Why can you find the roots a of polynomial by factoring it?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
14
down vote

favorite
1












Let $f(x) = x^2 - 9x- 10$



We can state that $f(x) = (x + 1)(x-10)$ since I simply factored it.



The roots of this function is $-1$ and $10$. However, what is the relationship between a factored polynomial and its roots? Why can we assume this?







share|cite|improve this question


















  • 5




    $(x-a)(x-b)=x^2-(a+b)x+ab$
    – Vincent Law
    Aug 9 at 21:15






  • 1




    If there are non-trivial zero divisors (for example in the context of a 'field" or an 'integral domain' ('domain') - rational numbers or real numbers for the first, integers for the second) Alfred's answer is fine. If you were working with integers modulo $4$ you would have things like $2times 2 equiv 0$ or modulo $6$ you have $2times 3 equiv 0$ and you cannot assume that one of the individual factors must be zero. Ignore this comment if it is unhelpful, but if it intrigues you, there is much to explore.
    – Mark Bennet
    Aug 9 at 21:21














up vote
14
down vote

favorite
1












Let $f(x) = x^2 - 9x- 10$



We can state that $f(x) = (x + 1)(x-10)$ since I simply factored it.



The roots of this function is $-1$ and $10$. However, what is the relationship between a factored polynomial and its roots? Why can we assume this?







share|cite|improve this question


















  • 5




    $(x-a)(x-b)=x^2-(a+b)x+ab$
    – Vincent Law
    Aug 9 at 21:15






  • 1




    If there are non-trivial zero divisors (for example in the context of a 'field" or an 'integral domain' ('domain') - rational numbers or real numbers for the first, integers for the second) Alfred's answer is fine. If you were working with integers modulo $4$ you would have things like $2times 2 equiv 0$ or modulo $6$ you have $2times 3 equiv 0$ and you cannot assume that one of the individual factors must be zero. Ignore this comment if it is unhelpful, but if it intrigues you, there is much to explore.
    – Mark Bennet
    Aug 9 at 21:21












up vote
14
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
14
down vote

favorite
1






1





Let $f(x) = x^2 - 9x- 10$



We can state that $f(x) = (x + 1)(x-10)$ since I simply factored it.



The roots of this function is $-1$ and $10$. However, what is the relationship between a factored polynomial and its roots? Why can we assume this?







share|cite|improve this question














Let $f(x) = x^2 - 9x- 10$



We can state that $f(x) = (x + 1)(x-10)$ since I simply factored it.



The roots of this function is $-1$ and $10$. However, what is the relationship between a factored polynomial and its roots? Why can we assume this?









share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 14 at 0:28









Daniel Buck

2,3621624




2,3621624










asked Aug 9 at 21:10









Cedric Martens

286211




286211







  • 5




    $(x-a)(x-b)=x^2-(a+b)x+ab$
    – Vincent Law
    Aug 9 at 21:15






  • 1




    If there are non-trivial zero divisors (for example in the context of a 'field" or an 'integral domain' ('domain') - rational numbers or real numbers for the first, integers for the second) Alfred's answer is fine. If you were working with integers modulo $4$ you would have things like $2times 2 equiv 0$ or modulo $6$ you have $2times 3 equiv 0$ and you cannot assume that one of the individual factors must be zero. Ignore this comment if it is unhelpful, but if it intrigues you, there is much to explore.
    – Mark Bennet
    Aug 9 at 21:21












  • 5




    $(x-a)(x-b)=x^2-(a+b)x+ab$
    – Vincent Law
    Aug 9 at 21:15






  • 1




    If there are non-trivial zero divisors (for example in the context of a 'field" or an 'integral domain' ('domain') - rational numbers or real numbers for the first, integers for the second) Alfred's answer is fine. If you were working with integers modulo $4$ you would have things like $2times 2 equiv 0$ or modulo $6$ you have $2times 3 equiv 0$ and you cannot assume that one of the individual factors must be zero. Ignore this comment if it is unhelpful, but if it intrigues you, there is much to explore.
    – Mark Bennet
    Aug 9 at 21:21







