Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Express $2x^5+13x^4+50x^3+82x^2+56x+13$ as a product of five linear factors. The roots of the polynomial may be real or complex.

I had to employ the technique of synthetic division iteratively. I'd like to know if I'm doing this correctly. \begin{align} 2x^5+13x^4+50x^3+82x^2+56x+13 &= (x+1)(2x^4+11x^3+39x^2+43x+13) \\ &= (x+1)^2(3x^3+9x^2+30x+13) \\ &=(x+1)^2\left(x+ \frac 12\right)(2x^2+8x+26) \\ &=(x+1)^2(2x+1)(x^2+4x+13) \\ &=(x+1)^2\left(2x+1\right)(x+(2+3i))(x+(2-3i)) \end{align}

share|cite|improve this question
If you just want to check your answer, you can just use WolframAlpha, which confirms that your factorization is correct. – JimmyK4542 Jul 1 '14 at 5:24
In this sort of problem, they make it feasible by making sure that a fair number of roots are obtainable by using the Rational Roots Theorem. That, or inspection, is presumably what you used. – André Nicolas Jul 1 '14 at 5:27
Yes, I used inspection because it's easier and quicker than cranking out the $\pm \frac pq$ algorithm of the Rational Roots Theorem. – Cookie Jul 1 '14 at 5:43
@glace In the last line, the factor $(x-(2+3i))$ must be $(x+(2-3i))$. As it is known that the roots are complex conjugate. (The link given by JimmyK4542 confirms this.) – Fermat Jul 1 '14 at 6:14
If you don't have access to computerised algebra systems, one quick & dirty way of verifying your factorisation is to use an ordinary scientific calculator, plug in a transcendental value for $x$ (like $\pi$) and verify that the LHS is "very close" to the RHS with the discrepancy being fully accountable for by internal rounding errors. This method works because the LHS - RHS forms a polynomial equation with algebraic coefficients, and those only have algebraic roots. For a transcendental number to satisfy it, LHS minus RHS has to be identically zero. Just another tip to make your life easier. – Deepak Jul 1 '14 at 6:43

I like using Newton's method for finding roots in situations like these, so I made an Excel spread sheet.

  • cell A1 contains my initial estimate of the root ($x_k$).
  • cell B1 contains $f$(A1)
  • cell C1 contains $f'$(A1)
  • cell D1 contains my new estimate of the root ($x_{k+1}$), the formula is A1-B1/C1
  • cell D1 is then copied to cell A2

I can enter some random numbers in cell A1 to generate other roots, and the spread sheet will recalculate automatically. By using the values 0 and -2, I found the roots -0.5 and -1.

Unfortunately, this method doesn't identify multiplicities, but that's okay, because I can now reduce $f$ to a cubic by dividing by $(x+1)(x+\frac{1}{2})$ to find $g$ (e.g. $f(x)=(x+1)(x+\frac{1}{2})g(x)$). Once I've found $g'$, I can change columns B and C to reflext the simpler function to find my final Real (and hopefully Rational) factor. I can then use the quadratic formula on whatever is left over.

enter image description here

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.