Discussion:
roots to 4th, 5th, 6th & 7th degree polynomials
(too old to reply)
Jon G.
2008-09-08 09:50:17 UTC
Permalink
roots to 4th, 5th, 6th & 7th degree polynomials

http://mypeoplepc.com/members/jon8338/math/id19.html

The best I can promise is all denominators are nonzero, and dimensional
analysis passes.

See if you can understand the concept. If it works, it can find the roots
to any degree polynomial. If it doesn't, then at best it may give a rough
estimate.
--
Jon Giffen
***@peoplepc.com
mjc
2008-09-08 21:55:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon G.
roots to 4th, 5th, 6th & 7th degree polynomials
http://mypeoplepc.com/members/jon8338/math/id19.html
The best I can promise is all denominators are nonzero, and dimensional
analysis passes.
See if you can understand the concept.  If it works, it can find the roots
to any degree polynomial.  If it doesn't, then at best it may give a rough
estimate.
--
Jon Giffen
Have you tried the formulae for a variety of polynomials.

Your cubic might be right; the quartic is probably wrong since a
resolvent cubic is needed and you do not have one; for higher degrees,
Abel's theorem says "Nope!"
Jon G.
2008-09-10 01:18:35 UTC
Permalink
I share your doubts, but if mathematics doesn't forsake me, it has to be
right.

When a curve f(x) crosses the x-axis at point t, for small distances close
to t, the curve approximates a straight line, right? NO, IT DOESN'T.
That's one flaw in my method. If I take the derivative of f(x) at t, the
tangent line is a straight line.

One area is between f(x) and the x-axis from t to (t + delta t), and the
other area is between f(x) and the x-axis from (t - delta t) to t. I simply
say that when f(x) crosses the x-axis at f(x)=0, THE TWO AREAS CANCEL TO
ZERO.

A better strategy is to use the areas above and below the tangent line when
f(x) crosses the x-axis.

g(x) = f '(x) x + b equation of tangent line

INT (f '(x) x + b) dx from (t - delta t) to (t + delta t) = 0

For instance, using the example suggested by François and letting delta t =
c,

f(x) = x^4 - 4x^3 + 6x^2 - 4x + 1,

f '(x) = 4x^3 - 12x^2 + 12x - 4

INT (4x^4 - 12x^3 + 12x^2 - 4x + bx) from (t - c) to (t + c) = 0

= [(4/5)x^5 - 3x^4 + 4x^3 - 2x^2 + (b/2)x^2] from (t-c) to (t+c)
= 0

cancel x^2

= [(4/5)x^3 - 3x^2 + 4x - 2 + (b/2)] from (t-c) to (t+c) = 0

h(t)=
+(4/5)[(t+c)^3 - (t-c)^3]
-3[(t+c)^2 - (t-c)^2]
+4[(t+c) - (t-c)]
- 2 + b/2
=0

f '(t)=
4t^3 - 12t^2 + 12t - 4=
-b/t=
[f(t+c) - f(t-c)]/(2c)

b = -t f '(t)

h(t)=
+(4/5)[(t+c)^3 - (t-c)^3]
-3[(t+c)^2 - (t-c)^2]
+4[(t+c) - (t-c)]
- 2 - (1/2)t f '(t)
=0

Express h(t) as a Maclaurin series, take the limit as c approaches zero and
WA LA! There's the solution to the quartic in terms of the known solution
to the cubic.

Notice, however, in the original equation,

f(x) = x^4 - 4x^3 + 6x^2 - 4x + 1,

The lonely 1 has been entirely omitted out of the solution. This is a
heinous injustice to the lonlely 1.

Maybe one of you can FIX IT.
--
Jon G.
***@peoplepc.com
http://mypeoplepc.com/members/jon8338/math/index.html
Post by Jon G.
roots to 4th, 5th, 6th & 7th degree polynomials
http://mypeoplepc.com/members/jon8338/math/id19.html
The best I can promise is all denominators are nonzero, and dimensional
analysis passes.
See if you can understand the concept. If it works, it can find the roots
to any degree polynomial. If it doesn't, then at best it may give a rough
estimate.
--
Jon Giffen
Have you tried the formulae for a variety of polynomials.