5




5




$(x-a)(x-b)=x^2-(a+b)x+ab$
– Vincent Law
Aug 9 at 21:15




$(x-a)(x-b)=x^2-(a+b)x+ab$
– Vincent Law
Aug 9 at 21:15




1




1




If there are non-trivial zero divisors (for example in the context of a 'field" or an 'integral domain' ('domain') - rational numbers or real numbers for the first, integers for the second) Alfred's answer is fine. If you were working with integers modulo $4$ you would have things like $2times 2 equiv 0$ or modulo $6$ you have $2times 3 equiv 0$ and you cannot assume that one of the individual factors must be zero. Ignore this comment if it is unhelpful, but if it intrigues you, there is much to explore.
– Mark Bennet
Aug 9 at 21:21




If there are non-trivial zero divisors (for example in the context of a 'field" or an 'integral domain' ('domain') - rational numbers or real numbers for the first, integers for the second) Alfred's answer is fine. If you were working with integers modulo $4$ you would have things like $2times 2 equiv 0$ or modulo $6$ you have $2times 3 equiv 0$ and you cannot assume that one of the individual factors must be zero. Ignore this comment if it is unhelpful, but if it intrigues you, there is much to explore.
– Mark Bennet
Aug 9 at 21:21










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
46
down vote



accepted










It's not an assumption. It is a general fact that if $ab = 0$, then either $a = 0$ or $b = 0$. The roots of a polynomial are the numbers for which that polynomial evaluates to $0$, so to find the roots, it is enough to find the roots of the factors. So we factor everything as much as we can. In your case, this is a quadratic polynomial, so any factors are linear, and then it is obvious what the roots are.






share|cite|improve this answer


















  • 10




    @DRF No need to over complicate an answer to a “precalc” tagged question, imo.
    – YoTengoUnLCD
    Aug 10 at 7:41






  • 2




    @MartinBonner The reals are an integral domain. They are a very very special type of an integral domain given they are a field, and thus satisfy many more things than an integral domain must. An integral domain is just a commutative ring with no zero divisors. Fields get no zero divisors but they also get inverses which is much more.
    – DRF
    Aug 10 at 14:59







  • 3




    @MartinBonner "Integral" in "integral domain" has nothing to do with integration. Its meaning is closer to (but not equivalent to) "some sort of integer." Integral domains are a type of abstract-algebraic object that, in some sense, have all the "important" properties of the integers (and maybe more properties, but not less). Specific definitions can be found elsewhere, but colloquially this explains the name. The real numbers are an integral domain because they have all of the "important" properties of the integers and also a lot of other unrelated properties.
    – probably_someone
    Aug 10 at 15:38






  • 4




    @MartinBonner: An example of what is not an integral domain is the ring of $n times n$ real matrices. There are nonzero $n times n$ matrices $A,B$ such that $AB$ is the zero matrix. Another example is the ring of integers modulo $6$, because $2·3 equiv 0 pmod6$.
    – user21820
    Aug 10 at 17:04






  • 2




    @probably_someone Just for some etymological backup: I found a paper from 1908 that defines an integral domain as a subring of a "domain" (a field). Integers used to be known as integral numbers, and the integral numbers in the domain of rationals form an integral domain, in this old language. Some authors even use "domain" to mean a subring of a field (which is equivalent to saying there are no zerodivisors).
    – Kyle Miller
    Aug 10 at 20:50

















up vote
14
down vote













Alfred Yerger explains why factoring gives roots, but that does not explain the converse: why do roots give factors?



Let $p(x)$ be a polynomial with a root $c$. By long-division of $p(x)$ by $x-c$, we can write $p(x)=q(x)(x-c)+r$, where $r$ is the remainder (a constant since $x-c$ is a linear polynomial). Now, by substituting $x=c$, we get $p(c)=q(c)(c-c)+r$. Since $p(c)=0$ and $c-c=0$, we have $0=r$. That is, there was no remainder after all! Hence, the result of the long division is that $p(x)=q(x)(x-c)$. In other words, if we factor out $x-c$ from $p(x)$, we are left with a polynomial $q(x)$.



Something that is easy to miss with this is that in fact, $p(c)=q(c)(c-c)+r$. That is, $p(c)=r$, whether or not $c$ is actually a root. Thus, the long division will always give $p(x)=q(x)(x-c)+p(c)$. This is the basis of a computational technique called synthetic division which gives both $q(x)$ and $p(c)$. And, it takes about as much effort to calculate both as it does to calculate either on its own.






share|cite|improve this answer





























    up vote
    5
    down vote













    A polynomial of degree $d$ has exactly $d$ roots (Fundamental Theorem of Algebra), which can be complex and/or multiple.



