3
$\begingroup$

This is a problem from Discrete Mathematics and its Applications enter image description here

Here are my notes and my current work so far for this problem. enter image description here

I started with an assumption that what i am trying to prove is false, that is there is a rational number r for which $r^3 + r + 1 = 0$. Under that assumption, I am trying to reach a contradiction(goes against the assumption, that this cannot happen under any circumstance). I first used to definition of rational number to break down $r$ into $\frac{p}{q}$. Following the hint and my natural intuition, I broke the equation down and reasoned that this will be true only if the numerator $p^3 + 2pq^2 + q^3 = 0$I am stuck at this point. How can I show that that expression cannot be equivalent to zero? I tried cubic factoring from http://www.purplemath.com/modules/specfact2.htm but that didn't really get me anywhere either(at the bottom of the page). The hint says to look at whether each a and b is odd or even but I don't see how that would help you prove that that expression will never be equivalent to zero.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

From $p^3+pq^2+q^3=0$, discuss the four possible cases:

  1. $p$ odd, $q$ odd.

In this case the three terms are all odd. They cannot sum up to $0$.

  1. $p$ odd, $q$ even.

In this case, we have one odd term and two even terms. The sum must be odd, so they can not add up to $0$.

I guess you can now continue with the other cases now and conclude that they have to be both even, which is a contradiction.

$\endgroup$
11
  • $\begingroup$ thanks but if they're both even, how does that contradict the original statement? the original statement says there is rational number r. r can be composed of one even divided by another $\endgroup$ Jan 12, 2015 at 2:18
  • $\begingroup$ Remember your assumption is $r=p/q$ in lowest terms, which means $p$ and $q$ don't have common divisor. $\endgroup$
    – KittyL
    Jan 12, 2015 at 2:19
  • $\begingroup$ I don't i included that part in my assumption. The book definition(the one I am using) of rational is "The real number r is rational if there exist integers p and q with q!=0 such that r = p/q." So technically 8 = 16/2 work with that definition of rational? $\endgroup$ Jan 12, 2015 at 2:23
  • $\begingroup$ Well, in your first post, it says "a/b is in lowest terms". Even without thinking of that hint, you will have to make that assumption so that the proof would work. This is a very typical assumption when you proof things about rational numbers. $\endgroup$
    – KittyL
    Jan 12, 2015 at 2:28
  • $\begingroup$ ohhh lowest terms, cause for evens, that denom can always get broken down to a 1. $\endgroup$ Jan 12, 2015 at 2:33

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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