Fundamental Theorem of Algebra
By Brad Rodgers (P1930) on Wednesday,
November 22, 2000 - 12:05 am :
How do I go about proving the fundamental theorem of algebra.
I would like to do this myself, but I really don't know haw to
get started. Any suggestions would be very helpful.
Thanks,
Brad
By Dan Goodman (Dfmg2) on Wednesday,
November 22, 2000 - 01:21 am :
Here's the geometric method (I'll only outline the proof,
because the full machinery needed would take too long to go into).
You define the ''winding number about 0''
of a path
in the complex
plane given by
where
and
is continuous.
The way we define the winding number is intuitively, ''the number of times the
curve
winds around 0''. So, for instance,
, because
this is a circle going around 0 once.
because this is a
circle going around 0 twice. Anyway, you can define
for any path
,
although it is more tricky to do so for more complicated paths, the important
fact about
is that it is integer valued.
Now, let
be a non constant polynomial in
, and assume
is
never 0 (setting up for proof by contradiction). Let
,
i.e. the path formed by taking the image of the circle of radius
around 0.
If
, this path is
say, with
not zero.
Now, whatever
we take,
is never zero as
is never 0. This
means if we look at the family of paths we get by varying
, they all lie
in
, i.e. the complex plane without 0.
Unfortunately at this point I have to bring in another intuitive idea as the
machinery required would be too involved to go into here. As we continuously
vary paths in
, the winding number can't change at any point,
we can see this geometrically because to increase the number of times it loops
round 0, you'd have to pass through 0, which you can't do because 0 is not in
the set. Maybe that's not quite as intuitively satisfying as it should be,
but you can take it as true that in
, what is called
''homotopic transformations'' (which basically means continuously changing
one path to another) leave the winding number unchanged.
Given that we're done, because the winding number of
if
is
just the winding number of the constant path
, which is 0. Therefore,
for any
the winding number of
must be 0, becausewe're continuously
transforming the paths in
. However, for very large
,
is approximately
for some complex number
not equal to zero
and some integer
[because
ismuch bigger than
if
is very large]. So,
is approximately
, which
has winding number
, which is
.
This is a contradiction, so the assumption that
is never 0 must be false.
Tada! The fundamental theorem of algebra.
I think this is how Gauss proved it originally (although he lacked the
machinery of winding numbers and so forth which is why he recognized his proof
was lacking, and proved it again, many times). I don't know any elementary
proof of FTA, but there might well be some, let's see what the others have...
By Dan Goodman (Dfmg2) on Wednesday,
November 22, 2000 - 01:22 am :
Oops! You said you wanted to do it
yourself and I gave you the proof. Sorry! Hopefully I was
sufficiently unclear that there will be plenty for you to do
:)
By Brad Rodgers (P1930) on Wednesday,
November 22, 2000 - 09:44 pm :
How does that relate to proving that there can only be complex
solutions to polynomial equations?
Thanks,
Brad
By Dan Goodman (Dfmg2) on Wednesday,
November 22, 2000 - 09:50 pm :
It proves that every polynomial f(z) has
a complex root f(z)=0, which is what the FTA says! I'm not sure I
understand your question.
By Brad Rodgers (P1930) on Wednesday,
November 22, 2000 - 10:49 pm :
I have a book that says that the FTA proves that given any n
degree egn.
eg: axn +bxn-1 +...+c=0
there can only be a solution consisting of imaginary or real
numbers.
eg:x=a+bi
where b and a are real
Or the book at least says that this theorem stopped
mathematicians from looking for new types of numbers.
Brad
By Dan Goodman (Dfmg2) on Wednesday,
November 22, 2000 - 11:20 pm :
OK, got you. What it means is that every
equation of that form has a solution a+ib (i.e. a complex
number), and therefore you don't need to introduce any new sorts
of numbers to solve equations. The idea in the book is probably
this: the rational numbers are OK, but you can't solve
X2 -2=0 in rationals, so you can introduce irrationals
like sqrt(2). However, there are still equations you can't solve,
like X2 +1=0, so you introduce the complex numbers
a+ib. Once you've done this, the process has finished because all
(polynomial) equations can now be solved with numbers of the form
a+ib. There are other types of numbers (quaternions for
instance), but these aren't needed to solve polynomials.
By Brad Rodgers (P1930) on Thursday,
November 23, 2000 - 04:13 am :
But how is the above proof related to that?
By Kerwin Hui (Kwkh2) on Thursday,
November 23, 2000 - 12:59 pm :
If you have a zero for f(z), say
z=z0 then (z-z0 ) is a factor of f(z). So
we can factorise:
f(z) = (z-z0 )g(z), where deg(g)=deg(f)-1
So by induction, we have the polynomial f(z) has n (not
necessarily distinct) complex root.(as polynomial of degree zero
has zero root apart from the trivial polynomial 0)
Kerwin