    If you factor it in $n$ factors, the factors are also polynomial and their degrees are such that $d=d_1+d_2+cdots d_n$. This guarantees that no root "gets lost". On the other hand, any root of a factor is perforce a root of the initial polynomial.



    Hence the roots of a polynomial are exactly the roots of the factors. The reason we factor is that the roots of the factors can be easier to find than those of the original polynomial.




    In the case of polynomials with real coefficients, it can be more convenient to factor in first degree binomials for the real roots and second degree trinomials for the conjugate pairs. E.g. $x^3+2x^2+2x+1=(x+1)(x^2+x+1)$.






    share|cite|improve this answer






















      Your Answer




      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      );
      );
      , "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "69"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: false,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );








       

      draft saved


      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2877701%2fwhy-can-you-find-the-roots-a-of-polynomial-by-factoring-it%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest






























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      46
      down vote



      accepted










      It's not an assumption. It is a general fact that if $ab = 0$, then either $a = 0$ or $b = 0$. The roots of a polynomial are the numbers for which that polynomial evaluates to $0$, so to find the roots, it is enough to find the roots of the factors. So we factor everything as much as we can. In your case, this is a quadratic polynomial, so any factors are linear, and then it is obvious what the roots are.






      share|cite|improve this answer


















      • 10




        @DRF No need to over complicate an answer to a “precalc” tagged question, imo.
        – YoTengoUnLCD
        Aug 10 at 7:41






      • 2




        @MartinBonner The reals are an integral domain. They are a very very special type of an integral domain given they are a field, and thus satisfy many more things than an integral domain must. An integral domain is just a commutative ring with no zero divisors. Fields get no zero divisors but they also get inverses which is much more.
        – DRF
        Aug 10 at 14:59







      • 3




        @MartinBonner "Integral" in "integral domain" has nothing to do with integration. Its meaning is closer to (but not equivalent to) "some sort of integer." Integral domains are a type of abstract-algebraic object that, in some sense, have all the "important" properties of the integers (and maybe more properties, but not less). Specific definitions can be found elsewhere, but colloquially this explains the name. The real numbers are an integral domain because they have all of the "important" properties of the integers and also a lot of other unrelated properties.
        – probably_someone
        Aug 10 at 15:38






      • 4




        @MartinBonner: An example of what is not an integral domain is the ring of $n times n$ real matrices. There are nonzero $n times n$ matrices $A,B$ such that $AB$ is the zero matrix. Another example is the ring of integers modulo $6$, because $2·3 equiv 0 pmod6$.
        – user21820
        Aug 10 at 17:04






      • 2




        @probably_someone Just for some etymological backup: I found a paper from 1908 that defines an integral domain as a subring of a "domain" (a field). Integers used to be known as integral numbers, and the integral numbers in the domain of rationals form an integral domain, in this old language. Some authors even use "domain" to mean a subring of a field (which is equivalent to saying there are no zerodivisors).
        – Kyle Miller
        Aug 10 at 20:50














      up vote
      46
      down vote



      accepted










      It's not an assumption. It is a general fact that if $ab = 0$, then either $a = 0$ or $b = 0$. The roots of a polynomial are the numbers for which that polynomial evaluates to $0$, so to find the roots, it is enough to find the roots of the factors. So we factor everything as much as we can. In your case, this is a quadratic polynomial, so any factors are linear, and then it is obvious what the roots are.






      share|cite|improve this answer


















      • 10




        @DRF No need to over complicate an answer to a “precalc” tagged question, imo.
        – YoTengoUnLCD
        Aug 10 at 7:41






      • 2




        @MartinBonner The reals are an integral domain. They are a very very special type of an integral domain given they are a field, and thus satisfy many more things than an integral domain must. An integral domain is just a commutative ring with no zero divisors. Fields get no zero divisors but they also get inverses which is much more.
        – DRF
        Aug 10 at 14:59







