( x − 1 ) ( x 2 − 2 ) ( x 3 − 3 ) ⋯ ( x 2 0 − 2 0 )
What is the coefficient of x 2 0 3 in the expansion of this expression?
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.
This is how I solved it
Could you explain how the coefficient of x 2 0 8 is (-2)? And could you please also explain the calculations to compute a 2 0 3 ?
Log in to reply
I have added a line to explain a 2 0 8 . For a 2 0 3 see note.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 |
|
Sir why did u start the product of (x-k) from 1 to 20 from (x^7-7)???Pls help!!!!
Log in to reply
A bit difficult to explain. You can start with finding the coefficient of x 4 for ( x − 1 ) ( x 2 − 2 ) ( x 3 − 3 ) and figure it out.
I don't understand. Isn't the highest power:
20!
From (x^1-a1)..(x^20-a20)
Log in to reply
The highest power is from x ⋅ x 2 ⋅ x 3 ⋯ x 2 0 = x 1 + 2 + 3 + ⋯ + 2 0 = x 2 2 0 ( 2 0 + 1 ) = x 2 1 0 .
@Chew-Seong Cheong , i did not understand the first half of your solution. How we are able to multiply -1 and -2 to get the coefficients. Thanks in advance. A relevant wiki is also fine.
P.S. I think there are two L A T E X typos in your note.
P ( x ) = ∏ k = 1 2 0 ( x − k ) = ( x 7 − 7 ) ∏ \substack k = 1 k = 7 2 0 ( x − k ) = ( x 7 − 7 ) ( x 2 0 3 − 2 0 3 x 2 0 2 + ⋯ − ∏ \substack k = 1 k = 7 2 0 k ) = − 7 x 2 0 3 + ⋯
P ( x ) = ( x − 1 ) ( x 2 − 2 ) ( x 4 − 4 ) …
Log in to reply
Now, I don't remember how. This Brilliant website used to support \substrack. I think they don't subscribe the module now.
Log in to reply
Oh, probably... Any relevant wiki or topic you can suggest for this. Thanks!
Log in to reply
@Mahdi Raza – I don't think. I remember it was my own idea. Give me sometime. I will report here.
Got it! When we expand
( x − 1 ) ( x 2 − 2 ) ( x 3 − 3 ) ( x 4 − 4 ) ⋯ ( x 2 0 − 2 0 ) = x 2 1 0 − x 2 0 9 + ⋯
We get the coefficient of x 2 1 0 and x 2 0 9 which are 1 and − 1 . Similarly,
( x 2 − 2 ) ( x − 1 ) ( x 3 − 3 ) ( x 4 − 4 ) ⋯ ( x 2 0 − 2 0 ) = x 2 1 0 − 2 x 2 0 8 + ⋯
We get the coefficients of x 2 1 0 and x 2 0 8 which are 1 and − 2 .
To get the coefficient of x 2 0 3 , we have to find
( a 7 x 7 + a 6 x 6 + a 5 x 5 + ⋯ + a 2 x 2 + a 1 x + a 0 ) ( x 2 0 3 + ⋯ )
So that a 0 is the coefficient of x 2 0 3 . And a 0 is the sum of the constant terms of ( x 1 − 1 ) ( x 6 − 6 ) , ( x 2 − 2 ) ( x 5 − 5 ) , ( x 3 − 3 ) ( x 4 − 4 ) , and ( x 1 − 1 ) ( x 2 − 2 ) ( x 4 − 4 ) . Note that 1 + 6 = 2 + 5 = 3 + 4 = 1 + 2 + 4 = 7 .
Log in to reply
Oh yes, it's the same thing. Ways of not getting a x 7 are ( 7 ) , ( 6 , 1 ) , ( 5 , 2 ) , ( 4 , 3 ) , ( 1 , 2 , 4 ) where we multiply by the constant term instead of the x -variable term. Upvoted! Thanks!
