Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Picture proof for expansion of $x^n−y^n$

+1
−2

Most students fail to intuit $x^n−y^n \equiv (x−y)(x^{n−1}+x^{n−2}y+...+xy^{n−2}+y^{n−1})$ as substantiated by the glut of duplicates, at least 20 on Math StackExchange. Thus how can students pictorialize it? I seek **solely **VISUAL (not algebraic) proofs here.

After substituting $z = \dfrac xy$, above identity follows from $z^n−1 \equiv (z−1)(z^{n−1}+z^{n−2}+...+z+1)$.

I couldn't find a picture proof from Roger B. Nelson's Proofs without Words (1993),
Proofs without Words II (2000), or
Proofs without Words III (2015)
.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

2 comment threads

A visual proof involving arbitrary powers seems difficult. I think the straightforward algebra proof ... (1 comment)
n = 2 (1 comment)

2 answers

You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.

+4
−0

Here's a semi-visual, semi-algebraic approach.

A useful alternative perspective on (univariate) polynomials is to think of them as being represented by their sequence of coefficients – filling in zeroes for any missing monomials. With this perspective, multiplying by $z$ simply shifts the sequence over by one. Arranging the coefficients in a table makes the result obvious. Here it is for $n=3$ using the $z$ form.

0 1 2 3 Corresponding polynomial
(1) $1$ $1$ $1$ $0$ $z^2 + z + 1$
(2) = $z$ times (1) $0$ $1$ $1$ $1$ $z(z^2 + z + 1)$
(3) = $-1$ times (1) $-1$ $-1$ $-1$ $0$ $-(z^2 + z + 1)$
(4) = (2) + (3) $-1$ $0$ $0$ $1$ $z^3 - 1$

This is, of course, the typical algebraic proof just written with a different notation for polynomials, but I think it makes it pretty obvious how to arrive at the solution and why it is correct and will generalize. I do find viewing polynomials as their sequences of coefficients does often make what is happening clearer. Theoretically, a benefit of defining operations in terms of this sequence perspective, is that you are always operating on a normal form representation of the polynomials, so you never end up with the same polynomial presented in different ways.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

+3
−0
$$\begin{array}{c} \times & \mid & x^{n−1} & +x^{n−2}y & +\ldots & +xy^{n−2} & +y^{n−1} \\ \hline x & \mid & x^n & {\color{blue} +x^{n−1}y} & +\ldots & +x^2 y^{n−2} & {\color{green} +x y^{n−1}} \\ -y & \mid & {\color{blue} -x^{n−1}y} & -x^{n−2}y^2 & -\ldots & {\color{green} -xy^{n−1}} & -y^n \end{array}$$
History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

Sign up to answer this question »