True or False: If f ( x ) is a polynomial of degree ≥ 1 , and if all the roots of f ( x ) are real, then all the roots of its derivative, f ′ ( x ) , must be real as well.
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.
f ( x ) = ( x − a 1 ) p 1 ( x − a 2 ) p 2 . . . ( x − a k ) p k , w h e r e a i ∈ R a n d p i ∈ N f o r a l l i = 1 . . k , a n d ∑ i = 1 k p i = n . W h e n t h e r e a r e n o r o o t s o f m u l t i p l i c i t i e s , t h e n w e h a v e , f r o m a r o u g h p l o t o f f ( x ) , b e t w e e n a n y t w o r o o t s , e i t h e r a m a x i m a o r a m i n i m a w h i c h i s a r o o t o f f ′ ( x ) . I n t h i s c a s e , w e h a v e a d e r i v a t i v e w i t h n − 1 r o o t s a n d f ( x ) w i t h n − 1 e x t r e m e p o i n t s a n d t h u s a l l t h e r o o t s a r e a c c o u n t e d f o r . W h e n t h e r e i s a m u l t i p l i c i t y , s a y a r g e t s r e p e a t e d t w i c e , t h e n y o u h a v e , i n t h e d e r i v a t i v e f ′ ( x ) , a r a s a r o o t a s w e l l . B u t n o w , f h a s n − 1 d i s t i n c t r o o t s a n d t h e r e f o r e t h e n u m b e r o f e x t r e m e p o i n t s g e t s r e d u c e d t o n − 2 . S o , t h e r o o t s o f f ′ ( x ) a r e a c c o u n t e d f o r a g a i n : t h e e x t r e m e p o i n t s g o d o w n b y o n e a n d a n o t h e r r o o t ( o f f ( x ) ) p o p s u p . T h i s c a n b e d o n e f o r a n y r o o t o f a n y d e g r e e o f m u l t i p l i c i t y . T h e r e f o r e , a p o l y n o m i a l w i t h a l l r e a l r o o t s h a s a d e r i v a t i v e w i t h a l l r e a l r o o t s a s w e l l .
Nice explanation, accounting for multiplicities. Instead of referring to a "rough plot of f ( x ) ", you could invoke Rolle's Theorem to make it more "official".
Log in to reply
I don't know why, but I keep imagining plots of polynomials whenever I try to solve a problem like this.
Rolle's theorem does sound official, but I feel that there's an amount of vagueness in what it states: it generally states that between any two points where the function has the same value has at least one critical point in between. It doesn't talk about the number of such points, so I can basically use Rolle's theorem between two roots after skipping one in between and never really say if I've skipped a critical point in between. Or at least that's my opinion.
So, instead, I can say apply Rolle's theorem to two consecutive distinct roots and you'll find a maximum or a minimum in between those two. But, I believe that it's a fairly obvious thing that many can understand without really knowing calculus and the names of various theorems. I read Rolle's for the first time in my 12th grade and I thought that he was simply making a big deal out of a fairly simple fact. I'm just saying that using more official terms like Rolle's theorem can make it seem complicated to those who don't know what it is.
Log in to reply
In some sense, I agree with you... mathematicians and people on Brilliant in particular have a tendency to invoke a lot of theorems with fancy names. Rolle's Theorem is a special case of the Mean Value Theorem, one of the most important theorems of calculus... you should certainly be aware of that one. There is very little you can prove in calculus without using the Mean Value Theorem... you can't even prove that a function with a zero derivative is constant.
It is certainly useful to look at the shape of a graph to get some idea of what's going on, but I always find it comforting to know that I have a theorem to back up my intuition... I sleep better at night that way. As you know, there are pretty weird continuous and even differentiable functions out there, and our intuition can lead us astray when dealing with those. (For example, our intuition does not lead us to conceive of functions that are continuous everywhere but nowhere differentiable.)
Log in to reply
@Otto Bretscher – Yeah, it's sometimes nice to know that a solid theorem has got your back.
The answer is "True". This follows from the Gauss-Lucas theorem . (This may be more firepower than we need for these specific conditions, but it does the job. Perhaps just an application of Rolle's theorem would be sufficient.)
Wow, that was lightning fast. Thanks! For the benefit of other readers, would you mind explaining what happens when we have multiple roots?
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Suppose the degree of f ( x ) is n . Let a 1 ≤ a 2 ≤ . . . ≤ a n be the roots of f ( x ) , listed with their multiplicities. We will construct roots b 1 ≤ b 2 ≤ . . . ≤ b n − 1 of f ′ ( x ) that are "interlaced" with the roots of f ( x ) in the sense that a 1 ≤ b 1 ≤ a 2 ≤ b 2 ≤ . . . ≤ b n − 1 ≤ a n .
Indeed, if a k < a k + 1 , then Rolle's Theorem guarantees the existence of a b k between a k and a k + 1 with f ′ ( b k ) = 0 .
If a k has multiplicity 3, say, with a k = a k + 1 = a k + 2 , then a k will be a root of f ′ ( x ) with multiplicity 2, and we will make b k = b k + 1 = a k . This argument easily generalizes to any multiplicity, r .
The degree of f ′ ( x ) is n − 1 and we have found n − 1 real roots, so that we have in fact found all the roots of f ′ ( x ) , and they are all real as claimed.