wu :: forums
« wu :: forums - The American Polynomial »

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
May 15th, 2024, 9:53pm

RIDDLES SITE WRITE MATH! Home Home Help Help Search Search Members Members Login Login Register Register
   wu :: forums
   riddles
   easy
(Moderators: SMQ, Grimbal, william wu, towr, ThudnBlunder, Icarus, Eigenray)
   The American Polynomial
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1  Reply Reply Notify of replies Notify of replies Send Topic Send Topic Print Print
   Author  Topic: The American Polynomial  (Read 519 times)
NickH
Senior Riddler
****





   
WWW

Gender: male
Posts: 341
The American Polynomial  
« on: Mar 7th, 2003, 11:17am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

What little is known about the American Polynomial can be summarised as follows:
 
1) It is of a single variable, and has degree at least 2.
2) All of its coefficients are integers.
3) Its constant term is 1492.
4) The sum of the coefficients of its even exponents (including the constant term) is 1776.
5) The sum of the coefficients of its odd exponents is 1621.
 
Does the American Polynomial have any integer roots?
« Last Edit: Mar 7th, 2003, 11:31am by NickH » IP Logged

Nick's Mathematical Puzzles
aero_guy
Senior Riddler
****





   
Email

Gender: male
Posts: 513
Re: The American Polynomial  
« Reply #1 on: Mar 7th, 2003, 12:48pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

A quick analysis of the second order version shows the roots are not integers, therefore it cannot be said that there must be integer roots.  The remaining question is to prove that there are no integer roots.
 
we have:
sum(aix2i)+sum(bix2i-1)+1492=0
sum(ai)=284
sum(bi)=1621
 
It seems there may be some basic rule of polynomials I don't know here.  Maybe it has something to do with 1621 being prime.
IP Logged
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
*****



Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.

   


Gender: male
Posts: 4863
Re: The American Polynomial  
« Reply #2 on: Mar 7th, 2003, 3:34pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Does this have anything to do with the Eisenstein Criterion?
IP Logged

"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
NickH
Senior Riddler
****





   
WWW

Gender: male
Posts: 341
Re: The American Polynomial  
« Reply #3 on: Mar 7th, 2003, 4:19pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

No, it has nothing to do with Eisenstein's Criterion.
IP Logged

Nick's Mathematical Puzzles
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
*****



Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.

   


Gender: male
Posts: 4863
Re: The American Polynomial  
« Reply #4 on: Mar 7th, 2003, 8:56pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

How about this:Let P be the polynomial. The three conditions gives
P(0)=1492
(P(1)+P(-1))/2 = 1776
(P(1)-P(-1))/2 = 1621.
 
Adding and subtracting the latter two gives:
P(1) = 3397 = 43 x 79
P(-1) = 155 = 5 x 71
P(0) = 2 x 2 x 373
 
Suppose k is an integer for which P(k) = 0. Then P(x) = (x - k)R(x) for some polynomial R. Synthetic division shows that since P(x) has integer coefficients, R must as well, so R(0), R(1), and R(-1) are all integers. Now,
(-k)R(0) = 1492 ==> k divides 1492
(1-k)R(1) = 3397 ==> k-1 divides 3397
(-1-k)R(-1) = 155 ==> k+1 divides 155
 
An examination of the factorizations above shows that no k satisfies all three conditions.
Hence P can have no integer roots.
IP Logged

"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
NickH
Senior Riddler
****





   
WWW

Gender: male
Posts: 341
Re: The American Polynomial  
« Reply #5 on: Mar 8th, 2003, 3:13am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Comments on Icarus' solution...
 
Great solution!  
 
My solution also begins by calculating P(0), P(1), and P(-1), but then takes a slightly different tack.  There's a way to reach the conclusion without factorizing the values...
IP Logged

Nick's Mathematical Puzzles
NickH
Senior Riddler
****





   
WWW

Gender: male
Posts: 341
Re: The American Polynomial  
« Reply #6 on: Mar 24th, 2003, 1:52pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

The alternative solution I alluded to above, which also uses the polynomial remainder theorem, goes like this...
 
3 divides p(3) - p(0), and p(3k) = p(0) (mod 3).
Similarly, p(3k+1) = p(1) (mod 3), p(3k-1) = p(-1) (mod 3).
 
Since p(-1), p(0), p(1) are all <> 0 (mod 3), the result follows.
IP Logged

Nick's Mathematical Puzzles
Pages: 1  Reply Reply Notify of replies Notify of replies Send Topic Send Topic Print Print

« Previous topic | Next topic »

Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.4!
Forum software copyright © 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board