      • 3




        @MartinBonner "Integral" in "integral domain" has nothing to do with integration. Its meaning is closer to (but not equivalent to) "some sort of integer." Integral domains are a type of abstract-algebraic object that, in some sense, have all the "important" properties of the integers (and maybe more properties, but not less). Specific definitions can be found elsewhere, but colloquially this explains the name. The real numbers are an integral domain because they have all of the "important" properties of the integers and also a lot of other unrelated properties.
        – probably_someone
        Aug 10 at 15:38






      • 4




        @MartinBonner: An example of what is not an integral domain is the ring of $n times n$ real matrices. There are nonzero $n times n$ matrices $A,B$ such that $AB$ is the zero matrix. Another example is the ring of integers modulo $6$, because $2·3 equiv 0 pmod6$.
        – user21820
        Aug 10 at 17:04






      • 2




        @probably_someone Just for some etymological backup: I found a paper from 1908 that defines an integral domain as a subring of a "domain" (a field). Integers used to be known as integral numbers, and the integral numbers in the domain of rationals form an integral domain, in this old language. Some authors even use "domain" to mean a subring of a field (which is equivalent to saying there are no zerodivisors).
        – Kyle Miller
        Aug 10 at 20:50












      up vote
      46
      down vote



      accepted







      up vote
      46
      down vote



      accepted






      It's not an assumption. It is a general fact that if $ab = 0$, then either $a = 0$ or $b = 0$. The roots of a polynomial are the numbers for which that polynomial evaluates to $0$, so to find the roots, it is enough to find the roots of the factors. So we factor everything as much as we can. In your case, this is a quadratic polynomial, so any factors are linear, and then it is obvious what the roots are.






      share|cite|improve this answer














      It's not an assumption. It is a general fact that if $ab = 0$, then either $a = 0$ or $b = 0$. The roots of a polynomial are the numbers for which that polynomial evaluates to $0$, so to find the roots, it is enough to find the roots of the factors. So we factor everything as much as we can. In your case, this is a quadratic polynomial, so any factors are linear, and then it is obvious what the roots are.







      share|cite|improve this answer














      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer








      edited Aug 9 at 21:14

























      answered Aug 9 at 21:12









      Alfred Yerger

      9,7952044




      9,7952044







      • 10




        @DRF No need to over complicate an answer to a “precalc” tagged question, imo.
        – YoTengoUnLCD
        Aug 10 at 7:41






      • 2




        @MartinBonner The reals are an integral domain. They are a very very special type of an integral domain given they are a field, and thus satisfy many more things than an integral domain must. An integral domain is just a commutative ring with no zero divisors. Fields get no zero divisors but they also get inverses which is much more.
        – DRF
        Aug 10 at 14:59







      • 3




        @MartinBonner "Integral" in "integral domain" has nothing to do with integration. Its meaning is closer to (but not equivalent to) "some sort of integer." Integral domains are a type of abstract-algebraic object that, in some sense, have all the "important" properties of the integers (and maybe more properties, but not less). Specific definitions can be found elsewhere, but colloquially this explains the name. The real numbers are an integral domain because they have all of the "important" properties of the integers and also a lot of other unrelated properties.
        – probably_someone
        Aug 10 at 15:38






      • 4




        @MartinBonner: An example of what is not an integral domain is the ring of $n times n$ real matrices. There are nonzero $n times n$ matrices $A,B$ such that $AB$ is the zero matrix. Another example is the ring of integers modulo $6$, because $2·3 equiv 0 pmod6$.
        – user21820
        Aug 10 at 17:04






      • 2




        @probably_someone Just for some etymological backup: I found a paper from 1908 that defines an integral domain as a subring of a "domain" (a field). Integers used to be known as integral numbers, and the integral numbers in the domain of rationals form an integral domain, in this old language. Some authors even use "domain" to mean a subring of a field (which is equivalent to saying there are no zerodivisors).
        – Kyle Miller
        Aug 10 at 20:50












      • 10




        @DRF No need to over complicate an answer to a “precalc” tagged question, imo.
        – YoTengoUnLCD
        Aug 10 at 7:41






      • 2




        @MartinBonner The reals are an integral domain. They are a very very special type of an integral domain given they are a field, and thus satisfy many more things than an integral domain must. An integral domain is just a commutative ring with no zero divisors. Fields get no zero divisors but they also get inverses which is much more.
        – DRF
        Aug 10 at 14:59







