( n 2 + 2 n + 2 ) ∣ ∣ ∣ ( n 3 + 4 n 2 + 4 n − 1 4 ) Find the sum of all integers n such that the above holds true.
Notation:
a
∣
b
means
a
is a factor of
b
.
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
The case with − 2 n − 1 8 = 0 allowing n = − 9 here is extremely easy to miss. One question that should always be asked when division occurs is "what about zero?"
To clarify the point about the case ∣ − 2 n − 1 8 ∣ ≥ ∣ n 2 + 2 n + 2 ∣ , it simply indicates for non-zero a to be divisible by b it's required that ∣ a ∣ > ∣ b ∣ .
some parentheses around the polynomials would have been useful or maybe a clearer phrasing of the question "What is the sum of the integral values of n for which the second polynomial evenly divides the first"
The question should be clarified in that there's nothing to say the division has to result in an integer .
Log in to reply
No it shouldn't. if a | b, then it follows by definition that a,b,c are integers satisfying ac = b, with c non-zero.
Log in to reply
Yes it should . Not everyone is blessed with the same degree of mathematical knowledge .
Log in to reply
@Geoff Collinson – The problem statement has been edited to make it clear that a is a factor of b .
If the division doesn't have to result in an integer, then a | b would be always true. An operator that is always true wouldn't be of much use.
This problem can be solved using cubic discriminant too! Want to give it a try?
follow everything except when the absolute value sign is introduced....
Could you add the meaning of the | symbol? I had to skip the question...
Log in to reply
Is this better?
May I ask why you can't simply perform long division, set the remainder to zero − 9 , add to that the factor just found − 9 , − 2 , then (of course) check to make sure the quadratic divisor does not have any real monomial factors?
I mean, I understand there is a bit more work involved from an analytic perspective, but if the problem already sets forth integers as the desirable outcome (a subset of the real numbers already), then is the more rigorous approach necessary?
Log in to reply
If you feel like you have a better solution, you are welcome to add it to the problem!
Log in to reply
The solution is similar; the problem is I came about it without nearly as much rigorous work.
My question was an honest one--specifically, where does the naïveté of my solution arise? I am almost certain (after attempting to formally explicate it) that my correct response may have been happy accident.
Did the same thing just I forgot about the remainder =0 and my answer was -2.
My answer is -10 (:
Since n 3 + 4 n 2 + 4 n − 1 4 = ( n + 2 ) ( n 2 + 2 n + 2 ) − 2 ( n + 9 ) we see that n 2 + 2 n + 2 divides n 3 + 4 n 2 + 4 n − 1 4 precisely when n 2 + 2 n + 2 divides 2 ( n + 9 ) , and so there must exist an integer k such that k ( n 2 + 2 n + 2 ) k n 2 + 2 ( k − 1 ) n + 2 ( k − 9 ) ( k n + k − 1 ) 2 = 2 ( n + 9 ) = 0 = ( k − 1 ) 2 − 2 k ( k − 9 ) = 6 5 − ( k − 8 ) 2 The only ways to write 6 5 as a sum of two squares are 6 5 = 8 2 + 1 2 = 7 2 + 4 2 . There are four cases to consider:
Thus the answer is ( − 9 ) + ( − 4 ) + ( − 2 ) + ( − 1 ) + 0 + 1 + 4 = − 1 1 .
can't follow the progression from the 2nd to the third line in the "there must be exist an integer k such that" step....also lost in that third line as well. somehow there were no k^2 previous to line 3, but all of a sudden there are (if you square the binomials)
Log in to reply
Multiply by k and complete the square.
Log in to reply
there's a lot of manipulation and experience that is "hidden" in those two lines. i'm not there yet with my number theory but thanks for the input!
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Using long division for polynomials, we find that
n 3 + 4 n 2 + 4 n − 1 4 = ( n 2 + 2 n + 2 ) ( n + 2 ) + ( − 2 n − 1 8 )
In order for n 2 + 2 n + 2 to divide n 3 + 4 n 2 + 4 n − 1 4 , it must also divide the remainder:
n 2 + 2 n + 2 ∣ ( − 2 n − 1 8 ) .
The only way that this is possible is either when ∣ − 2 n − 1 8 ∣ ≥ ∣ n 2 + 2 n + 2 ∣ or when − 2 n − 1 8 = 0 . In the first case, this inequality only holds when − 4 ≤ n ≤ 4 .
We test all n within this range, and determine that the values of n which work are n = − 4 , − 2 , − 1 , 0 , 1 , 4 . In the second case, we additionally find that n = − 9 works. Therefore, the sum is − 1 1 .