2

Let $$ \begin{aligned} & f(x)=a_{n} x^{n}+a_{n-1} x^{n-1}+\cdots+a_{1} x+a_{0} \\ & g(x)=b_{m} x^{m}+b_{m-1} x^{m-1}+\cdots+b_{1} x+b_{0} . \end{aligned} $$

Case 1. $n<m$. Let $Q(x)=0$ and $R(x)=f(x)$.
Then $$ f(x)=Q(x) g(x)+R(x) \text { and } \operatorname{deg}(R)<\operatorname{deg}(g) . $$

Case 2. $n \geqslant m$.
For any $i, n \geqslant i \geqslant m$,

$$ a_{i} x^{i}=\frac{a_{i}}{b_{m}} x^{i-m}\left(b_{m} x^{m}+b_{m-1} x^{m-1}+\cdots+b_{1} x+b_{0}\right)-\frac{a_{i}}{b_{m}} b_{m-1} x^{i-1}-\frac{a_{i}}{b_{m}} b_{m-2} x^{i-2}-\cdots-\frac{a_{i}}{b_{m}} b_{0} x^{i-m} . $$

This implies that every term $a_ix^i$ in $f$ with $i\ge deg(g)$ can be written as the product of $\frac{a_i}{b_m}x^{i-m}$ and $g$, and a subtraction of smaller degree terms. Therefore $f$ can be written in a form that is a summation of two types of terms:

  1. $c_ix^ig(x)$ where $c_i$ is the coefficient and $i\ge deg(g)$.
  2. $c_ix^i$ where $i<deg(g)$.

Therefore

$$ f(x)=\sum_{i=m}^{n} c_{i} x^{i-m}\left(b_{m} x^{m}+b_{m-1} x^{m-1}+\cdots+b_{1} x+b_{0}\right)+\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} c_{i} x^{i} . $$

Let $Q(x)=\sum_{i=m}^{n} c_{i} x^{i-m}$ and $R(x)=\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} c_{i} x^{i}$.
Then
$$ f(x)=Q(x) g(x)+R(x) \quad \text { and } \operatorname{deg}(R)<\operatorname{deg}(g) . \;\square$$

Is the proof valid? In case 2 the idea is that any term in $f(x)$ with exponent $\ge deg(g)$ can be written as a product of a term and $g(x)$, and a subtraction of some terms with a smaller exponent. This then implies that $f(x)$ can be written as containing two types of terms:

  1. The ones that are being multiplied by $g(x)$
  2. The ones with exponent $<deg(g)$

Then the sum of terms of type (1) is a polynomial being multiplied by $g(x)$, and sum of terms of type (2) is a polynomial of degree $<deg(g)$.

Example: $f(x)=x^3-1$, $g(x)=x+1$.
Then for the first term in $f(x)$, $x^3$, we can write $x^3=x^2(x+1)-x^2$. Substitute into the original expression: $f(x)=x^2(x+1)-x^2-1$. So we have just converted $x^3$ into two terms: $x^2(x+1)$ and $-x^2$. We can do the same thing for any term $deg\ge x+1$. The rest of the terms are gonna have $deg<x+1$. full example: $$f(x)=x^3-1=x^2(x+1)-x^2-1=x^2(x+1)-x(x+1)+x-1=x^2(x+1)-x(x+1)+(x+1)-2,$$ so $$f(x)=(x^2-x+1)(x+1)-2$$