The coefficient of the x 2 0 3 term can be found by finding the sum of the coefficients of x 2 0 3 from all the possible ways 2 0 3 can be made by all different integers from 1 to 2 0 . Since the highest number that can be made with these integers is 2 2 0 ( 2 0 + 1 ) = 2 1 0 , another approach is to use up all the different integers from 1 to 2 0 except for the different integer combinations that can add up to 2 1 0 − 2 0 3 = 7 , which are 7 , 1 and 6 , 2 and 5 , 3 and 4 , and 1 and 2 and 4 . The possibilities are then:
( x 7 − 7 ) ⋅ [ ( x − 1 ) … ( x 6 − 6 ) ( x 8 − 8 ) … ( x 2 0 − 2 0 ) ] = ( x 7 − 7 ) ( x 2 0 3 + … ) = x 2 1 0 + ⋯ − 7 x 2 0 3 + …
( x − 1 ) ( x 6 − 6 ) ⋅ [ ( x 2 − 2 ) … ( x 5 − 5 ) ( x 7 − 7 ) … ( x 2 0 − 2 0 ) ] = ( x 7 + ⋯ + 6 ) ( x 2 0 3 + … ) = x 2 1 0 + ⋯ + 6 x 2 0 3 + …
( x 2 − 2 ) ( x 5 − 5 ) ⋅ [ ( x − 1 ) ( x 3 − 3 ) … ( x 4 − 4 ) ( x 6 − 6 ) … ( x 2 0 − 2 0 ) ] = ( x 7 + ⋯ + 1 0 ) ( x 2 0 3 + … ) = x 2 1 0 + ⋯ + 1 0 x 2 0 3 + …
( x 3 − 3 ) ( x 4 − 4 ) ⋅ [ ( x − 1 ) ( x 2 − 2 ) … ( x 5 − 5 ) … ( x 2 0 − 2 0 ) ] = ( x 7 + ⋯ + 1 2 ) ( x 2 0 3 + … ) = x 2 1 0 + ⋯ + 1 2 x 2 0 3 + …
( x − 1 ) ( x 2 − 2 ) ( x 4 − 4 ) ⋅ [ ( x 3 − 3 ) ( x 5 − 5 ) … ( x 2 0 − 2 0 ) ] = ( x 7 + ⋯ − 8 ) ( x 2 0 3 + … ) = x 2 1 0 + ⋯ − 8 x 2 0 3 + …
The sum of the possible x 2 0 3 term coefficients is − 7 + 6 + 1 0 + 1 2 − 8 = 1 3 .
It is the easiest way to approach the answer
After this explanation it seems too obvious.
That is just brilliant ... reverse thinking at its best
Well explained, I did the same! all combinations for not getting a x 7 in the coefficient are ( 7 ) , ( 6 , 1 ) , ( 5 , 2 ) , ( 4 , 3 ) , ( 1 , 2 , 4 ) . Then add these coefficients. Nice! BTW if you understood Chew's first half can you please explain. Thanks in advance!
Log in to reply
Sorry for the late response! Looks like he explained it to you in his comments, though.
Log in to reply
Ah, no worries at all!! Both of you had the same brilliant explanation, just explained a bit differently. But I am glad to learn from both perspectives. Thanks, upvoted to both of you!
Divide the whole thing by x 2 1 0 . The coefficient of x 2 0 3 in the original product is the coefficient of x − 7 in ( 1 − x 1 ) ( 1 − x 2 2 ) ⋯ ( 1 − x 2 0 2 0 ) . Let y = x 1 , so we want the coefficient of y 7 in ( 1 − y ) ( 1 − 2 y 2 ) ⋯ ( 1 − 2 0 y 2 0 ) . Getting y 7 in the product involves a sum of distinct positive integer exponents equal to 7 . There are five ways to do this: 7 , 1 + 6 , 2 + 5 , 3 + 4 , 1 + 2 + 4 . These yield the coefficients − 7 , ( − 1 ) ( − 6 ) , ( − 2 ) ( − 5 ) , ( − 3 ) ( − 4 ) , ( − 1 ) ( − 2 ) ( − 4 ) respectively. These add up to 1 3 .
Great solution!
Brilliant!
Expanding an expression like the one given is done by combining all possible ways to select the first or the second term in each factor.
The highest possible power is x 2 1 0 which you get by multiplying all the x terms. To get x 2 0 3 you need to skip seven x , which can be done by skipping x 7 , or by skipping x 6 and x , or any other combination of 1 to 7 that sums to 7.
