Let f ( x ) be a polynomial with integer coefficients such that
f ( 1 ) f ( 2 ) f ( 3 ) f ( 5 ) f ( 6 ) f ( 7 ) = 1 = 8 = 2 7 = 1 2 5 = 2 1 6 = 3 4 3 .
What is the minimum possible value of ∣ f ( 4 ) ∣ ?
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.
I follow the logic above, but it is based on the assumption that f ( x ) can ONLY take the form x 3 + g ( x ) ( x − 1 ) ( x − 2 ) ( x − 3 ) ( x − 5 ) ( x − 6 ) ( x − 7 ) . Couldn't we find a different polynomial without an x 3 term that, while less obvious, nevertheless satisfies all six stated conditions from f ( 1 ) = 1 to f ( 7 ) = 3 4 3 ?
For example, if the only stated conditions were f ( 2 ) = 8 and f ( 7 ) = 3 4 3 , your logic would lead you to factor f as
f ( x ) = x 3 + g ( x ) ( x − 2 ) ( x − 7 )
making f ( 4 ) = 4 3 + g ( 4 ) ( 4 − 2 ) ( 4 − 7 ) = 6 4 − 6 g ( 4 ) . You would conclude that the minimum value of ∣ f ( x ) ∣ is 2 (which is achievable for any g ( x ) such that g ( 4 ) = 1 1 ). However, you could also factor f as
f ( x ) = 6 x 2 + 1 3 x − 4 2 + g ( x ) ( x − 2 ) ( x − 7 )
making f ( 4 ) = 6 4 2 + 1 3 ( 4 ) − 4 2 + g ( x ) ( 4 − 2 ) ( 4 − 7 ) = 1 0 6 − 6 g ( 4 ) . This turns out to give the same minimum of 2 for ∣ f ( x ) ∣ (this occurs so long as g ( 4 ) = 1 8 ), and I have a feeling that any such polynomial would, but I am not sure how to prove that. Until that is proved, the assumption upon which this proof is based seems unjustified.
Log in to reply
(Misinterpreted the issue at hand. Sorry!)
Log in to reply
Thanks for your reply Steven. The polynomials f ( x ) = x 3 + g ( x ) ( x − 2 ) ( x − 7 ) and f ( x ) = 6 x 2 + 1 3 x − 4 2 + g ( x ) ( x − 2 ) ( x − 7 ) I mentioned in the second paragraph of my comment were not solutions to the original problem. Rather, I was trying to illustrate through a simpler problem - in which the only stated conditions were f ( 2 ) = 8 and f ( 7 ) = 3 4 3 - that x 3 is not the only possible remainder of g ( x ) f ( x ) . It would of course take a polynomial of higher degree to fit all six conditions stated in the original problem, but there are infinitely many polynomials q ( x ) of minimum fifth-degree that will pass through all six given points. So, how can we prove that factoring f ( x ) as q ( x ) + g ( x ) ( x − 1 ) ( x − 2 ) ( x − 3 ) ( x − 5 ) ( x − 6 ) ( x − 7 ) (where q ( x ) is any of these possible polynomials) rather than x 3 + g ( x ) ( x − 1 ) ( x − 2 ) ( x − 3 ) ( x − 5 ) ( x − 6 ) ( x − 7 ) will not result in a different solution? Again, I have a feeling that we will get the same answer no matter what, but I do not know how to show that rigorously.
Log in to reply
@Aric Floyd – Ah I see your concern now. Sorry for misinterpreting you at first!
Any such polynomial q ( x ) that you describe must be of the form x 3 + r ( x ) ( x − 1 ) ( x − 2 ) ( x − 3 ) ( x − 5 ) ( x − 6 ) ( x − 7 ) , where r is a polynomial with integer coefficients. Suppose not; then q ( x ) = x 3 + r ( x ) ( x − 1 ) ( x − 2 ) ( x − 3 ) ( x − 5 ) ( x − 6 ) ( x − 7 ) + s ( x ) for some polynomial s with integer coefficients such that at least one of 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 is not a root of the polynomial.
