Algebraic Methods Cheat Sheet Pure Year 2

Important definitions With the help of an example, we will go through each step of the partial fraction method.
Algebraic fractions
▪ A negation of a given statement is another statement that can be used to imply the 6𝑥 2 +5𝑥−2
You need to be able to manipulate algebraic fractions in the same way as numeric fractions. Here are three Example 3: Split up using partial fractions.
given statement is incorrect. 𝑥(𝑥−1)(2𝑥+1)
short examples:
▪ A contradiction is an incompatibility between two statements. In other words, the 6𝑥 2 +5𝑥−2 𝐴 𝐵 𝐶
𝑥
+
4
=
𝑥(𝑥 − 1)
+
4(𝑥 + 4)
=
𝑥(𝑥 − 1) + 4(𝑥 + 4)
=
𝑥 2 + 3𝑥 + 16 [1] We start by letting ≡ + + .
two statements cannot both be true. 𝑥 + 4 𝑥 − 1 (𝑥 + 4)(𝑥 − 1) (𝑥 + 4)(𝑥 − 1) (𝑥 + 4)(𝑥 − 1) (𝑥 + 4)(𝑥 − 1)
(Addition) 𝑥(𝑥−1)(2𝑥+1) 𝑥 𝑥−1 2𝑥+1
v
▪ An improper fraction is one where the degree of the numerator is greater than or 𝑥 4 4𝑥 [2] Next, we manipulate the 𝑅𝐻𝑆 to make all the denominators the same:
× = (Multiplication)
6𝑥 2 +5𝑥 𝑥 + 4 𝑥 − 1 (𝑥 − 1)(𝑥 + 4)
equal to the degree on the denominator. An example is
𝑥(𝑥−1)
, since the degree of v 6𝑥 2 +5𝑥−2 𝐴(𝑥−1)(2𝑥+1) 𝐵(𝑥)(2𝑥+1) 𝐶(𝑥)(𝑥−1)
the numerator (2) is equal to the degree of the denominator. Recall that the degree 𝑥
÷
4
=
𝑥
×
𝑥 − 1 𝑥(𝑥 − 1)
=
(Division) ≡ + +
𝑥(𝑥−1)(2𝑥+1) 𝑥(𝑥−1)(2𝑥+1) 𝑥(𝑥−1)(2𝑥+1) 𝑥(𝑥−1)(2𝑥+1)
𝑥+4 𝑥−1 𝑥+4 4 4(𝑥 + 4)
of the numerator/denominator is the highest power of 𝑥 present. v
[3] Now, we can equate the numerators:
Algebraic division
Proof by contradiction In Chapter 7 of Pure Year 1, you learnt how to divide two polynomials. We will now look at how we can 6𝑥 2 + 5𝑥 − 2 = 𝐴(𝑥 − 1)(2𝑥 + 1) + 𝐵(𝑥)(2𝑥 + 1) + 𝐶(𝑥)(𝑥 − 1)
Proof by contradiction is a powerful method used to prove statements and is applicable in rewrite an improper fraction in terms of a proper fraction using algebraic division.
many mathematical contexts. The idea is relatively simple: We now try to find the constants 𝐴, 𝐵 and 𝐶. To do so, we will use the substitution
𝐹(𝑥) method.
If we have a fraction of the form , where 𝐹(𝑥) and 𝐺(𝑥) are polynomials, then we can say:
▪ We start by assuming the given statement is false. 𝐺(𝑥)
▪ We work to show that this assumption leads to a contradiction, either in the We can substitute 𝑥 = 1, 𝑥 = 0 into our equation. We choose these values of 𝑥 because
𝐹(𝑥) 𝑟 this will result in cancellation of terms on the RHS.
assumption we made or in a fact we know to be true. (*) ▪ = 𝑄 (𝑥 ) + , where 𝑄(𝑥) is the quotient and r is the remainder of 𝐹(𝑥) divided by 𝐺(𝑥).
𝐺(𝑥) 𝐺(𝑥)