      • 3




        @MartinBonner "Integral" in "integral domain" has nothing to do with integration. Its meaning is closer to (but not equivalent to) "some sort of integer." Integral domains are a type of abstract-algebraic object that, in some sense, have all the "important" properties of the integers (and maybe more properties, but not less). Specific definitions can be found elsewhere, but colloquially this explains the name. The real numbers are an integral domain because they have all of the "important" properties of the integers and also a lot of other unrelated properties.
        – probably_someone
        Aug 10 at 15:38






      • 4




        @MartinBonner: An example of what is not an integral domain is the ring of $n times n$ real matrices. There are nonzero $n times n$ matrices $A,B$ such that $AB$ is the zero matrix. Another example is the ring of integers modulo $6$, because $2·3 equiv 0 pmod6$.
        – user21820
        Aug 10 at 17:04






      • 2




        @probably_someone Just for some etymological backup: I found a paper from 1908 that defines an integral domain as a subring of a "domain" (a field). Integers used to be known as integral numbers, and the integral numbers in the domain of rationals form an integral domain, in this old language. Some authors even use "domain" to mean a subring of a field (which is equivalent to saying there are no zerodivisors).
        – Kyle Miller
        Aug 10 at 20:50







      10




      10




      @DRF No need to over complicate an answer to a “precalc” tagged question, imo.
      – YoTengoUnLCD
      Aug 10 at 7:41




      @DRF No need to over complicate an answer to a “precalc” tagged question, imo.
      – YoTengoUnLCD
      Aug 10 at 7:41




      2




      2




      @MartinBonner The reals are an integral domain. They are a very very special type of an integral domain given they are a field, and thus satisfy many more things than an integral domain must. An integral domain is just a commutative ring with no zero divisors. Fields get no zero divisors but they also get inverses which is much more.
      – DRF
      Aug 10 at 14:59





      @MartinBonner The reals are an integral domain. They are a very very special type of an integral domain given they are a field, and thus satisfy many more things than an integral domain must. An integral domain is just a commutative ring with no zero divisors. Fields get no zero divisors but they also get inverses which is much more.
      – DRF
      Aug 10 at 14:59





      3




      3




      @MartinBonner "Integral" in "integral domain" has nothing to do with integration. Its meaning is closer to (but not equivalent to) "some sort of integer." Integral domains are a type of abstract-algebraic object that, in some sense, have all the "important" properties of the integers (and maybe more properties, but not less). Specific definitions can be found elsewhere, but colloquially this explains the name. The real numbers are an integral domain because they have all of the "important" properties of the integers and also a lot of other unrelated properties.
      – probably_someone
      Aug 10 at 15:38




      @MartinBonner "Integral" in "integral domain" has nothing to do with integration. Its meaning is closer to (but not equivalent to) "some sort of integer." Integral domains are a type of abstract-algebraic object that, in some sense, have all the "important" properties of the integers (and maybe more properties, but not less). Specific definitions can be found elsewhere, but colloquially this explains the name. The real numbers are an integral domain because they have all of the "important" properties of the integers and also a lot of other unrelated properties.
      – probably_someone
      Aug 10 at 15:38




      4




      4




      @MartinBonner: An example of what is not an integral domain is the ring of $n times n$ real matrices. There are nonzero $n times n$ matrices $A,B$ such that $AB$ is the zero matrix. Another example is the ring of integers modulo $6$, because $2·3 equiv 0 pmod6$.
      – user21820
      Aug 10 at 17:04




      @MartinBonner: An example of what is not an integral domain is the ring of $n times n$ real matrices. There are nonzero $n times n$ matrices $A,B$ such that $AB$ is the zero matrix. Another example is the ring of integers modulo $6$, because $2·3 equiv 0 pmod6$.
      – user21820
      Aug 10 at 17:04




      2




      2




      @probably_someone Just for some etymological backup: I found a paper from 1908 that defines an integral domain as a subring of a "domain" (a field). Integers used to be known as integral numbers, and the integral numbers in the domain of rationals form an integral domain, in this old language. Some authors even use "domain" to mean a subring of a field (which is equivalent to saying there are no zerodivisors).
      – Kyle Miller
      Aug 10 at 20:50




      @probably_someone Just for some etymological backup: I found a paper from 1908 that defines an integral domain as a subring of a "domain" (a field). Integers used to be known as integral numbers, and the integral numbers in the domain of rationals form an integral domain, in this old language. Some authors even use "domain" to mean a subring of a field (which is equivalent to saying there are no zerodivisors).
      – Kyle Miller
      Aug 10 at 20:50










      up vote
      14
      down vote













      Alfred Yerger explains why factoring gives roots, but that does not explain the converse: why do roots give factors?



