Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Show that $x^{35}+\dfrac{20205}{2+x^{17}+\cos^2x}=100$ has no root $x\in \mathbb{R}$.

By plotting graph I have seen that there are no roots for $x$. Can somebody prove it theoretically?

share|improve this question
2  
+1 Nice question. Can you tell us the source of this question? –  Srivatsan Oct 8 '11 at 11:14
2  
@SrivatsanNarayanan It's given in one my homework assignments. –  Ramana Venkata Oct 8 '11 at 11:15
    
I've retagged away from (theory-of-equations): the more common connotations of that phrase considers algebraic equations. The fact that you have a $\cos$ factor in there makes your equation transcendental, and outside what would traditionally be considered as theory of equations. –  Willie Wong Oct 17 '11 at 15:22
    
For what it is worth, for actual questions on theory of equations, you may considered instead the (galois-theory) and (field-theory) tags as appropriate. –  Willie Wong Oct 17 '11 at 15:24

1 Answer 1

up vote 18 down vote accepted

Here's an answer, but I am sure there should be better ones.

Assume $x \in \mathbb R$ to be a root of the given equation. Rearrange the equation as $$ (x^{35}-100) (x^{17}+2+\cos^2 x) = - 20205. $$ Let $A := x^{35}-100$ and $B := x^{17}+2+\cos^2 x$. Since $AB < 0$, exactly one of $A$ and $B$ is positive and the other is negative.

If $B < 0$ and $A > 0$, then $x^{35} > 100 > 0$, which implies that $x > 0$. Then we can conclude that $B = x^{17}+2 + \cos^2 x > 0$, which contradicts the assumption about the sign of $B$. So this case is impossible.

We are left with the case $A < 0$ and $B > 0$.

  • From $A < 0$, we get $x^{35} < 100$. Therefore $x^{17} < 10$. Hence, $B = x^{17}+2+\cos^2 x \leq x^{17}+3 < 13$.

  • Similarly, from $B > 0$, we get $x^{17} > -2 - \cos^2 x \geq -3$. Therefore, $A = x^{35} - 100 > (-3)^{3}-100 = -127$. In other words, $|A| < 127$.

Multiplying the upper bounds on $|A|$ and $B$, we get $$|A \cdot B| = |A| \cdot B < 127 \cdot 13 = 1651 ,$$ which contradicts the equation $AB = - 20205$ we started out with.

share|improve this answer
    
I was also actually trying to solve the question in two intervals $x>0$ and $x<0$. I was struck in $x<0$ case. Great Solution. Thanks. –  Ramana Venkata Oct 8 '11 at 11:59
    
@Ramana Yes, somehow splitting it into $x > 0$ and $x < 0$ does not work by itself. I guess (also see Ragib's answer) further splitting each of those two cases into subcases depending on the size of $x$ works. –  Srivatsan Oct 8 '11 at 12:03

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.