Zeros of reciprocal functions and transformed

In summary, the discussion is about two different approaches to finding the roots of a cubic equation. The first approach, proposed by Kaliprasad, involves using the fact that if $a,b,c$ are roots of $x^3-x-1=0$, then $\frac{1}{a},\frac{1}{b},\frac{1}{c}$ are roots of $\frac{1}{x^3}-\frac{1}{x}-1=0$. The second approach, proposed by anemone, involves transforming the original equation into $f(x-1)=x^3-3x^2+2x-1$ which has roots at $a+1,b+1,c+1
  • #1
Amad27
412
1
Hello,

I was recently browsing the thread,

http://mathhelpboards.com/challenge-questions-puzzles-28/evaluate-1-1-1-b-1-b-1-c-1-c-12074.html

And I was browsing both, Kaliprasad's method and anemone's method.

Lets take Kaliprasad's approach first. My question is about the reciprocal zeros, NOT the actual problem... =)

Anywho, it says at the start of his answer,

$a, b, c$ are roots of $x^3 - x - 1 = 0$ and therefore,
$\frac{1}{a} , \frac{1}{b}, \frac{1}{c}$ are the roots of $\frac{1}{x^3} - \frac{1}{x} - 1$

I just want to know the mechanism, behind this. How is this true, what makes this true (more or less)? SECONDLY, anemone's answer, she states,

"We're told that $a, b, c$ are the roots of $f(x) = x^3 - x - 1$, hence the function,

$f(x - 1) = (x-1)^3 - (x-1) - 1 = x^3 - 3x^2 + 2x - 1$ has roots $(a+1), (b+1), (c+1)$

Again, what is the mechanism?

Is there are proof for any of the two?

THANKS!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Olok said:
Hello,

I was recently browsing the thread,

http://mathhelpboards.com/challenge-questions-puzzles-28/evaluate-1-1-1-b-1-b-1-c-1-c-12074.html

And I was browsing both, Kaliprasad's method and anemone's method.

Lets take Kaliprasad's approach first. My question is about the reciprocal zeros, NOT the actual problem... =)

Anywho, it says at the start of his answer,

$a, b, c$ are roots of $x^3 - x - 1 = 0$ and therefore,
$\frac{1}{a} , \frac{1}{b}, \frac{1}{c}$ are the roots of $\frac{1}{x^3} - \frac{1}{x} - 1$

I just want to know the mechanism, behind this. How is this true, what makes this true (more or less)? SECONDLY, anemone's answer, she states,

"We're told that $a, b, c$ are the roots of $f(x) = x^3 - x - 1$, hence the function,

$f(x - 1) = (x-1)^3 - (x-1) - 1 = x^3 - 3x^2 + 2x - 1$ has roots $(a+1), (b+1), (c+1)$

Again, what is the mechanism?

Is there are proof for any of the two?

THANKS!

Suppose that we have:

$f(x) = x^3 - x - 1 = (x - a)(x - b)(x - c) = 0$.

Suppose further, that we let $y = \dfrac{1}{x}$ (assuming that none of $a,b,c$ are 0).

Then $x = \dfrac{1}{y}$ so:

$f(x) = f\left(\frac{1}{y}\right) = \left(\frac{1}{y} - a\right)\left(\frac{1}{y} - b\right)\left(\frac{1}{y} - c\right)$.

If this is 0, one of the three factors must be 0, so, for example, if:

$\frac{1}{y} - a = 0$ then:

$\frac{1}{y} = a$, and thus:

$y = \frac{1}{\left(\frac{1}{y}\right)} = \frac{1}{a}$.

This is because if $c,d \neq 0$ then:

$c = d \iff \frac{1}{c} = \frac{1}{d}$.

Remember we decide equality of two fractions by "cross-multiplying":

if $\frac{1}{c} = \frac{1}{d}$, this means that $(1)(d) = (c)(1)$, that is $c = d$.

Now there is one thing we need to be careful of: we need to be sure 0 is not a root of $f$.

But $f$ has a non-zero constant term, that is: $f(0) \neq 0$, so we are good.

See if you can do the same thing with your second question, letting $y = x + 1$.
 
  • #3
Deveno said:
Suppose that we have:

$f(x) = x^3 - x - 1 = (x - a)(x - b)(x - c) = 0$.

Suppose further, that we let $y = \dfrac{1}{x}$ (assuming that none of $a,b,c$ are 0).

Then $x = \dfrac{1}{y}$ so:

$f(x) = f\left(\frac{1}{y}\right) = \left(\frac{1}{y} - a\right)\left(\frac{1}{y} - b\right)\left(\frac{1}{y} - c\right)$.

