Remainder Theorem

Everyone loves to find a shortcut whether it involves driving directions or some

other type of long task. Discovering a quicker and more efficient way to arrive at the
same end point makes you feel good since you've most likely saved time, effort,
and/or money. Math is filled with these types of shortcuts and one of the more useful
ones is the remainder theorem.
The remainder theorem states that when a polynomial, f(x), is divided by a linear
polynomial , x - a, the remainder of that division will be equivalent to f(a). In other
words, if you want to evaluate the function f(x) for a given number, a, you can divide
that function by x - a and your remainder will be equal to f(a).
It should be noted that the remainder theorem only works when a function is
divided by a linear polynomial, which is of the form x + number or x - number. How
does the remainder theorem save you time? Let's find out.
Remainder Theorem Function
The remainder theorem is especially useful when it is paired with synthetic
division. If you remember, synthetic division is an alternate method to quickly and
easily divide polynomials instead of using long division. Also, remember that in
synthetic division, the number in the bottom row in the last column on the right is the
remainder. Thus, rather than plugging a value in and using order of operations, you
can use synthetic division as a way to evaluate a polynomial for a given value.
Additionally, synthetic division and the remainder theorem can be used to
determine if a value is a zero of a function. Hopefully, you remember that a zero of a
function, by definition, is any point c, where f(c) = 0. Therefore, if you find a
remainder of zero after performing synthetic division, the number listed out front,
referred to as a in the definition above, evaluates to zero, or f(a) = 0.
Note, that you can use long division instead of synthetic division, but it's almost
always faster and easier to use synthetic division.

Fundamental theorem
In mathematics, a fundamental theorem is a theorem which is considered to be
central and conceptually important for some topic. For example, the fundamental
theorem of calculus gives the relationship between differential calculus and integral
calculus.The names are mostly traditional, so that for example the fundamental
theorem of arithmetic is basic to what would now be called number theory.
Likewise, the mathematical literature sometimes refers to the fundamental lemma
of a field. The term lemma is conventionally used to denote a proven proposition
which is used as a stepping stone to a larger result, rather than as a useful statement
in-and-of itself.The fundamental theorem of a field of mathematics is the theorem
considered central to that field. The naming of such a theorem is not necessarily based
on how often it is used or the difficulty of its proofs.
For example, the fundamental theorem of calculus gives the relationship between
differential calculus and integral calculus, which are two distinct branches that are not
obviously related. Being "fundamental" does not necessarily mean that it is the most
basic result. For example, the proof of the fundamental theorem of arithmetic requires
Euclid's lemma, which in turn requires Bézout's identity.
The names are mostly traditional, so that for example the fundamental theorem of
arithmetic is basic to what would now be called number theory.
The mathematical literature sometimes refers to the fundamental lemma of a
field. The term lemma is conventionally used to denote a proven proposition which is
used as a stepping stone to a larger result rather than as a useful statement in-and-of
itself. The fundamental lemma of a field is often, but not always, the same as the
fundamental theorem of that field.

Conjugate Root Theorem

The Conjugate Root Theorem states that if $P(x)$ is a polynomial with real
coefficients, and $a+bi$ is a root of the equation $P(x) = 0$, where $i = \sqrt{-1}$,
then $a-bi$ is also a root. A similar theorem states that if $P(x)$ is a polynomial with
rational coefficients and $a+b\sqrt{c}$ is a root of the polynomial, then $a-b\sqrt{c}$
is also a root.

Proof
Suppose that $P(a + bi) = 0$. Then $\overline{P(a + bi)} = 0$. However, we
know that $\overline{P(a + bi)} = \overline{P}(\overline{a + bi}) = P(a - bi)$, where
we define $\overline{P}$ to be the polynomial with the coefficients replaced with
their complex conjugates; we know that $\overline{P} = P$ by the assumption that
$P$ has real coefficients. Thusly, we show that $P(a - bi) = 0$, and we are done.

Uses
This has many uses. If you get a fourth degree polynomial, and you are given that
a number in the form of $a+bi$ is a root, then you know that $a-bi$ in the root. Using
the Factor Theorem, you know that $(x-(a+bi))(x-(a-bi))$ is also a root. Thus, you can
multiply that out, and divide it by the original polynomial, to get a depressed
quadratic equation. Of course, it doesn't have to be a fourth degree polynomial. It
could just simplify it a bit.

Rational root theorem

In algebra, the rational root theorem (or rational root test, rational zero theorem,
rational zero test or p/q theorem) states a constraint on rational solutions of a
polynomial equation
The theorem states that each rational solution x = p⁄q, written in lowest terms so
that p and q are relatively prime, satisfies:

p is an integer factor of the constant term a0, and

q is an integer factor of the leading coefficient an.
The rational root theorem is a special case (for a single linear factor) of Gauss's
lemma on the factorization of polynomials. The integral root theorem is the special
case of the rational root theorem when the leading coefficient is an = 1.
The theorem is used to find all rational roots of a polynomial, if any. It gives a finite
number of possible fractions which can be checked to see if they are roots. If a
rational root x = r is found, a linear polynomial (x – r) can be factored out of the
polynomial using polynomial long division, resulting in a polynomial of lower degree
whose roots are also roots of the original polynomial.

