5
$\begingroup$

By given the following linear transformation: $T(p(x))=p'(x)$,$T:P_3[\mathbb{R}]\rightarrow P_3[\mathbb{R}]$, find a basis and the dimension of the kernel.


$Solution.$ \begin{align*} \ker T & =\left\{p( x) \in P_{3}[\mathbb{R}]\Bigl| p'( x) =0\right\} \\ &=\left\{ax^{3} +bx^{2} +cx+d\Bigl| 3ax^{2} +2bx+c=0,a,b,c,d\in \mathbb{R}\right\}\\ & =\left\{ax^{3} +bx^{2} +cx+d\Bigl| c=-3ax^{2} -2bx,a,b,c,d\in \mathbb{R}\right\}\\ & =\left\{ax^{3} +bx^{2} +\left( -3ax^{2} -2bx\right) x+d\Bigl| a,b,d\in \mathbb{R}\right\}\\ & =\left\{a\left( x^{3} -2x^{2}\right) +b\left( x^{2} -2x\right) +d\Bigl| a,b,d\in \mathbb{R}\right\}\\ & =\operatorname{Span}\left\{x^{3} -2x^{2} ,x^{2} -2x,1\right\}\end{align*} in addition, the isomorphic vectors to the polynomials are linearly independent, can be easily checked and easy to see, so they are a basis for the kernel. Thus, $$B_{\ker T} =\left\{x^{3} -2x^{2} ,x^{2} -2x,1\right\} \Longrightarrow \dim\ker T=3$$


However, it is clear that this isn't true since the only polynomial who gives $p'(x)=0$ is $p(x)=d$, so the basis is actually: $$B_{\ker T} =\left\{1\right\} \Longrightarrow \dim\ker T=1$$

and it's easy to see.

Perhaps I'm finding here a basis for the $x$'s? because I can't find why I get the wrong polynomials in the basis.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ You are conflating a polynomial $p$ with the equation $p(x) = 0$. In particular, a polynomial $p$ is zero if and only if all its coefficients are zero. $\endgroup$ Aug 9, 2021 at 16:22
  • $\begingroup$ @JoseAvilez you are saying that $3ax^2+2bx+c=0 \implies a=b=c=0$ right? so we get only $d$. Why then my solution ain't right, and I get a different solution? $\endgroup$
    – Chopin
    Aug 9, 2021 at 16:38
  • $\begingroup$ No. I'm saying that if $3ax^2 + 2bx + c $ is the zero polynomial, then $a=b=c=0$. $\endgroup$ Aug 9, 2021 at 16:40
  • $\begingroup$ @JoseAvilez Oh, I see. So since all of them are zero, what I am doing is just playing with zeros, and therefore I allegedly get different solution. Right? $\endgroup$
    – Chopin
    Aug 9, 2021 at 16:42

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

You can see the problem in the line $$ \left\{ax^{3} +bx^{2} +cx+d\Bigl| c=-3ax^{2} -2bx, \,a,b,c,d\in \mathbb{R}\right\}. $$

On one hand, you write $c \in \mathbb{R}$ (which is true as $a,b,c,d$ are the coefficients of the polynomial $p(x)$) but on the other hand, you write $$ (1) \qquad\qquad c =-3ax^{2} -2bx $$ which means that $c \in P_2[\mathbb{R}]$. How can it be?


Strictly speaking, writing $c = -3ax^2 - 2bx$ is a wrong and a bad idea so I do not recommend it. However, if you insist on doing it then there is a way to make it rigorous. The only way for equality $(1)$ to make sense is to think of of $c$ both as a real number and as a polynomial in $P_2[\mathbb{R}]$. This means that you need to identify $c \in \mathbb{R}$ with a constant polynomial $$ \hat{c} = c \cdot 1 + 0 \cdot x + 0 \cdot x^2$$ and then the equation $ c = -3ax^2 - 2bx$ actually means $$ \hat{c} = -3ax^2 - 2bx \iff 0 \cdot x^2 + 0 \cdot x + c \cdot 1 = (-3a) \cdot x^2 + (-2)\cdot bx + 0 \cdot 1. $$ Using the definition of equality of polynomials and comparing coefficients, this means that $-3a = 0, -2b = 0$ and $c = 0$ so $a = b = c = 0$ and you arrive to the correct conclusion.

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ Got it all!!! Thank you for this clear and wonderful answer. $\endgroup$
    – Chopin
    Aug 9, 2021 at 16:57
  • $\begingroup$ @Chopin: Sure. To hammer the point, when you differentiate $ax^3 + bx^2 + cx + d$, you treat $c$ as a real number and not a polynomial, right? For otherwise, the derivative would be $3ax^2 + 2bx + c'(x) \cdot x + c$. Then, when you suddenly replace the role of $c$ and go back the original expression, you actually used the "wrong formula" to differentiate! $\endgroup$
    – levap
    Aug 9, 2021 at 17:04
  • $\begingroup$ Right. And by the way, if I wanted to prove the Lamma in which if a polynomial is zero for all $x$ then the coefficients are zeros, then I could just doing the following: for example for $p_2[x]$ we take $ax^2+bx+c=0$ and then $c=-ax^2-bx$ but it is a contradiction unless $a=b=0$. So is it right? for one direction of the proof of course. $\endgroup$
    – Chopin
    Aug 9, 2021 at 17:11
  • $\begingroup$ @Chopin: Actually, there are two distinct notions which are commonly called "polynomials". One is a "polynomial function" which means a function of the form (say) $ax^2 + bx + c$ and the other is an "algebraic polynomial" which is just an "expression" of the form $ax^2 + bx + c$. I have worked with the algebraic polynomial definition and in that case, the fact that if $ax^2 + bx + c = 0$ then $a = b=c=0$ is an immediate consequence of the definition. However, with the "polynomial function" definition, the meaning of $ax^2 + bx + c = 0$ is that you have an equality for all $x \in \mathbb{R}$. $\endgroup$
    – levap
    Aug 9, 2021 at 17:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ To deduce that $a = b = c = 0$, you actually need to work a little. Plug in $x = 0$ to get $c = 0$. Then $ax^2 + bx = 0$. Now plug in $x = 1$ to get $a + b = 0$ and $x = -1$ to get $a - b = 0$ which implies that $a = b = 0$. Writing $c = -ax^2 - bx$ and saying that this a contradiction is not rigorous enough because you need to justify why it is not possible for $c = -ax^2 - bx$ to be true for all $x \in \mathbb{R}$. This is intuitively clear but the formal justification is done by plugging in various $x$'s and deducing the result. $\endgroup$
    – levap
    Aug 9, 2021 at 17:17

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.