      Let $p(x)$ be a polynomial with a root $c$. By long-division of $p(x)$ by $x-c$, we can write $p(x)=q(x)(x-c)+r$, where $r$ is the remainder (a constant since $x-c$ is a linear polynomial). Now, by substituting $x=c$, we get $p(c)=q(c)(c-c)+r$. Since $p(c)=0$ and $c-c=0$, we have $0=r$. That is, there was no remainder after all! Hence, the result of the long division is that $p(x)=q(x)(x-c)$. In other words, if we factor out $x-c$ from $p(x)$, we are left with a polynomial $q(x)$.



      Something that is easy to miss with this is that in fact, $p(c)=q(c)(c-c)+r$. That is, $p(c)=r$, whether or not $c$ is actually a root. Thus, the long division will always give $p(x)=q(x)(x-c)+p(c)$. This is the basis of a computational technique called synthetic division which gives both $q(x)$ and $p(c)$. And, it takes about as much effort to calculate both as it does to calculate either on its own.






      share|cite|improve this answer


























        up vote
        14
        down vote













        Alfred Yerger explains why factoring gives roots, but that does not explain the converse: why do roots give factors?



        Let $p(x)$ be a polynomial with a root $c$. By long-division of $p(x)$ by $x-c$, we can write $p(x)=q(x)(x-c)+r$, where $r$ is the remainder (a constant since $x-c$ is a linear polynomial). Now, by substituting $x=c$, we get $p(c)=q(c)(c-c)+r$. Since $p(c)=0$ and $c-c=0$, we have $0=r$. That is, there was no remainder after all! Hence, the result of the long division is that $p(x)=q(x)(x-c)$. In other words, if we factor out $x-c$ from $p(x)$, we are left with a polynomial $q(x)$.



        Something that is easy to miss with this is that in fact, $p(c)=q(c)(c-c)+r$. That is, $p(c)=r$, whether or not $c$ is actually a root. Thus, the long division will always give $p(x)=q(x)(x-c)+p(c)$. This is the basis of a computational technique called synthetic division which gives both $q(x)$ and $p(c)$. And, it takes about as much effort to calculate both as it does to calculate either on its own.






        share|cite|improve this answer
























          up vote
          14
          down vote










          up vote
          14
          down vote









          Alfred Yerger explains why factoring gives roots, but that does not explain the converse: why do roots give factors?



          Let $p(x)$ be a polynomial with a root $c$. By long-division of $p(x)$ by $x-c$, we can write $p(x)=q(x)(x-c)+r$, where $r$ is the remainder (a constant since $x-c$ is a linear polynomial). Now, by substituting $x=c$, we get $p(c)=q(c)(c-c)+r$. Since $p(c)=0$ and $c-c=0$, we have $0=r$. That is, there was no remainder after all! Hence, the result of the long division is that $p(x)=q(x)(x-c)$. In other words, if we factor out $x-c$ from $p(x)$, we are left with a polynomial $q(x)$.



          Something that is easy to miss with this is that in fact, $p(c)=q(c)(c-c)+r$. That is, $p(c)=r$, whether or not $c$ is actually a root. Thus, the long division will always give $p(x)=q(x)(x-c)+p(c)$. This is the basis of a computational technique called synthetic division which gives both $q(x)$ and $p(c)$. And, it takes about as much effort to calculate both as it does to calculate either on its own.






          share|cite|improve this answer














          Alfred Yerger explains why factoring gives roots, but that does not explain the converse: why do roots give factors?



          Let $p(x)$ be a polynomial with a root $c$. By long-division of $p(x)$ by $x-c$, we can write $p(x)=q(x)(x-c)+r$, where $r$ is the remainder (a constant since $x-c$ is a linear polynomial). Now, by substituting $x=c$, we get $p(c)=q(c)(c-c)+r$. Since $p(c)=0$ and $c-c=0$, we have $0=r$. That is, there was no remainder after all! Hence, the result of the long division is that $p(x)=q(x)(x-c)$. In other words, if we factor out $x-c$ from $p(x)$, we are left with a polynomial $q(x)$.



