Skip to main content

equation solving - How to get exact roots of this polynomial?


The equation 64x7−112x5−8x4+56x3+8x2−7x−1=0

has seven solutions x=1, x=−12 and x=cos2nπ11, where n runs from 1 to 5. With NSolve, I tried


NSolve[64 x^7 - 112 x^5 - 8 x^4 + 56 x^3 + 8 x^2 - 7 x - 1 == 0, x, Reals]


and I get


{{x -> -0.959493}, {x -> -0.654861}, {x -> -0.5}, {x -> -0.142315}, \
{x -> 0.415415}, {x -> 0.841254}, {x -> 1.}}

With Solve, I tried


{{x -> -(1/2)}, {x -> 1}, 
{x -> Root[1 + 6 #1 - 12 #1^2 - 32 #1^3 + 16 #1^4 + 32 #1^5 &, 1]},
{x -> Root[1 + 6 #1 - 12 #1^2 - 32 #1^3 + 16 #1^4 + 32 #1^5 &, 2]},
{x -> Root[1 + 6 #1 - 12 #1^2 - 32 #1^3 + 16 #1^4 + 32 #1^5 &, 3]},
{x -> Root[1 + 6 #1 - 12 #1^2 - 32 #1^3 + 16 #1^4 + 32 #1^5 &, 4]},

{x -> Root[1 + 6 #1 - 12 #1^2 - 32 #1^3 + 16 #1^4 + 32 #1^5 &, 5]}}

How to get exact solutions of the given equation?



Answer



Since we ask if the numbers xn=cos(2nπ11) are the actual roots of the polynomial :


p[x_] := 64 x^7 - 112 x^5 - 8 x^4 + 56 x^3 + 8 x^2 - 7 x - 1

any numerical approach cannot be sufficient and in order to prove the statement we should proceed with a symbolic approach. Nevertheless NSolve may guarantee that all the roots could be represented in terms of values of trigonometrical functions like Sin or Cos for real arguments since we have :


And @@ ( -1 <= x <= 1 /. NSolve[ p[x] == 0, x] )



True

The five of the roots are represented in terms of the Root objects, and only two of them have been rewritten by built-in rewrite rules as rational numbers :


r = List @@ Roots[64 x^7 - 112 x^5 - 8 x^4 + 56 x^3 + 8 x^2 - 7 x - 1 == 0, x][[All, 2]];
r[[5 ;;]]


{ Root[1 + 6 #1 - 12 #1^2 - 32 #1^3 + 16 #1^4 + 32 #1^5 &, 5], -(1/2), 1}


Now we can experss r[[;;5]] in terms of Cos (it is possible as we have shown above), we can do it this way :


ArcCos @ r[[;; 5]] // FullSimplify


{ 10π/11, 8π/11, 6 π/11, 4π/11, 2π/11}

We might also use ArcSin as well. Let`s verify if they are equal :


Table[ Root[1 + 6 #1 - 12 #1^2 - 32 #1^3 + 16 #1^4 + 32 #1^5 &, k] - Cos[2(6 - k)Ï€/11],
{k, 5}] // RootReduce



{0, 0, 0, 0, 0}

Well, indeed these are the roots of the polynomial p(x). One observes that FullSimplify cannot reduce the above Table with the standard built-in rewrite rules unless one uses e.g. Table[ Root[...] - Cos[...], {k,5}]// FullSimplify[#, TransformationFunctions -> RootReduce]&.


Another way which might be helpful in more involved cases would be e.g. mapping PossibleZeroQ, however we have to remember that PossibleZeroQ provides a quick but not always accurate test.


Edit


Since all the roots can be represented as Sin or Cos for real arguments, it would be a good idea to explain what is so specific behind the polynomial p[x]. We can reach a general view working with a transformation pointed out by whuber in the comments.


g[z_] := (p[x] /. x -> (z + 1/z)/2) 2 z^Exponent[p[x], x]
g[z] // Factor



(-1 + z)^2 (1 + z + z^2) (1 + z + z^2 + z^3 + z^4 + z^5 + z^6 + z^7 + z^8 + z^9 + z^10)

All the roots of g[z] are roots of unity :


And @@ RootOfUnityQ[ List @@ Roots[ g[z] == 0, z][[All, 2]] ]


True

moreover all the polynomial factors of g[z] are cyclotomic polynomials, respectively C21(z), C3(z) and C11(z) (see Cyclotomic), so we have :



Times @@ (Cyclotomic[#, z] & /@ {1, 1, 3, 11}) == g[z] // Factor


True

Following in reverse direction we would generate more polynomials with the roots expressible in terms of sin or cos functions on rational multiples of π.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

mathematical optimization - Minimizing using indices, error: Part::pkspec1: The expression cannot be used as a part specification

I want to use Minimize where the variables to minimize are indices pointing into an array. Here a MWE that hopefully shows what my problem is. vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@ { Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; Minimize[{Total@((vec1[[#]] - vec2[[u[#]]])^2 & /@ Range[1, 3]), cons}, vars, Integers] The error I get: Part::pkspec1: The expression u[1] cannot be used as a part specification. >> Answer Ok, it seems that one can get around Mathematica trying to evaluate vec2[[u[1]]] too early by using the function Indexed[vec2,u[1]] . The working MWE would then look like the following: vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@{ Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; NMinimize[ {Total@((vec1[[#]] - Indexed[vec2, u[#]])^2 & /@ R...

functions - Get leading series expansion term?

Given a function f[x] , I would like to have a function leadingSeries that returns just the leading term in the series around x=0 . For example: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x)] x and leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x^3)/4)/(4 + x)] -(1/(16 x^3)) Is there such a function in Mathematica? Or maybe one can implement it efficiently? EDIT I finally went with the following implementation, based on Carl Woll 's answer: lds[ex_,x_]:=( (ex/.x->(x+O[x]^2))/.SeriesData[U_,Z_,L_List,Mi_,Ma_,De_]:>SeriesData[U,Z,{L[[1]]},Mi,Mi+1,De]//Quiet//Normal) The advantage is, that this one also properly works with functions whose leading term is a constant: lds[Exp[x],x] 1 Answer Update 1 Updated to eliminate SeriesData and to not return additional terms Perhaps you could use: leadingSeries[expr_, x_] := Normal[expr /. x->(x+O[x]^2) /. a_List :> Take[a, 1]] Then for your examples: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x), x] leadingSeries[Exp[x], x] leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x...

What is and isn't a valid variable specification for Manipulate?

I have an expression whose terms have arguments (representing subscripts), like this: myExpr = A[0] + V[1,T] I would like to put it inside a Manipulate to see its value as I move around the parameters. (The goal is eventually to plot it wrt one of the variables inside.) However, Mathematica complains when I set V[1,T] as a manipulated variable: Manipulate[Evaluate[myExpr], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, T], 0, 1}] (*Manipulate::vsform: Manipulate argument {V[1,T],0,1} does not have the correct form for a variable specification. >> *) As a workaround, if I get rid of the symbol T inside the argument, it works fine: Manipulate[ Evaluate[myExpr /. T -> 15], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, 15], 0, 1}] Why this behavior? Can anyone point me to the documentation that says what counts as a valid variable? And is there a way to get Manpiulate to accept an expression with a symbolic argument as a variable? Investigations I've done so far: I tried using variableQ from this answer , but it says V[1...