well if z axis is thought as imaginary axis!!how about that!!!u should get a 3 d shape

Log in to reply

What do you mean? Every polynomial with complex coefficients should have complex (2D) inputs and complex (also 2D) outputs so you would need a 4D graph.

Log in to reply

no it is still 3d.the x-z plane is like an input plane!!!

Log in to reply

Good!

Log in to reply

f (x) = 0 is the thing you mentioned.

f (z) = f (x + j y) = F (x)+ j G (y) = 0 is for complex numbers.

When we say Z = 0, we mean F (x) + j G (y) = 0. It is an x y- plan of both F (x) = 0 and G (y) = 0.

With Taylor's expansion, we are able to solve a polynomial equation with complex coefficients for all roots. There are n roots for polynomial of power n. This method allows a 1-dimensional search for 2-dimensional complex roots. Without which a two dimensional search for complex roots is tedious; I would say it as incorrect approach.

I invented a theorem which can obtain all roots for n-polynomial equations with complex coefficients. Theoretically, there is no limit to n allowed. I attempted up to z^10 + .... = 0 for real coefficients and up to z^5 + ... = 0 for complex coefficients. n roots for n power polynomial equations is true. However, I only completed in hands with z^8 + ... = 0 and z^4 + ... = 0 respectively. No intermediate term or coefficient is missing and they are very general.

Tell you an interesting thing. For cubic x^3 + p x^2 + q x + r = 0 of complex coefficients, cubic formula shall give all the roots, provided proper combination of two surds times omega are chosen correctly for each case. Hard to tell unless you study and investigate your own. Have a pleasant trial!

Log in to reply