MHB Solving 8 Roots: Can 3 Quadratic Polynomials Fulfill $f(g(h(x)))=0$?

anemone
Gold Member
MHB
POTW Director
Messages
3,851
Reaction score
115
Is it possible to find three quadratic polynomials $f(x),\,g(x)$ and $h(x)$ such that the equation $f(g(h(x)))=0$ has the eight roots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Suppose there are such $f,\,g,\,h$. Then $h(1),\,h(2),\cdots,\,h(8)$ will be the roots of the 4th degree polynomial $f(g(x))$. Since $h(a)=h(b),\,a\ne b$ if and only if $a$ and $b$ are symmetric with respect to the axis of the parabola, it follows that $h(1)=h(8),\,h(2)=h(7),\,h(3)=h(6),\,h(4)=h(5)$ and the parabola $y=h(x)$ is symmetric with respect to $x=\dfrac{9}{2}$. Also, we have either $h(1)<h(2)<h(3)<h(4)$ or $h(1)>h(2)>h(3)>h(4)$.

Now, $g(h(1)),\,g(h(2)),\,g(h(3)),\,g(h(4))$ are the roots of the quadratic polynomial $f(x)$, so $g(h(1))=g(h(4))$ and $g(h(2))=g(h(3))$ , which implies $h(1)+h(4)=h(2)+h(3)$. For $h(x)=Ax^2+Bx+C$, this would force $A=0$, a contradiction.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...

Similar threads

Back
Top