Here are some helpful facts to remember when proving statements by contradiction: Substituting 𝑥 = 1: ⇒ 6(1) + 5(1) − 2 = 𝐴(0) + 𝐵(1)(3) + 𝐶(0)
We can see why this is true by looking at a non-algebraic example to begin with. Take the fraction ⇒ 3𝐵 = 9 ∴ 𝐵 = 3
9 9 1
▪ Any even number, n, can be written in the form 𝑛 = 2𝑘, for some integer k. ; we can express as 4 + , which is in the same form as the 𝑅𝐻𝑆 of the above relationship. Substituting 𝑥 = 0: ⇒ 6(0) + 5(0) − 2 = 𝐴(−1)(1) + 𝐵(0) + 𝐶(0)
2 2 2
▪ Any odd number, n, can be written in the form 𝑛 = 2𝑘 + 1, for some integer k. 𝑥 3 +𝑥 2 −7 ⇒ −2 = −𝐴 ∴ 𝐴 = 2
𝑎
Now let’s consider the algebraic fraction . Using long division:
𝑥−3
▪ Rational numbers can be written in the form , where a and b are integers.
𝑏 We now know 𝐴 and 𝐵 so all we need to do to find 𝐶 is substitute any other value of 𝑥
𝑎 𝑥 2 + 4𝑥 + 12 This is known as the
▪ Irrational numbers cannot be written in the form . 𝐺(𝑥) quotient, 𝑄(𝑥) into our equation.
𝑏 𝑥 − 3 𝑥 3 + 𝑥 2 + 0𝑥 − 7
𝑥 3 − 3𝑥 2 𝐹(𝑥) Substituting 𝑥 = 2: ⇒ 6(4) + 5(2) − 2 = 𝐴(1)(5) + 𝐵(2)(5) + 𝐶(2)(1)
⇒ 32 = 10 + 30 + 2𝐶 ∴ 𝐶 = −4
4𝑥 2 + 0𝑥
We will now go through two key examples:
4𝑥 2 − 12𝑥
6𝑥 2 +5𝑥−2 2 3 −4
Example 1: Prove by contradiction that there are infinitely many prime numbers. 12𝑥 − 7
So, we can conclude that ≡ + + , and we are done.
𝑥(𝑥−1)(2𝑥+1) 𝑥 𝑥−1 2𝑥+1
12𝑥 − 36 Remainder, 𝑟
Assume there are a finite number of prime numbers. 29
Repeated linear factors
𝑥 3 +𝑥 2 −7 29 Whenever there is a repeated linear factor in the denominator and we wish to use partial fractions,
Let’s say there are n prime numbers 𝑝1 , 𝑝2 , 𝑝3 , … , 𝑝𝑛. Now, consider the number 𝐾 = ∴ we can say that = 𝑥 2 + 4𝑥 + 12 + using (*). This new expression has no improper
𝑥−3 𝑥−3
𝑝1 𝑝2 𝑝3 … 𝑝𝑛 + 1. This new number leaves a remainder of 1 upon division by any of the prime fractions, so we have achieved our goal. we have to make a slight modification to our method.
numbers. This means that 𝐾 is not divisible by any of the prime numbers, which in turn
implies that either 𝐾 is prime, or 𝐾 has a prime factor that is not listed! Either way, this is a 2𝑥 2 +2𝑥−18
Partial fractions Take, for example, . The factor (𝑥 − 3) is repeated in the denominator. When we split
contradiction in the assumption we took to be true. Therefore, there must be an infinite 𝑥(𝑥−3)2
number of prime numbers. A fraction with more than one linear factor in the denominator can be split up into separate fractions, this fraction up, we must use an extra fraction to account for the repetition. Our partial fractions
6𝑥 2 +5𝑥−2 𝐴 𝐵 𝐶 become:
which are known as partial fractions. For example, we can rewrite as + + for
𝑥(𝑥−1)(2𝑥+1) 𝑥 𝑥−1 2𝑥+1
Example 2: Prove by contradiction that there exist no integers a and b such that some constants 𝐴, 𝐵 and 𝐶. Notice how the linear factors in the denominator of the original fraction are 2𝑥 2 + 2𝑥 − 18 𝐴 𝐵 𝐶
now separated into different fractions. 2 ≡ + +
21𝑎 + 14𝑏 = 1. 𝑥(𝑥 − 3) 𝑥 (𝑥 − 3) (𝑥 − 3)2

Assume there are integers a and b such that 21𝑎 + 14𝑏 = 1. ▪ If you have an improper fraction, you must first perform long division and use the relationship (*) Once you have set up the above equality, you can proceed to using partial fractions as we did
to attain an expression in terms of a proper fraction, before you can use partial fractions. above. Here are two more examples of how we split up such fractions:
1
Dividing through by 7: 3𝑎 + 2𝑏 = .
7 ▪ If you have a proper fraction, you can proceed to the partial fraction method straight away. 10𝑥 2 − 10𝑥 + 17 𝐴 𝐵 𝐶
We can already see a problem; we assumed a and b to be integers, so 3𝑎 + 2𝑏 must also be ≡ + +
1 (2𝑥 + 1)(𝑥 − 3)2 2𝑥 + 1 (𝑥 − 3) (𝑥 − 3)2
an integer. As a result, there is no possible way we could have .on the 𝑅𝐻𝑆. This is a When we say linear factor, we mean something of the form 𝑎𝑥 + 𝑏. Sometimes the denominator is not
7
contradiction and so we can conclude there are no integers a and b such that that 21𝑎 + given in a linear factorised form. In such cases, you should try to find a factorisation if you want to split via 2𝑥 𝐴 𝐵
14𝑏 = 1. Note that we choose to divide by 7 as it is a common divisor of 21 and 14. partial fractions. For example: ≡ +
(𝑥 + 2)2 (𝑥 + 2) (𝑥 + 2)2
2 2 2𝑥 2𝑥
→ 𝑜𝑟 2 →
𝑥2 − 4 (𝑥 + 2)(𝑥 − 2) 𝑥 + 9𝑥 + 18 (𝑥 + 6)(𝑥 + 3)

https://bit.ly/pmt-cc
https://bit.ly/pmt-edu https://bit.ly/pmt-cc