Let's let k be one of those excluded roots. Then, f ( k ) = q ( k ) = k 3 + s ( k ) = k 3 . However, since k ∈ { 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 } , we must have f ( k ) = k 3 , which is a contradiction. Therefore, s has roots at x = 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 , and q ( x ) = x 3 + r ( x ) ( x − 1 ) ( x − 2 ) ( x − 3 ) ( x − 5 ) ( x − 6 ) ( x − 7 ) .
If r ( x ) = 0 , then q ( x ) = x 3 . Otherwise, the non- x 3 part of q can be "absorbed" into the g ( x ) part to get f ( x ) = x 3 + ( g ( x ) + r ( x ) ) ( x − 1 ) ( x − 2 ) ( x − 3 ) ( x − 5 ) ( x − 6 ) ( x − 7 ) , which is essentially the same form as we had before since g ( x ) + r ( x ) can be any polynomial with integer coefficients.
Log in to reply
@Steven Yuan – Thank you so much for taking the time to write this out! I totally follow your logic, but for some reason when I got to this point myself I had the following hang-up: Shouldn't it be possible to create polynomial q ( x ) of minimum degree six that satisfies the six conditions but lacks an x 3 term? That is, a polynomial of the form
q ( x ) = a n x n + a n − 1 x n − 1 … a 1 x + a 0 where n ≥ 6 and a 3 = 0
I realize now, though, that such a polynomial could still be written in the form
q ( x ) = x 3 + r ( x ) ( x − 1 ) ( x − 2 ) ( x − 3 ) ( x − 5 ) ( x − 6 ) ( x − 7 ) + s ( x )
so long as s ( x ) = − x 3 + t ( x ) . That would, however, not change the fact that s ( x ) would still need to have roots of 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 . Thank you for helping me see that!
Log in to reply
@Aric Floyd – No problem! I'm always glad to help.
@Aric Floyd – Phrased a different way, what I am asking is: how do we prove that q ( 4 ) ( m o d 3 6 ) is the same for every polynomial q ( x ) that fits the six given conditions (not just q ( x ) = x 3 ), and that therefore the minimum of ∣ q ( 4 ) − 3 6 g ( 4 ) ∣ is the same?
@Aric Floyd – Of course you can have a different polynomial to x 3 . Instead of x 3 and g ( x ) , you could have x 3 + a ( x ) ( x − 1 ) ( x − 2 ) ( x − 3 ) ( x − 5 ) ( x − 6 ) ( x − 7 ) a n d g ( x ) − a ( x ) for any polynomial a ( x ) . It does not matter what value of a ( x ) you choose, you will still get 6 4 − 3 6 g ( x ) as the value at 4 . The advantage of x 3 is that it is easy to find.
Just because there is more than one way to prove a result does not mean that you have to write them all down.
The feeling when you forget the absolute value sign and write 64-36=28 as the answer :facepalms: Question though: how does that mean we can factor it like that? I just jumped to an assumption.
Log in to reply
Use the Remainder Theorem: x − a divides a polynomial f ( x ) if and only if f ( a ) = 0 . Then use the fact that if you divide a polynomial in Z [ x ] by a monic polynomial in Z [ x ] , then the quotient and remainder both belong to Z [ x ] .
Can i know what's the rule that you have used to find the polynomial I mean the the part of g(x)(x-1)(x-2)()()()() till the end Where did that come from sir?
But g(x) can be 1,2,3,.....
Log in to reply
Yes, we can choose the polynomial g ( x ) so that g ( 4 ) can take any integer value. However f ( 4 ) = 6 4 − 3 6 g ( 4 ) will have smallest modulus when we have chosen the polynomial so that g ( 4 ) = 2 .
observe that,
f ( x ) = x 3 for x belonging to ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
means f ( x ) − x 3 = 0 for x belonging to ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 ) .
means x = 1 / 2 / 3 / 5 / 6 / 7 are some zeroes of g ( x ) = f ( x ) − x 3 .
we can write,
g ( x ) = f ( x ) − x 3 = K ( x − 1 ) ( x − 2 ) ( x − 3 ) ( x − 5 ) ( x − 6 ) ( x − 7 ) for some integer K (since co-efficients are integers so this forces K to be an integer.)