If this is 0, one of the three factors must be 0, so, for example, if:

$\frac{1}{y} - a = 0$ then:

$\frac{1}{y} = a$, and thus:

$y = \frac{1}{\left(\frac{1}{y}\right)} = \frac{1}{a}$.

This is because if $c,d \neq 0$ then:

$c = d \iff \frac{1}{c} = \frac{1}{d}$.

Remember we decide equality of two fractions by "cross-multiplying":

if $\frac{1}{c} = \frac{1}{d}$, this means that $(1)(d) = (c)(1)$, that is $c = d$.

Now there is one thing we need to be careful of: we need to be sure 0 is not a root of $f$.

But $f$ has a non-zero constant term, that is: $f(0) \neq 0$, so we are good.

See if you can do the same thing with your second question, letting $y = x + 1$.

Hi, just a remark,

$f(x) = f\left(\frac{1}{y}\right) = \left(\frac{1}{y} - a\right)\left(\frac{1}{y} - b\right)\left(\frac{1}{y} - c\right)$.

Then you get (properly),

$\frac{1}{y} - a = 0$
Which becomes

$\frac{1}{y} = a$
Finally,

$y = \frac{1}{\left(\frac{1}{y}\right)} = \frac{1}{a}$

This proves the zero is at $y = \frac{1}{a}$

We were wondering how it proves the zero is at $x = \frac{1}{a}$??
 
  • #4
Deveno said:
Suppose that we have:

$f(x) = x^3 - x - 1 = (x - a)(x - b)(x - c) = 0$.

Suppose further, that we let $y = \dfrac{1}{x}$ (assuming that none of $a,b,c$ are 0).

Then $x = \dfrac{1}{y}$ so:

$f(x) = f\left(\frac{1}{y}\right) = \left(\frac{1}{y} - a\right)\left(\frac{1}{y} - b\right)\left(\frac{1}{y} - c\right)$.

If this is 0, one of the three factors must be 0, so, for example, if:

$\frac{1}{y} - a = 0$ then:

$\frac{1}{y} = a$, and thus:

$y = \frac{1}{\left(\frac{1}{y}\right)} = \frac{1}{a}$.

This is because if $c,d \neq 0$ then:

$c = d \iff \frac{1}{c} = \frac{1}{d}$.

Remember we decide equality of two fractions by "cross-multiplying":

if $\frac{1}{c} = \frac{1}{d}$, this means that $(1)(d) = (c)(1)$, that is $c = d$.

Now there is one thing we need to be careful of: we need to be sure 0 is not a root of $f$.

But $f$ has a non-zero constant term, that is: $f(0) \neq 0$, so we are good.

See if you can do the same thing with your second question, letting $y = x + 1$.

I reflected upon this, and came up with a new, better idea.

$f(x) = x^3 - x + 1$

$f(\frac{1}{x}) = \frac{1}{x^3} - \frac{1}{x} + 1 = (\frac{1}{x}-a)(\frac{1}{x}-b)(\frac{1}{x}-c)$Considering $a, b, c$ being the roots.

Let's set $f(\frac{1}{x}) = 0$ This would imply,

$(\frac{1}{x}-a)(\frac{1}{x}-b)(\frac{1}{x}-c) = 0$

Which breaks up into three parts,

$(\frac{1}{x}-a) = 0 \implies x = \frac{1}{a}$
$(\frac{1}{x}-b) = 0 \implies x = \frac{1}{b}$
$(\frac{1}{x}-c) = 0 \implies x = \frac{1}{c}$

We have proved that the reciprocal,

$f(x) \implies f(\frac{1}{x})$ has zeros, which are reciprocals themselves, since.

$f(\frac{1}{x}) = \frac{1}{f(x)}$

Thanks! (There is no question involved, I just want to put this out there, if anyone else was confused!)
 
  • #5
Olok said:
Let's set $f(\frac{1}{x}) = 0$ This would imply,

$(\frac{1}{x}-a)(\frac{1}{x}-b)(\frac{1}{x}-c) = 0$

Which breaks up into three parts,

$(\frac{1}{x}-a) = 0 \implies x = \frac{1}{a}$
$(\frac{1}{x}-b) = 0 \implies x = \frac{1}{b}$
$(\frac{1}{x}-c) = 0 \implies x = \frac{1}{c}$

We have proved that the reciprocal,
Up to here it makes sense.

Olok said:
$f(x) \implies f(\frac{1}{x})$ has zeros, which are reciprocals themselves
I would say, $x_0$ is a root of $f(x)$ $\implies$ $1/x_0$ is a root of $f(1/x)$ (provided $x_0\ne0$).

