Consider the following division, So, dividing by leaves no remainder. [Of course, cannot be here.]
Now, substituting in the expressions gives us two integers 5 and 10. But, We're getting 5 as a remainder now!
Why are these two ways of defining remainders not congruent?
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
Even though the same word "remainder" is used, you have to bear in mind what the definition in each of these contexts are.
@Brian Charlesworth Would you help me with this?
Log in to reply
With proper fractions, (i.e., where the numerator is strictly less than the denominator), the remainder is just the numerator itself, so in your general case,
x+1=0×(2x+2)+(x+1),
i.e, x+1 divided by 2x+1 is 0 with remainder x+1. Defined this way, a proper fraction does have a remainder, which avoids the contradiction you mention.
Log in to reply
I understand your definition. But, is it the proper one? What I've found in the Wikipedia is the following.
"Given two polynomials f(x) (the dividend) and g(x) (the divisor), asserts the existence and the uniqueness of a quotient q(x) and a remainder r(x) such that f(x)=q(x)g(x)+r(x);and,r(x)=0,or,deg(r)<deg(g)"
But, 2x+2 and x+1 both are first-degree polynomials!
Again, I solved some problems where I had to resort to the algebraic manipulation I mentioned in this note.
In an algebra problem, I had to do the following. R(x)=x5+21x3+x2−21x+25 R(x)=(x2−21)(x3+x+1)+3 R(x)=x2(x3+x+1)−21(x3+x+1)+3 Then, I had to say R(x) divided by x3+x+1 leaves a remainder of 3.
So, basically we cannot incorporate your definition, can we?
Log in to reply
deg(f)>deg(g)? In any event, it also depends on what field we're working with. If we are working with rationals we can indeed say that x+1=21(2x+2)+0, which satisfies the Wikipedia definition.
Does the Wikipedia definition assume theIn your example where you substituted x=4, this would translate to 5=21×10+0, but this is not how we normally deal with remainders over the integers, so I think this is the source of the "incongruence" you mention in your question.
(If deg(f)<deg(g) then we would necessarily have q(x)=0 and r(x)=f(x), in which case the Wikipedia definition would be satisfied.)
Log in to reply
deg(f)=deg(g). And, the definition assumes deg(f)≥def(g). [This is also the case in Brilliant wiki about polynomial division.]
In our caseI also forgot to mention one thing about your first comment. You said, "where the numerator is strictly less than the denominator". But, notice that x+1 is strictly greater than 2x+2 ∀x<−1.
Dear sir, can you please help https://brilliant.org/discussions/thread/can-this-limit-be-cancelled/?ref_id=1368476
Thank You!