partial fractions fail
ok i have 1/ (x (x^2-4)) = A/ x + (bx+c) / (x^2-4)
im breaking the rule of irreducible factoring, but it still works
you can factor x^2-4 = (x-2)(x+2)
oh i know
i don't think that will always work
\[\frac{1}{x(x-2)(x+2)}=\frac{A}{x}+\frac{B}{x+2}+\frac{C}{x-2}\]\]
myin, can you think of a counterexample
i will think one sec
here is another example int ( 1/ ( x ( x^2 - 15))
here we have reducible over reals, irreducible over rationals (integers)
so this form only right? where you have 1/(a*(x^2-b))
i mean that a is an x
i mean you want me to find a counterexample of that form?
right,
( 1/ ( x ( x^2 - 15)) = A / x + (bx + c) / (x^2 - 15)
in general 1 / [(x-a)^n (x^2+bx+c)^n] = A1/(x-a) + A2/ ( x-a)^2 + ... An/(x-a)^n + (B1x+C1)/ (x^2+bx+c) + (B2x + C2) / (x^2+bx+c)^2 + ... + (Bn x + Cn ) / (x^2+bx+c)^n
i guess you may be right
still thinking
see my book keeps saying "irreducible"
yes it works A = -1/b B = 1/b
one must use quadratics that are irreducible, but im finding that is not the case
now i remember what a pain this is. i got A = -1/4
right we have 1/ (x (x^2-4)) = (-1/4) / x + (1/4 * x ) / (x^2 - 4)
1/ (x (x^2-4)) = (-1/4) / x + (1/4 * x + 0 ) / (x^2 - 4)
B=C and A+B+C=0 -1/4+2B=0 making B = 1/8
but it is late and i could have made a mistake
no you do not always have to reduce quadratics, as long as there is a product in denominator
satellite, you did it out the normal way, we have same solution though
whew. glad to know i can still solve a simple system
i was just making a point, you can relax the rule about quadratics being irreducible
sure if you use complex you can even do it with \[x^2+1\] and even use it to integrate
right but i mean , sometimes you have, say this case int 1 / ( x ( x^2 - 15)
\[\int \frac{1}{x^2+1} dx\] can use partial fractions.
technically, yes over the complex numbers
i think the issue boils down, what field you are restricting yourself to
restricting to rationals , to reals, or to complex
myinanay, are you in agrement?
yes i just made a proof lol i will scan it
for when we were talking about 1/[x(x^2-a)] form sorry i doubted you cantorset :)
its alittle sloppy and i wanted it on one page so after i got to the end of the page i went back up and drew a square to finish showing the combination of fractions from i reduced the polynomial x^2-a would still give you the same combination of frations if you did not reduce
ok im back
can you read it?
so you got the same answer doing it both ways?
right! so since we proved we can make it a theorem lol
it is no longer a conjunction to us
how do you know they are equal though?
do you in the square i combined the fractions?
from the reduced way
it came out to be the same as the non reduced way
oh i see
you can combine the last two fractions ,
right
i can write it more neatly if you like
thats fine, just that last step i did on paper
so why does my book insist on reducing only the irreducible
irreducible actually depends on the field i think, since 1 / (x^2 +1) is reducible in C
well i only know this true so far for the form 1/[x*(x^2-a)] which is reduceable
hmmmm
you dont think 1 / [(x-a)^n (x^2+bx+c)^n] = A1/(x-a) + A2/ ( x-a)^2 + ... An/(x-a)^n + (B1x+C1)/ (x^2+bx+c) + (B2x + C2) / (x^2+bx+c)^2 + ... + (Bn x + Cn ) / (x^2+bx+c)^n
maybe it is easier just to memorize just reduce just in case instead of remembering for certain forms it is akay not to reduce
thats ugly to me cantorset lol
no it has a nice pattern
The property of irreducibility depends on the field F; a polynomial may be irreducible over some fields but reducible over others
right, the field F, but we can just change the field to suit our problem
yes...we are dealing with real analysis here
so F is the field of R
like integral 1 / ( x^2 + 1) = int 1 / (x+ i ) + 1/ (x-i) i believe
tan inverse of x
1/ x^2 + 1 = A / x+i + B / x- i
+C
Well thats complex analysis cantorset!
what is e^(ix) in terms of sine and cosine again i cant remember something like sin(x)+icos(x)
yes, ok i see your point
so you want to stay in field R, ok
by the way x+i and x-i are not polynomials in real analysis
also if we assume int(1/(x^2+1))=int(1/(x+i))+int(1/(x-i))=then we get ln(x^2+1) but this gives us 2x/(x^2+1) when we take derivative which is not 1/(x^2+1)
i actually didnt do the A , and B thingy
that was a guess
1/ x^2 + 1 = A / x+i + B / x- i
so A=-1/2i and B=1/2i lets see what happens
brb
i/2 *ln{(x-i)/(x+i)} i don't know if we can do anything with this
right
youre right about the arctangent though
so my point was, can we relax our condition about being reducible , or irreducible?
so far we can relax it for some reducibles like 1/[x*(x^2-a)] but not for forms that are irreducible
is e^(arctanx)==((x-i)/(x+i))^(1/2i) true?
irreducible over the reals, you mean
i don't know saubihik i fail at complex analysis
or whatever that is
i can check my calculator
but it might be off by a constant
how do you plug imaginarys into your calculator?
can we just pretend since they are imaginary lol
i have TI 84
i think its true and may be by some constant and so yah u can do partial fracs with rational functions having COMPLEX VARIABLES
only the answer will come in complex terms but dont woory thats same!!
Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!