Olok said:
since.

$f(\frac{1}{x}) = \frac{1}{f(x)}$
But this is definitely not true, even for this $f(x)$.

Olok said:
$a, b, c$ are roots of $x^3 - x - 1 = 0$ and therefore,
$\frac{1}{a} , \frac{1}{b}, \frac{1}{c}$ are the roots of $\frac{1}{x^3} - \frac{1}{x} - 1$

...

We're told that $a, b, c$ are the roots of $f(x) = x^3 - x - 1$, hence the function,

$f(x - 1) = (x-1)^3 - (x-1) - 1 = x^3 - 3x^2 + 2x - 1$ has roots $(a+1), (b+1), (c+1)$

Again, what is the mechanism?
In general, suppose that $f(x_0)=y_0$ and let $F(x)=f(g(x))$. Let $x_1=g^{-1}(x_0)$, i.e., $g(x_1)=x_0$, if such $x_1$ exists. Then $F(x_1)=y_0$. Indeed, $F(x_1)=f(g(x_1))=f(x_0)=y_0$. What you are doing in forming $F$ is pre-applying $g$ to the argument before applying $f$. But $x_1$ cancels this because it applies the inverse of $g$ to $x_0$. We have the following chain.
\[
x_0\overset{g^{-1}}{\longmapsto} x_1\mathrel{\overbrace{\overset{g}{\longmapsto} x_0\overset{f}{\longmapsto}}^F} y_0
\]
In Kaliprasad's approach, $g(x)=1/x$ and $x_1=1/x_0$, so that $g(x_1)=x_0$. In anemone's approach, $g(x)=x-1$ and $x_1=x_0+1$, so that $g(x_1)=x_0$.
 
  • #6
Evgeny.Makarov said:
Up to here it makes sense.

I would say, $x_0$ is a root of $f(x)$ $\implies$ $1/x_0$ is a root of $f(1/x)$ (provided $x_0\ne0$).

But this is definitely not true, even for this $f(x)$.

In general, suppose that $f(x_0)=y_0$ and let $F(x)=f(g(x))$. Let $x_1=g^{-1}(x_0)$, i.e., $g(x_1)=x_0$, if such $x_1$ exists. Then $F(x_1)=y_0$. Indeed, $F(x_1)=f(g(x_1))=f(x_0)=y_0$. What you are doing in forming $F$ is pre-applying $g$ to the argument before applying $f$. But $x_1$ cancels this because it applies the inverse of $g$ to $x_0$. We have the following chain.
\[
x_0\overset{g^{-1}}{\longmapsto} x_1\mathrel{\overbrace{\overset{g}{\longmapsto} x_0\overset{f}{\longmapsto}}^F} y_0
\]
In Kaliprasad's approach, $g(x)=1/x$ and $x_1=1/x_0$, so that $g(x_1)=x_0$. In anemone's approach, $g(x)=x-1$ and $x_1=x_0+1$, so that $g(x_1)=x_0$.

Yeah, just realized, but I hope you knew what I meant.

I did not means

$f(\frac{1}{x}) = \frac{1}{f(x)}$, I meant this for the roots! Sorry =)

We could take a similar approach to anemone's approach.

$f(x) = x^3 - x - 1$

$f(x) = (x - a)(x - b)(x - c) $

$f(x - 1) = (h - a)(h - b)(h - c)$ where $h = x - 1$

Now here we also have three simple equations,

$x = a + 1$
$x = b + 1$
$x = c + 1$

Thanks!
 

FAQ: Zeros of reciprocal functions and transformed

What is a zero of a reciprocal function?

A zero of a reciprocal function is a value that makes the reciprocal function equal to zero. In other words, it is the input value that produces an output of zero when plugged into the function.

How do you find the zeros of a reciprocal function?

To find the zeros of a reciprocal function, set the function equal to zero and solve for the input value(s) that make the function equal to zero. These input values are the zeros of the function.

What happens to the zeros of a reciprocal function when it is transformed?

When a reciprocal function is transformed, the zeros of the original function remain the same. However, the graph of the transformed function may shift or stretch, causing the appearance of the zeros to change.

Can a reciprocal function have more than one zero?

Yes, a reciprocal function can have multiple zeros. This means there can be more than one input value that makes the function equal to zero.

How can the zeros of a reciprocal function be used in real-world applications?

The zeros of a reciprocal function can be used to solve real-world problems involving inverse relationships, such as finding the break-even point in business or determining the optimal dosage for medication based on body weight.

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
989
Replies
1
Views
876
Back
Top