There are only 5 ways to combine the integers 1 to 7 and get 7:
For each of these you get one term of k × x 2 0 3 . The value of k depends on the alternative (non x ) terms in the given expression. For skipping x 7 we get − 7 , for skipping x 4 and x 3 , we get the combination of − 4 and − 3 . Calculating them one by one we get:
Summing these we get the answer:
− 7 + 6 + 1 0 + 1 2 + − 8 = 1 3
Using M a t h e m a t i c a
Coefficient[Product[x^n-n,{n,20}],x^203]
returns 1 3
That's nice. Probably works with Wolfram|Alpha too.
The product of these binomials could be imagined as a game of switching " power up " or " constant up " where in power up you will add the location of the switch to the exponent of x and in constant up , you will multiply the constant to the power of x , for example:
First switch x − 1 :
power up : add one to the exponent of x
constant up : add multiply the constant − 1 to the power x
Second switch x − 1 :
power up : add two to the exponent of x
constant up : add multiply the constant − 2 to the power x
Suppose we are dealing with 20 series of switches where power up s will add to the exponent of x (depending on the location of the switch as exampled) and constant up will be multiplied to the resulting power of x .
Now, if power ups are maximized, it will result to 210 as the exponent of x . However, we only need 203, thus 7 exponents shall be removed. Hence, instead of powering up, we need to constant up some of the selected switches totaling to 7 exponents. The plausible candidates are:
A. 7th switch − > constant up: − 7
B. 6th and 1st switch − > constant up: ( − 6 ) ( − 1 ) = 6
C. 1st, 2nd and 4th switch − > constant up: ( − 1 ) ( − 2 ) ( − 4 ) = − 8
D. 2nd and 5th switch − > constant up: ( − 2 ) ( − 5 ) = 1 0
E. 3rd and 4th switch − > constant up: ( − 3 ) ( − 4 ) = 1 2
Since these are mutually exclusive events, hence, we shall add them, thus, − 7 + 6 + ( − 8 ) + 1 0 + 1 2 = 1 3
In short, one of the terms in the expansion is 1 3 x 2 0 3 .
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Let the expression be P ( x ) . We get the highest power of x in the expansion of P ( x ) by multiplying all the x k together, where k = 1 , 2 , 3 . . . 2 0 . That is k = 1 ∑ 2 0 k = 2 2 0 ( 2 1 ) = 2 1 0 and the coefficient of x 2 1 0 is 1 . Similarly, we get the term with x 2 0 9 by multiplying the − 1 of x − 1 with the rest of x k , that is − 1 ⋅ x 2 0 9 giving the coefficient a 2 0 9 = − 1 . Similarly, the coefficient of x 2 0 8 is multiplying − 2 of x 2 − 2 with the rest of x k , that is a 2 0 8 = − 2 . For the coefficient of x 2 0 3 , we have:
a 2 0 3 = − 7 + ( − 1 ) ( − 6 ) + ( − 2 ) ( − 5 ) + ( − 3 ) ( − 4 ) + ( − 1 ) ( − 2 ) ( − 4 ) = − 7 + 6 + 1 0 + 1 2 − 8 = 1 3 See note.
Note:
P ( x ) = k = 1 ∏ 2 0 ( x − k ) = ( x 7 − 7 ) k = 1 , k = 7 ∏ 2 0 ( x − k ) = ( x 7 − 7 ) ( x 2 0 3 − 2 0 3 x 2 0 2 + ⋯ − k = 1 , k = 7 ∏ 2 0 k ) = − 7 x 2 0 3 + ⋯
Similarly,
P ( x ) = ( x − 1 ) ( x 6 − 6 ) ( x 2 0 3 + ⋯ ) = ( x − 1 ) ( − 6 x 2 0 3 + ⋯ ) = 6 x 2 0 3 + ⋯ P ( x ) = ( x 2 − 2 ) ( x 5 − 5 ) ( x 2 0 3 + ⋯ ) = 1 0 x 2 0 3 + ⋯ P ( x ) = ( x 3 − 3 ) ( x 4 − 4 ) ( x 2 0 3 + ⋯ ) = 1 2 x 2 0 3 + ⋯ P ( x ) = ( x − 1 ) ( x − 2 ) ( x 4 − 4 ) ( x 2 0 3 + ⋯ ) = − 8 x 2 0 3 + ⋯
Therefore, a 2 0 3 = − 7 + 6 + 1 0 + 1 2 − 8 = 1 3 . Note that the sum of the product number is − 7 , − 1 − 6 , − 2 − 5 , − 3 − 4 , − 1 − 2 − 4 .