Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

Let c1xn+c2xn-1+···+cnx+cn+1be a polynomial with a root atx=x0 . Let role="math" localid="1659797796589" cmaxbe the largest absolute value of a . Show that

|x0|<(n+1)cmaxc1

Short Answer

Expert verified

|x0|<(n+1)cmaxc1.This statement is proved.

Step by step solution

01

Algorithm for Polynomial.

A polynomial with a root atx=x0 and a sequence c1xn+c2xn-1+···+cnx+cn+1.and herecmax be the largest absolute value of a ciis always gives |x0|<(n+1)cmaxc1.

02

Step 2: Decidable languages is not closed under homomorphism. a).

Making the polynomial equal zero (in this case, x=x0):

c1x0n+c2xn-10+...............+cnx0+cn+1=0

Rearranging the terms:

c1x0n=-(c2x0n-1+............+cnx0+cn+1)

Taking the absolute value of both sides:

|c1x0n|   |c2x0n-1|+........+cnx0+cn+1|

Applying triangle inequality:

|c1x0n|   |c2x0n-1|+........+|cnx0|+|cn+1|

The inequality above still holds if we substitute cmaxfor all coefficients:

|c1x0n||cmax|(1+|x0|+..........+|x0n-1|)

The inequality also holds if we substitute,

nx0n1  for  (1+|x0|+..........+|x0n-1|)

|c1x0n||cmax|n|xon1|

The above result is very close to the desired result, except that it should be,

|x0|ncmaxc1

From the above result, it is true that:

|x0|<(n+1)cmaxc1, hence proved.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Let a k - PDA be a pushdown automaton that has k stacks. Thus a 0 - PDA is an NFA and a 1 - PDA is a conventional PDA. You already know that 1 - PDAs are more powerful (recognize a larger class of languages) than 0 - PDAs.

a. Show that 2 - PDAs are more powerful than 1 - PDAs.

b. Show that 3 - PDAs are not more powerful than2 - PDAs. (Hint: Simulate a Turing machine tape with two stacks.

Show that the collection of Turing-recognizable languages is closed under the operation of

  1. union.
  2. concatenation.
  3. star.
  4. intersection.
  5. homomorphism.

Let A be the language containing only the single string s, where

s=(0iflifeneverwillbefoundonMars.                                  1iflifewillbefoundonMarssomeday.)

Is decidable? Why or why not? For the purposes of this problem, assume that the question of whether life will be found on Mars has an unambiguous YES or NO answer.

In Theorem 3.21 we showed that a language is Turing-recognizable iff some enumerator enumerates it. Why didn’t we use the following simpler algorithm for the forward direction of the proof? As before, s1,s2,... is a list of all strings in *

E = “Ignore the input.

1. Repeat the following for i=1,2,3,...

2. Run M on si.

3. If it accepts, print out si.”

Examine the formal definition of a Turing machine to answer the following questions, and explain your reasoning.

a. Can a Turing machine ever write the blank symbol on its tape?

b. Can the tape alphabetΓbe the same as the input alphabet?

c. Can a Turing machine’s head ever be in the same location in two successive steps?

d. Can a Turing machine contain just a single state?

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Computer Science Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free