Image not available

732x634

Screenshot 2024-0....png

๐Ÿงต How does this prove Vieta's Theorem

Anonymous No. 16297560

Ive read this several times and im having trouble understanding the second of the given proofs. Can somebody help me please?(The book is Israel Gelfand's Algebra btw)

Anonymous No. 16298632

I will break it into simpler steps and hopefully it will be easier to follow.

Our hypotheses are:

- A polynomial [math]P(x) = x^2 + px + q[/math].
- Two different roots [math]\alpha[/math] and [math]\beta[/math] of [math]P(x)[/math].

We will shot that [math]P(x) = (x-\alpha)(x-\beta)[/math].

Step 1. Divide [math]P(x)[/math] by [math]x-\alpha[/math].

Since [math]\alpha[/math] is a root of [math]P(x)[/math], [math](x-\alpha)[/math] divides [math]P(x)[/math] (this is called Bezout's theorem in Gelfand's book). Therefore,
[eqn]P(x) = (x-\alpha)Q(x)[/eqn] for some polynomial [math]Q(x)[/math].

Step 2. Divide [math]Q(x)[/math] by [math]x - \beta[/math].

It is also the case that [math]\beta[/math] is a root of [math]P(x)[/math], so [math]P(\beta) = 0[/math]. If we make this substitution in the equation of Step 1, we obtain that
[eqn]0 = (\beta - \alpha)Q(\beta).[/eqn] If a product of two things equals zero, it must be that one of them is zero. If [math](\beta - \alpha) = 0[/math], it would immediately follow that [math]\alpha = \beta[/math], which does not happen since the roots are different (by our second hypothesis). Therefore, [math]Q(\beta) = 0[/math] or, in other words, [math]\beta[/math] is a root of [math]Q(x)[/math]. By applying the same reasoning from Step 1 to [math]Q(x)[/math] and [math]\beta[/math], we obtain that
[eqn]Q(x) = (x-\beta)R(x)[/eqn] for some polynomial [math]R(x)[/math]. By substituting [math]Q(x)[/math] in the equation of Step 1, we get:
[eqn]P(x) = (x-\alpha)(x-\beta)R(x).[/eqn]

Anonymous No. 16298634

>>16298632
(cont.)

Step 3. [math]R(x) = 1[/math].

Multiplying two polynomials adds their degrees. The degree of [math](x-\alpha)(x-\beta)[/math] is [math]2[/math], so the degree of [math](x-\alpha)(x-\beta)R(x)[/math] is [math]2[/math] plus the degree of [math]R(x)[/math]. But the degree of [math]P(x)[/math] is [math]2[/math] (our first hypothesis), so it must be that the degree of [math]R(x)[/math] is zero. In other words, [math]R(x) [/math] is constant.

If [math]R(x) = c[/math] a constant, then
[eqn]P(x) = c(x-\alpha)(x-\beta).[/eqn] By carrying out the product, you can see that the leading coefficient of [math]P(x)[/math] is [math]c[/math]. But the leading coefficient of [math]P(x)[/math] is [math]1[/math]. In conclusion, [math]R(x) = c = 1[/math] and
[eqn]P(x) = (x-\alpha)(x-\beta).[/eqn]


- How does this prove Vieta's theorem?

Suppose that [math]x^2 + px + q[/math] has two different roots [math]\alpha[/math] and [math]\beta[/math]. We have just proven that
[eqn]x^2 + px + q = (x-\alpha)(x-\beta).[/eqn]
Carrying out the product [math](x-\alpha)(x-\beta)[/math], we get that
[eqn]x^2 + px + q = x^2 - (\alpha + \beta) + \alpha\beta .[/eqn] Two polynomials are equal if their coefficents are equal, thus, [math]p = -(\alpha + \beta)[/math] and [math]q = \alpha\beta[/math], which proves Vieta's theorem.

Anonymous No. 16298754

>>16297560
Unrelated: how do you find Gelfand's precalculus series? functions, trigonometry, algebra and method of coordinates