Your cubic might be right; the quartic is probably wrong since a
resolvent cubic is needed and you do not have one; for higher degrees,
Abel's theorem says "Nope!"
Detlef Müller
2008-09-10 10:31:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon G.
...
A better strategy is to use the areas above and below the tangent line when
f(x) crosses the x-axis.
As mentionned: if all works as you planed, you only find roots where the
sign changes.
But ok, you could look at f'(x) to find the roots where f(x) has a root
of even multipicity.
Post by Jon G.
g(x) = f '(x) x + b equation of tangent line
Mh, the equation of tangent line at x0 is
g(x) = f '(x0)(x-x0) + f(x0)
isn't it?
--
Dr. Detlef Müller,
http://www.mathe-doktor.de oder http://mathe-doktor.de
Mariano Suárez-Alvarez
2008-09-10 17:12:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon G.
I share your doubts, but if mathematics doesn't forsake me, it has to be
right.
The difference between mathematics and the natural sciences
is that in math one does not simply state something and
wait for a rebuttal: one is expected to actually *prove*
that what one says is true.

-- m
Jon G.
2008-10-03 01:00:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon G.
I share your doubts, but if mathematics doesn't forsake me, it has to be
right.
The difference between mathematics and the natural sciences
is that in math one does not simply state something and
wait for a rebuttal: one is expected to actually *prove*
that what one says is true.

-- m

If that's the case, prove that the next integer after 1 is 2.
Virgil
2008-10-03 02:46:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mariano Suárez-Alvarez
Post by Jon G.
I share your doubts, but if mathematics doesn't forsake me, it has to be
right.
The difference between mathematics and the natural sciences
is that in math one does not simply state something and
wait for a rebuttal: one is expected to actually *prove*
that what one says is true.
-- m
If that's the case, prove that the next integer after 1 is 2.
If there is to be a number "after 1", it needs a name. Let's call it 2.
Mariano Suárez-Alvarez
2008-10-03 16:27:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mariano Suárez-Alvarez
Post by Jon G.
I share your doubts, but if mathematics doesn't forsake me, it has to be
right.
The difference between mathematics and the natural sciences
is that in math one does not simply state something and
wait for a rebuttal: one is expected to actually *prove*
that what one says is true.
-- m
If that's the case, prove that the next integer after 1 is 2.
Well, the way to do that depends a lot in the particular
formalization you pick for the natural numbers and, in
particular, for what "2" is.

For example, in the context of Peano arithmetic, one usually
defined "2" to be the successor element to "1", so in that
case the statement you want me to prove follows at once from
the usual definition of Peano addition.

If you are looking at "1" and "2" as cardinal numbers, then
proving that the next cardinal to "1" is "2" is a trivial
excercise in set theory and the definition of cardinal numbers.

There is a famous passage in Russel's and Whitehead's
Principia Mathematica, where they prove that "1+1=2"
in the frame of their formalization.

If you somehow are under the impression that "1+1=2" is
something that does not require a proof, well, then you
are mistaken.

-- m

François Grondin
2008-09-09 17:35:06 UTC
Permalink
I'm wondering... Do you think that your algorithm can find the roots of a
polynomial like

p(x) = x^4 - 4x^3 + 6x^2 - 4x + 1 ?

This is an easy one : it has only one root (x=1) of multiplicity 4. And
since p(x) >= 0, i can't see how your algorithm would apply here.

François
Post by Jon G.
roots to 4th, 5th, 6th & 7th degree polynomials
http://mypeoplepc.com/members/jon8338/math/id19.html
The best I can promise is all denominators are nonzero, and dimensional
analysis passes.
See if you can understand the concept. If it works, it can find the roots
to any degree polynomial. If it doesn't, then at best it may give a rough
estimate.
--
Jon Giffen
Loading...