D DaGr81 New Member Joined Dec 20, 2002 Messages 8 Location NSW May 8, 2003 #1 hey peoples help me out on this question question 16 arnold and arnold exercise 4.1 if P(x) = 1 - x + x^2/2! - .......+ (-1)^n x^n/n! , show that p(x) has no multiple zero for n more than equal to 2. thanks
hey peoples help me out on this question question 16 arnold and arnold exercise 4.1 if P(x) = 1 - x + x^2/2! - .......+ (-1)^n x^n/n! , show that p(x) has no multiple zero for n more than equal to 2. thanks
S spice girl magic mirror Joined Aug 10, 2002 Messages 785 May 8, 2003 #2 Originally posted by DaGr81 hey peoples help me out on this question question 16 arnold and arnold exercise 4.1 if P(x) = 1 - x + x^2/2! - .......+ (-1)^n x^n/n! , show that p(x) has no multiple zero for n more than equal to 2. thanks Click to expand... P'(x) = -1 + x - x^2/2! + x^3/3! - ... + (-1)^n-1 x^(n-1)/(n-1)! = -P(x) - (-1)^n x^n/n! now when P'(x) = P(x), - (-1)^n x^n/n! = 0 => x = 0 but when this happens, P(x) =/= 0 thus the condition P'(x) = P(x) = 0 is never satisfied thus no multiple roots.
Originally posted by DaGr81 hey peoples help me out on this question question 16 arnold and arnold exercise 4.1 if P(x) = 1 - x + x^2/2! - .......+ (-1)^n x^n/n! , show that p(x) has no multiple zero for n more than equal to 2. thanks Click to expand... P'(x) = -1 + x - x^2/2! + x^3/3! - ... + (-1)^n-1 x^(n-1)/(n-1)! = -P(x) - (-1)^n x^n/n! now when P'(x) = P(x), - (-1)^n x^n/n! = 0 => x = 0 but when this happens, P(x) =/= 0 thus the condition P'(x) = P(x) = 0 is never satisfied thus no multiple roots.
freaking_out Saddam's new life Joined Sep 5, 2002 Messages 6,786 Location In an underground bunker Gender Male HSC 2003 May 11, 2003 #3 ...n more than equal to 2... Click to expand... if there are no multiple roots, i am wondering how do u incoparate the quoted condition.
...n more than equal to 2... Click to expand... if there are no multiple roots, i am wondering how do u incoparate the quoted condition.
wogboy Terminator Joined Sep 2, 2002 Messages 653 Location Sydney Gender Male HSC 2002 May 11, 2003 #4 You shouldn't have to worry about that condition n >= 2, since if the theorem is true for all n, as proven, then it is automatically true for n>=2.
You shouldn't have to worry about that condition n >= 2, since if the theorem is true for all n, as proven, then it is automatically true for n>=2.