Cubic equation
The general cubic equation
ax3+bx2+cx+d=0
with integer coefficients has three solutions in the complex plane. If the rational root
test finds no rational solutions, then the only way to express the solutions
algebraically uses cube roots. But if the test finds a rational solution r, then factoring
out (x-r) leaves a quadratic polynomial whose two roots, found with the quadratic
formula, are the remaining two roots of the cubic, avoiding cube roots.
Examples
First
In the polynomial

2x3+x-1,
any rational root fully reduced would have to have a numerator that divides evenly
into 1 and a denominator that divides evenly into 2. Hence the only possible rational
roots are ±1/2 and ±1; since neither of these equates the polynomial to zero, it has no
rational roots.

Second
In the polynomial

X3-7x+6,
the only possible rational roots would have a numerator that divides 6 and a
denominator that divides 1, limiting the possibilities to ±1, ±2, ±3, and ±6. Of these,
1, 2, and –3 equate the polynomial to zero, and hence are its rational roots. (In fact
these are its only roots since a cubic has only three roots; in general, a polynomial
could have some rational and some irrational roots.)
Third
Every rational root of the polynomial

3x3-5x2+5x-2
must be among the numbers symbolically indicated by:

+-1,2/1,3=+-(1,2,1/3,2/3)
These 8 root candidates x = r can be tested by evaluating P(r), for example using
Honer's method. It turns out there is exactly one with P(r) = 0.

This process may be made more efficient: if P(r) ≠ 0, it can be used to shorten the list
of remaining candidates.For example, x = 1 does not work, as P(1) = 1. Substituting x
= 1 + t yields a polynomial in t with constant term P(1) = 1, while the coefficient of t3
remains the same as the coefficient of x3. Applying the rational root theorem thus
yields the possible roots t=+-1/1,3, so that

X=1+t=2,0,4/3,2/3
True roots must occur on both lists, so list of rational root candidates has shrunk to
just x = 2 and x = 2/3.

If k ≥ 1 rational roots are found, Horner's method will also yield a polynomial of
degree n − k whose roots, together with the rational roots, are exactly the roots of the
original polynomial. If none of the candidates is a solution, there can be no rational
solution.

Descartes' Rule of Signs

Descartes' Rule of Signs is a useful help for finding the zeroes of a polynomial,
assuming that you don't have the graph to look at. This topic isn't so useful if you
have access to a graphing calculator because, rather than having to do guess-n-check
to find the zeroes (using the Rational Roots Test, Descartes' Rule of Signs, synthetic
division, and other tools), you can just look at the picture on the screen. But if you
need to use it, the Rule is actually quite simple.

Use Descartes' Rule of Signs to determine the number of real zeroes of:
f (x) = x5–x4+ 3x3 + 9x2–x + 5
Descartes' Rule of Signs will not tell me where the polynomial's zeroes are (I'll need
to use the Rational Roots Test and synthetic division, or draw a graph, to actually find
the roots), but the Rule will tell me how many roots I can expect, and of which type.

First, I'll look at the polynomial as it stands, not changing the sign on x. This is the
positive-root case:

f (x) = x5–x4 + 3x3+ 9x2–x + 5

Ignoring the actual values of the coefficients, I then look at the signs on those
coefficients:

f (x) = +x5–x4 + 3x3+ 9x2–x + 5

Starting out on this homework, I'll draw little lines underneath to highlight where the
signs change from positive to negative or from negative to positive from one term to
the next. This isn't required, but it'll help me keep track of things while I'm still
learning.
Then I count the number of changes:

There are four sign changes in the positive-root case. This number "four" is the
maximum possible number of positive zeroes (that is, all the positive x-intercepts) for
the polynomial f (x) = x5–x4 + 3x3+ 9x2–x + 5

However, some of the roots may be generated by the Quadratic Formula, and these
pairs of roots may be complex and thus not graphable as x-intercepts. Because of this
possibility, I have to count down by two's to find the complete list of the possible
number of zeroes. That is, while there may be as many as four real zeroes, there might
also be only two positive real zeroes, and there might also be zero (that is, there might
be none at all).

I've finished the positive-root case, so now I look at f (–x). That is, having changed
the sign on x, I'm now doing the negative-root case:

f (–x) = (–x)5–(–x)4 + 3(–x)3+ 9(–x)2–(–x) + 5

= –x5–x4–3x3+ 9x2+ x + 5

I look at the signs:

f (–x) =–x5–x4–3x3+ 9x2+ x + 5

...and I count the number of sign changes:

There is only one sign change in this negative-root case, so there is exactly one
negative root. (In this case, I don't try to count down by two's, because the first
subtraction would give me a negative number.)