now we have our true f ( x ) that is,
f ( x ) = K ( x − 1 ) ( x − 2 ) ( x − 3 ) ( x − 5 ) ( x − 6 ) ( x − 7 ) + x 3
f ( 4 ) = K ( 4 − 1 ) ( 4 − 2 ) ( 4 − 3 ) ( 4 − 5 ) ( 4 − 6 ) ( 4 − 7 ) + 4 3 = − 3 6 K + 6 4 .
this has a minima for integer K at K = 2 that is f ( 4 ) = − 8 so ∣ f ( 4 ) ∣ = 8 .
Edit: Richard Desper 's argument is fine.The constant K does not have to really be a constant it could be any function,say, h(x) of any degree satisfying ∣ h ( x ) ∣ m i n = 2 .In my case h(x) = K and it works fine but is a special case.
Nitpick: K doesn't have to be an integer. It can be any polynomial with integer coefficients. But we don't care since we only care about the value at x=4.
@Richard Desper how ? we must have K as an integer...as an example suppose we have K = 2/3 then the polynomial will be of the form ax^6 + bx^5 + cx^4 + dx^3 + ex^2 + fx +g,and we can be certain that a = 2/3.so this would make a polynomial with non-integer coefficients,and that is not possible.(see the first sentence of the question.)
Log in to reply
All we are told about f(x) is that it has integral coefficients and what its values are at six points. What you call g(x) is a polynomial of degree at least six. But there is no reason to think that g(x) is of degree exactly 6. One would have to prove that this must be the case. The proper amount of generality would say g(x) = f(x) - x^3 = h(x)*(x-1)(x-2)(x-3)(x-5)(x-6)(x-7) for some polynomial h(x), not some constant K. All we see is that the optimal result is achieved is |h(x)| = 2, or more specifically if h(x) = 2. You can get this with a constant, or you can have h(x) be any polynomial with integral coefficients satisfying h(4) = 2. For example, h(x) = x-2 works fine. We can have the degree of h be arbitrarily high and still have h(4) = 2. For example, h(x)= (x-4)^n + 2 will work for any value of n.
1cubed=1, 2cubed=8, 3cubed=27, how is 4cubed=8?
Log in to reply
The function doesn't satisfy x^3 for all values, only for the values listed on the right hand side. That's why it doesn't have a factor of (x-4) (because we don't know what the value). However for the rest of the values given, we know they follow the graph of x^3. So we know that the function f(x) - x^3 has zeros at all those values, which is what is said above.
@Henry Grabarz it doesn't work that way.see the solutions for the actual way to do it.
I don't understand the concept u used
I mean particularly and only this part
" we can write, g(x)=f(x)- x^3=
K(x-1)(x-2)(x-3)(x-5)(x-6)(x-7)"
How did u come up with that idea of "K()()()()()" please, what's the concept used!?
How did you get the minima for integer K at K=2?
@Abhinav Jain no i just put K = 2 and saw it is local minima.(f(x 0) > f(x) for all x sufficiently close to x 0.)I don't have a formal rigorous proof for that.
Very well stated answer!...Thanks
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Notice that f ( x ) = x 3 holds for x = 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 . That means we can factor f as
f ( x ) = x 3 + g ( x ) ( x − 1 ) ( x − 2 ) ( x − 3 ) ( x − 5 ) ( x − 6 ) ( x − 7 ) ,
for some polynomial g with integer coefficients. Substituting in x = 4 yields f ( 4 ) = 6 4 − 3 6 g ( 4 ) .
Since g consists of integer coefficients, g ( 4 ) is an integer. If we set g ( 4 ) = 2 , we get ∣ f ( 4 ) ∣ = ∣ 6 4 − 3 6 ( 2 ) ∣ = 8 , which is the minimum value of ∣ f ( 4 ) ∣ . We can attain this value if, for instance, g ( x ) = 2 , yielding the polynomial
f ( x ) = x 3 + 2 ( x − 1 ) ( x − 2 ) ( x − 3 ) ( x − 5 ) ( x − 6 ) ( x − 7 ) .