  • It's not clear what the $,c_i,$ are. Try it with a simple case, for example $,f(x) = x^3 - 1, g(x) = x+1,$. – dxiv Aug 06 '23 at 20:11
  • i added the example. The $c_i$ are the terms im talking about at the end. – bobbyJames Aug 06 '23 at 20:30
  • That works but it's not what you wrote in the answer. The worked out example is basically the regular Euclidean division, which you can prove by induction, see for example Proof of the polynomial division algorithm. But you can't just hand-wave it. – dxiv Aug 06 '23 at 20:41
  • @dxiv so I should have made more commentary in the proof? – bobbyJames Aug 06 '23 at 20:51
  • 1
    You must justify the step "So we can write $\ldots$" in some way. As is now, that's essentially stating the conclusion you claim to prove. – dxiv Aug 06 '23 at 21:01
  • @dxiv but it does follow from the line above that right? I shouldve just mentioned it? – bobbyJames Aug 06 '23 at 21:10
  • No, it does not follow, unless you spell out what the $,c_i,$ are, or at least prove that they must exist. Either way will require some sort of induction. Again, you cannot just hand-wave that as "it follows from". I suggest you review the answers under the other question I linked. – dxiv Aug 06 '23 at 21:17
  • @dxiv Is it now valid? I dont see why it would require induction. – bobbyJames Aug 06 '23 at 21:35
  • No, that may be the right intuition, but it is not a proof. "and a subtraction of smaller degree terms" $;-;$ "Smaller" than what? They are certainly not smaller than $,m,$. To prove the existence of $,c_i,$ you have to first eliminate the highest power term, collect the rest, then repeat this step iteratively until the degree becomes $,\lt m,$. Formally proving that requires induction, and, sorry, but I have nothing more to add. – dxiv Aug 06 '23 at 21:43
  • Ok, I have one more question. What do you exactly mean by "it is not a proof"? A formal proof is a sequence of sentences each of which is an axiom, assumption or follows from the preceding sequences in the sentences by a rule of inference. Currently the sentence "so $f$ can be written as..." is not preceded by a rule of inference, but it would be if I used induction? – bobbyJames Aug 06 '23 at 22:25
  • also, it can be a valid informal proof right? Because other people have told me that they think my proof is valid. This answer: https://math.stackexchange.com/a/1546327/1196218, says that a valid mathematical proof is one which convinces the reader that "it is possible to write down a valid formal proof reflecting the given arguments.". – bobbyJames Aug 06 '23 at 22:27
  • 1
    Your last comment answers your 2nd-last. A proof is an argument which convinces a reasonable but skeptical reader that it is possible to write etc. etc. You have one job: convince the reader. You did not, so it is not a proof. dxiv has already explained why they were unconvinced, and I agree with them: you claim that these $c_i$ exist. I do not find their existence to be obvious from what you've written. The example is far from illuminating either: I agree that $x^3=x^2(x+1)-x^2$ and I see why it helps, but how was I supposed to find that myself? "We can do the same thing..." Why? – Eric Nathan Stucky Aug 07 '23 at 03:11
  • @EricNathanStucky Why do you not find their existence obvious? I have shown that any term $a_ix^i$ with $i\ge deg(g)$ can be written as $\frac{a_i}{b_m}x^{i-m}\cdot g(x)-\text{smaller degree terms}$. Why does this not convince you that if you apply this rule for every term that has greater or equal degree as $g$, you will eventually end up with just two types of terms? What exactly are you doubtful about? What do you think could possibly happen that would make my claim false? – bobbyJames Aug 07 '23 at 13:01
  • If you look at any term in $f$, it's either $deg\ge g$ or not. If yes, then apply the rule above, if not, don't do anything. After applying the rule, look at the new terms it "produced" and repeat. What could go wrong here? – bobbyJames Aug 07 '23 at 13:04
  • Okay, we are getting somewhere! Your last comment really hits the heart of the matter: in your mind you know that a "repeat" step is necessary, but this is simply not in the text of the proof. If you include this, it will certainly be more convincing. And as you start to write carefully what exactly is being repeated, I believe you will find induction to be very helpful. – Eric Nathan Stucky Aug 07 '23 at 13:36
  • @EricNathanStucky "include" as in include the word "repeat" or include a proof of some repeating step? Dxiv said that to prove the existence of $c_i$, i need to eliminate the highest power term, collect the rest, then repeat this until the degree becomes $<m$. I understand this, but that's not really the same as what the repeating step I described. – bobbyJames Aug 07 '23 at 14:50
  • To prove the repeating step I described, do I need to prove that if you keep repeating, eventually the degree becomes $<m$? – bobbyJames Aug 07 '23 at 14:52

1 Answers1

2

(Too long for a comment.)

I upvoted your question for being a well asked solution-verification question, and I tried to point out where the hole is in the comments, but apparently failed at that. Here is one more and last attempt, putting side-by-side the body of your answer against the simple example you worked out at the end $\,(x^3-1)\,/\,(x+1)\,$.

For any $i, n \geqslant i \geqslant m \;\ldots$

$$ \begin{align} 1 \cdot x^3 &= x^2 \cdot (x+1) - x^2 \\ 0 \cdot x^2 &= 0 \cdot (x+1) \\ 0 \cdot x\,\, &= 0 \cdot (x+1) \end{align} $$

This implies that $\,\ldots\,$ therefore $\,\ldots\,$

$$ \begin{align} x^3 - 1 \;&=\; \big(x^2 \cdot (x+1) - x \cdot (x+1) + 1 \cdot (x+1)\big) + \big( (-2) \cdot 1 \big) \\ &=\; (x^2-x+1)(x+1) - 2 \end{align} $$

You repeatedly claimed that the latter "follows from" the former. That's not obvious, not in the simple example here, and even less so in the general case. Until and unless you fill that gap, what you put forward is not a proof, but at best an intuition for the path towards an actual proof.

dxiv
  • 76,497
  • My commentary: $x^2$ term and the $-x$ term in the quotient are more or less clear from the description in the proof. But when we drop to that third-highest term, the $+1$ depends not only on the way that $x^3$ and $0x^2$ and $0x$ were rewritten to include the $(x+1)$, and not only the "leftover" term $-x^2$ that popped out from the $x^3$ rewiting, but also how the $-x^2$ term was, itself, rewritten to include the $(x+1)$. As we go further down in degree, the coefficents depend on ever-deeper levels of rewriting that are difficult to describe "all at once"— but this is what induction is for. – Eric Nathan Stucky Aug 07 '23 at 13:45
  • @EricNathanStucky so what exactly should I induct on? – bobbyJames Aug 07 '23 at 15:16
  • @bobbyJames You would use strong induction on the degree of $,f,$. The base case $,\deg f \lt \deg g,$ is covered by your Case 1. When $,\deg f \ge \deg g,$ you eliminate the highest power term in $,f,$ like in Case 2 with $,i = n,$ then that reduces the degree of $,f,$ by $,\ge 1,$ and you can use the induction hypothesis. – dxiv Aug 08 '23 at 06:02