Proof
Consider a general polynomial p(x) of degree n, with the leading coefficient not equal to 0. Let us say,
p(x)=anxn+an−1xn−1+an−2xn−2+⋯+a2x2+a1x+a0
Here, an=0.
Using Vieta's formulas,
Its sum of roots is given by: an−an−1
The arithmetic mean of its roots is thus: nan−an−1 (★)
Let us differentiate this polynomial w.r.t x once. Let us denote the new polynomial as p1(x). This polynomial has exactly n−1 roots.
p1(x)=p′(x)=nanxn−1+(n−1)an−1xn−2+(n−2)an−2xn−3+⋯+2a2x+a1
The sum of roots of p1(x) is: nan−(n−1)an−1
The arithmetic mean of roots of p1(x) is thus: n(n−1)an−(n−1)an−1=nan−an−1 (★)
Which is exactly the same as the arithmetic mean of roots of p(x).
Let us differentiate it one more time w.r.t x. Call this polynomial p2(x). This polynomial has exactly n−2 roots.
p2(x)=p′′(x)=n(n−1)anxn−2+(n−1)(n−2)an−1xn−3+(n−2)(n−3)an−2xn−4+⋯+2a2
The sum of roots of p2(x) is: n(n−1)an−(n−1)(n−2)an−1=nan−(n−2)an−1
The arithmetic mean of roots of p2(x) is thus: n(n−2)an−(n−2)an−1=nan−an−1 (★)
Which is exactly the same as the arithmetic mean of roots of p(x).
Let us prove this for a general kth derivative, where (k∈N:1≤k≤(n−1)). Call this polynomial pk(x). This polynomial has exactly n−k roots.
pk(x)=pk(x)=n(n−1)(n−2)⋯(n−k+1)anxn−k+(n−1)(n−2)(n−3)⋯(n−k)an−1xn−k−1+(n−2)(n−3)(n−4)⋯(n−k−1)an−2xn−k−2+⋯+k!ak
OR
pk(x)=pk(x)=(nPk)anxn−k+(n−1Pk)an−1xn−k−1+(n−2Pk)an−2xn−k−2+⋯+(n−(n−k)Pk)ak
Here, nPr denotes the permutation function which is equal to (n−r)!n!.
The sum of roots of pk(x) is: (nPk)an−(n−1Pk)an−1=nan−(n−k)an−1
The arithmetic mean of roots of pk(x) is thus: n(n−k)an−(n−k)an−1=nan−an−1 (★)
Which is exactly the same as the arithmetic mean of roots of p(x).
Continuing differentiating further w.r.t. x, for n−1 times yields us a linear polynomial. Let us denote this polynomial as pn−1(x). This polynomial has exactly 1 root.
pn−1(x)=pn−1(x)=n!anx+(n−1)!
Here,
Sum of roots of pn−1(x) = Arithmetic Mean of roots of pn−1(x) = The only root of pn−1(x).
Hence, the value of all three is equal to: n!an−(n−1)!an−1=nan−an−1 (★)
Which is exactly the same as the arithmetic mean of roots of p(x).
However, if we differentiate p(x) one more time, it will yield us a constant which is n!an. The following pn(x) will not be a polynomial which has any roots and thus this process fails upon further differentiation.
Therefore, we come to the conclusion that the arithmetic mean of roots of a polynomial in a single variable of degree n with real and/or complex coefficients and the leading coefficient not equal to zero will always be the same as the arithmetic mean of roots of its kth derivatives, where k∈N and 1≤k≤(n−1).
Solution
Instead of differentiating 2 times, we can directly use our mean-value approach.
So, we have,
Mean of roots of f(x)=Mean of roots of f′′(x)
⟹1−10×41=2σwhere σ denotes the sum of roots of f′′(x)
⟹σ=−5 □
We can check our answer as,
f(x)=x4+10x3+35x2+50x+24f′(x)=4x3+30x2+70x+50f′′(x)=12x2+60x+70
Where it is evident that,
Sum of roots of f′′(x) (σ)=12−60=−5 □
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*
or_italics_
**bold**
or__bold__
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
\(
...\)
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
I really loved this proof :) ... keep up the good work. This Also reminded me of my own note . Check it out
Log in to reply
Thank you.
I'm surely gonna read your note right now. :)
I am sure that tha note is 100%correct.....
Nice work!
Log in to reply
Appreciated your complements.
(Edit: The concern raised in this comment has been dealt with)
Are you sure that "Mean of roots of f(x) = mean of roots of f''(x)"? That doesn't make sense to me.
E.g. the mean of roots of x2+2x+1=0 is -1, but the mean of roots of 2=0 is 0 (no roots).
In particular, can you figure out the condition that would make your claim true? Look through your proof, and see what implicit assumptions you have made about the conditions.
Log in to reply
I have mentioned about the condition where the derivative becomes a constant. And also showed that why it wouldn't work in that case.
Also see that 2=0 has 0 as the sum of roots and arithmetic mean as 00, which is undefined. This is based on our false assumption that 2=0.
Also, the conditions for my claims are:
In the case of the polynomial x2+2x+1, we cannot say this because it doesn't contain exactly 2 real and distinct roots. Both roots are same.
However, let's take for example the polynomial x2−4x+1, the AM of its roots is 2. We can only differentiate this polynomial once from our previous condition, so upon differentiating, we obtain 2x−4 whose AM of roots is also 2. We have already differentiated it 2−1=1 times and hence, our claim will not satisfy further for all cases.
Log in to reply
Great analysis of your work!
The reason that we only allow for "derivatives till k=n−1 times" is because we have a n−kn−k term in the expression which needs to cancel out. Hence, it will not work for n=k.
Actually, the roots do not need to be real. And we do not need distinct n roots, we just need to count with multiplicity. If you look through your proof, none of it requires root roots or distinct roots!
Can you clean up the note further to make this a much clearer read so that someone can easily understand what you are saying? It would be interesting to make a problem related to it too :)
Log in to reply
Can you suggest me some tips on how to make this note representable. This is my 2nd note, so I'm basically not used to creating notes.
Log in to reply
ai was real (and we only needed an=0).
Actually, we do not even need to use the theorem about complex conjugates. The claim will hold true even for polynomials of complex coefficients! We didn't need to use that fact thatHere are some suggestions to improve the note:
1. What is it that you want to explain? How can we make this more obvious? Providing clearer sections will allow the reader to understand where you are going.
2. Avoid mixing things up. Make it clear what the objective of each paragraph is. 3. Great that you're using Latex formatting. If you need help with more complex scenarios, let me know
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
The proof currently only deals with the special case of k=1 and n−1. It would be helpful to write up the more general version.
Log in to reply
kth derivative, it would be not such a great looking derivation.
Actually, I'm not through with binomials as of now. And without it I think for a generalkth derivative. It would be very helpful.
Can you provide me the proof for general