Talk:Fundamental Theorem of Algebra: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Subpagination Bot
m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details))
imported>Jitse Niesen
(→‎W.l.o.g.: reply)
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:


This is some material that used to be in the [[complex number]] article, but I felt an entire article on the fundamental theorem of algebra would be the better place for it. However all I did was cut and paste from there to here, so this article doesn't have a good structure yet. Feel free to attack it! - [[User:Greg Martin|Greg Martin]] 18:54, 29 April 2007 (CDT); clarified by [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 02:35, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
This is some material that used to be in the [[complex number]] article, but I felt an entire article on the fundamental theorem of algebra would be the better place for it. However all I did was cut and paste from there to here, so this article doesn't have a good structure yet. Feel free to attack it! - [[User:Greg Martin|Greg Martin]] 18:54, 29 April 2007 (CDT); clarified by [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 02:35, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
== W.l.o.g. ==
What does this mean?--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 21:12, 13 March 2008 (CDT)
: Also "counting multiplicity" - I'm guessing that it means that Tp=Tq (e.g. in (x + 2)(x + 2)), but you ought to say that explicitly. Other than that, great intro - crystal clear. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 09:59, 14 March 2008 (CDT)
:: I think W.l.o.g. means "without loss of generality" and I don't see any connection with multiplicity of roots. You and I differing on intepretation, I wouldn't call the article crystal clear.--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 10:42, 14 March 2008 (CDT)
::: Umm, I just meant the ''intro'' was crystal clear. And my mention of "counting multiplicity" was in the sense of "what does this mean" - i.e. the article needs to be changed to make it clear. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 13:53, 14 March 2008 (CDT)
:::: Wlog is indeed "without loss of generality". I think it's bad style to use this abbreviation (even though people that know about homotopy groups probably know this abbreviation) so I wrote it out.
:::: "Counting multiplicity" means what is says in the formula above that phrase. For instance, the quadratic polynomial <math> x^2 - 2x + 1 </math> is only zero at <math>x=1</math>, but this is a double root because <math> x^2 - 2x + 1 = (x-1)^2</math>. So this root counts for two if we count roots with their multiplicities. -- [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 11:26, 15 March 2008 (CDT)

Latest revision as of 10:26, 15 March 2008

This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition Any nonconstant polynomial whose coefficients are complex numbers has at least one complex number as a root. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category Mathematics [Categories OK]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant British English

just started the article

This is some material that used to be in the complex number article, but I felt an entire article on the fundamental theorem of algebra would be the better place for it. However all I did was cut and paste from there to here, so this article doesn't have a good structure yet. Feel free to attack it! - Greg Martin 18:54, 29 April 2007 (CDT); clarified by Jitse Niesen 02:35, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

W.l.o.g.

What does this mean?--Paul Wormer 21:12, 13 March 2008 (CDT)

Also "counting multiplicity" - I'm guessing that it means that Tp=Tq (e.g. in (x + 2)(x + 2)), but you ought to say that explicitly. Other than that, great intro - crystal clear. J. Noel Chiappa 09:59, 14 March 2008 (CDT)
I think W.l.o.g. means "without loss of generality" and I don't see any connection with multiplicity of roots. You and I differing on intepretation, I wouldn't call the article crystal clear.--Paul Wormer 10:42, 14 March 2008 (CDT)
Umm, I just meant the intro was crystal clear. And my mention of "counting multiplicity" was in the sense of "what does this mean" - i.e. the article needs to be changed to make it clear. J. Noel Chiappa 13:53, 14 March 2008 (CDT)
Wlog is indeed "without loss of generality". I think it's bad style to use this abbreviation (even though people that know about homotopy groups probably know this abbreviation) so I wrote it out.
"Counting multiplicity" means what is says in the formula above that phrase. For instance, the quadratic polynomial is only zero at , but this is a double root because . So this root counts for two if we count roots with their multiplicities. -- Jitse Niesen 11:26, 15 March 2008 (CDT)