          Something that is easy to miss with this is that in fact, $p(c)=q(c)(c-c)+r$. That is, $p(c)=r$, whether or not $c$ is actually a root. Thus, the long division will always give $p(x)=q(x)(x-c)+p(c)$. This is the basis of a computational technique called synthetic division which gives both $q(x)$ and $p(c)$. And, it takes about as much effort to calculate both as it does to calculate either on its own.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Aug 9 at 22:45

























          answered Aug 9 at 22:19









          Kyle Miller

          7,044725




          7,044725




















              up vote
              5
              down vote













              A polynomial of degree $d$ has exactly $d$ roots (Fundamental Theorem of Algebra), which can be complex and/or multiple.



              If you factor it in $n$ factors, the factors are also polynomial and their degrees are such that $d=d_1+d_2+cdots d_n$. This guarantees that no root "gets lost". On the other hand, any root of a factor is perforce a root of the initial polynomial.



              Hence the roots of a polynomial are exactly the roots of the factors. The reason we factor is that the roots of the factors can be easier to find than those of the original polynomial.




              In the case of polynomials with real coefficients, it can be more convenient to factor in first degree binomials for the real roots and second degree trinomials for the conjugate pairs. E.g. $x^3+2x^2+2x+1=(x+1)(x^2+x+1)$.






              share|cite|improve this answer


























                up vote
                5
                down vote













                A polynomial of degree $d$ has exactly $d$ roots (Fundamental Theorem of Algebra), which can be complex and/or multiple.



                If you factor it in $n$ factors, the factors are also polynomial and their degrees are such that $d=d_1+d_2+cdots d_n$. This guarantees that no root "gets lost". On the other hand, any root of a factor is perforce a root of the initial polynomial.



                Hence the roots of a polynomial are exactly the roots of the factors. The reason we factor is that the roots of the factors can be easier to find than those of the original polynomial.




                In the case of polynomials with real coefficients, it can be more convenient to factor in first degree binomials for the real roots and second degree trinomials for the conjugate pairs. E.g. $x^3+2x^2+2x+1=(x+1)(x^2+x+1)$.






                share|cite|improve this answer
























                  up vote
                  5
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  5
                  down vote









                  A polynomial of degree $d$ has exactly $d$ roots (Fundamental Theorem of Algebra), which can be complex and/or multiple.



                  If you factor it in $n$ factors, the factors are also polynomial and their degrees are such that $d=d_1+d_2+cdots d_n$. This guarantees that no root "gets lost". On the other hand, any root of a factor is perforce a root of the initial polynomial.



                  Hence the roots of a polynomial are exactly the roots of the factors. The reason we factor is that the roots of the factors can be easier to find than those of the original polynomial.




                  In the case of polynomials with real coefficients, it can be more convenient to factor in first degree binomials for the real roots and second degree trinomials for the conjugate pairs. E.g. $x^3+2x^2+2x+1=(x+1)(x^2+x+1)$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  A polynomial of degree $d$ has exactly $d$ roots (Fundamental Theorem of Algebra), which can be complex and/or multiple.



                  If you factor it in $n$ factors, the factors are also polynomial and their degrees are such that $d=d_1+d_2+cdots d_n$. This guarantees that no root "gets lost". On the other hand, any root of a factor is perforce a root of the initial polynomial.



                  Hence the roots of a polynomial are exactly the roots of the factors. The reason we factor is that the roots of the factors can be easier to find than those of the original polynomial.




                  In the case of polynomials with real coefficients, it can be more convenient to factor in first degree binomials for the real roots and second degree trinomials for the conjugate pairs. E.g. $x^3+2x^2+2x+1=(x+1)(x^2+x+1)$.







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited Aug 9 at 21:27

























                  answered Aug 9 at 21:22









                  Yves Daoust

                  112k665205




                  112k665205






















                       

                      draft saved


                      draft discarded


























                       


                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2877701%2fwhy-can-you-find-the-roots-a-of-polynomial-by-factoring-it%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest













































































                      這個網誌中的熱門文章

                      How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

                      Carbon dioxide

                      Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?