Proof: Zeros Localisation Theorem












1












$begingroup$


I have looked at the suggested related questions before asking.
From a First Course In Mathematical Analysis, David Brannan, page 148.Is the proof wrong?
zeros Localisation Theorem
Let $p(x) = {x^n} + {a_{n - 1}}{x^{n - 1}} + ... + {a_1}x + {a_0}$,$x in R$,be a polynomial.
Then all zeros of p line in $( - M,M)$, where $M = 1 + max { left| {{a_{n - 1}}} right|,...,left| {{a_1}} right|left| {{a_0}} right|} $



$r(x) = frac{{p(x)}}{{{x^n}}} - 1 = frac{{{a_{n - 1}}}}{x} + ... + frac{{{a_1}}}{{{x^{n - 1}}}} + frac{{{a_0}}}{{{x^n}}},x in R - { 0} $ then, using the triangle inequality for $left| x right| > 1$



$left| {r(x)} right| = left| {frac{{{a_{n - 1}}}}{x} + ... + frac{{{a_1}}}{{{x^{n - 1}}}} + frac{{{a_0}}}{{{x^n}}}} right| le left| {frac{{{a_{n - 1}}}}{x}} right| + ... + left| {frac{{{a_0}}}{{{x^n}}}} right|$



$ le max { left| {{a_{n - 1}}} right|,left| {{a_1}} right|,left| {{a_0}} right|}left( {frac{1}{{left| x right|}} + ... + frac{1}{{{{left| x right|}^{n - 1}}}} + frac{1}{{{{left| x right|}^n}}}} right)$



$ < Mleft( {frac{1}{{left| x right|}} + ... + frac{1}{{{{left| x right|}^{n - 1}}}} + frac{1}{{{{left| x right|}^n}}} + ...} right)$
$ = M$$frac{{{textstyle{1 over {left| x right|}}}}}{{1 - {textstyle{1 over {left| x right|}}}}} = frac{M}{{left| x right| - 1}}$it follows that if $ {x ge M = 1 + max { left| {{a_{n - 1}}} right|,...,left| {{a_0}} right|} } $ then $left| {r(x)} right| < 1$.
But surely, if $left| x right| = M$ then $left| {r(x)} right| < frac{M}{{left| x right| - 1}} = frac{M}{{M - 1}}$ is greater than 1!










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Please see math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/…
    $endgroup$
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Dec 23 '18 at 13:01










  • $begingroup$
    Please don't use x for multiplication. If you really must you can use times which renders as $times$, but even this is rarely needed.
    $endgroup$
    – Ian
    Jan 8 at 15:31


















1












$begingroup$


I have looked at the suggested related questions before asking.
From a First Course In Mathematical Analysis, David Brannan, page 148.Is the proof wrong?
zeros Localisation Theorem
Let $p(x) = {x^n} + {a_{n - 1}}{x^{n - 1}} + ... + {a_1}x + {a_0}$,$x in R$,be a polynomial.
Then all zeros of p line in $( - M,M)$, where $M = 1 + max { left| {{a_{n - 1}}} right|,...,left| {{a_1}} right|left| {{a_0}} right|} $



$r(x) = frac{{p(x)}}{{{x^n}}} - 1 = frac{{{a_{n - 1}}}}{x} + ... + frac{{{a_1}}}{{{x^{n - 1}}}} + frac{{{a_0}}}{{{x^n}}},x in R - { 0} $ then, using the triangle inequality for $left| x right| > 1$



$left| {r(x)} right| = left| {frac{{{a_{n - 1}}}}{x} + ... + frac{{{a_1}}}{{{x^{n - 1}}}} + frac{{{a_0}}}{{{x^n}}}} right| le left| {frac{{{a_{n - 1}}}}{x}} right| + ... + left| {frac{{{a_0}}}{{{x^n}}}} right|$



$ le max { left| {{a_{n - 1}}} right|,left| {{a_1}} right|,left| {{a_0}} right|}left( {frac{1}{{left| x right|}} + ... + frac{1}{{{{left| x right|}^{n - 1}}}} + frac{1}{{{{left| x right|}^n}}}} right)$



$ < Mleft( {frac{1}{{left| x right|}} + ... + frac{1}{{{{left| x right|}^{n - 1}}}} + frac{1}{{{{left| x right|}^n}}} + ...} right)$
$ = M$$frac{{{textstyle{1 over {left| x right|}}}}}{{1 - {textstyle{1 over {left| x right|}}}}} = frac{M}{{left| x right| - 1}}$it follows that if $ {x ge M = 1 + max { left| {{a_{n - 1}}} right|,...,left| {{a_0}} right|} } $ then $left| {r(x)} right| < 1$.
But surely, if $left| x right| = M$ then $left| {r(x)} right| < frac{M}{{left| x right| - 1}} = frac{M}{{M - 1}}$ is greater than 1!










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Please see math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/…
    $endgroup$
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Dec 23 '18 at 13:01










  • $begingroup$
    Please don't use x for multiplication. If you really must you can use times which renders as $times$, but even this is rarely needed.
    $endgroup$
    – Ian
    Jan 8 at 15:31
















1












1








1





$begingroup$


I have looked at the suggested related questions before asking.
From a First Course In Mathematical Analysis, David Brannan, page 148.Is the proof wrong?
zeros Localisation Theorem
Let $p(x) = {x^n} + {a_{n - 1}}{x^{n - 1}} + ... + {a_1}x + {a_0}$,$x in R$,be a polynomial.
Then all zeros of p line in $( - M,M)$, where $M = 1 + max { left| {{a_{n - 1}}} right|,...,left| {{a_1}} right|left| {{a_0}} right|} $



$r(x) = frac{{p(x)}}{{{x^n}}} - 1 = frac{{{a_{n - 1}}}}{x} + ... + frac{{{a_1}}}{{{x^{n - 1}}}} + frac{{{a_0}}}{{{x^n}}},x in R - { 0} $ then, using the triangle inequality for $left| x right| > 1$



$left| {r(x)} right| = left| {frac{{{a_{n - 1}}}}{x} + ... + frac{{{a_1}}}{{{x^{n - 1}}}} + frac{{{a_0}}}{{{x^n}}}} right| le left| {frac{{{a_{n - 1}}}}{x}} right| + ... + left| {frac{{{a_0}}}{{{x^n}}}} right|$



$ le max { left| {{a_{n - 1}}} right|,left| {{a_1}} right|,left| {{a_0}} right|}left( {frac{1}{{left| x right|}} + ... + frac{1}{{{{left| x right|}^{n - 1}}}} + frac{1}{{{{left| x right|}^n}}}} right)$



$ < Mleft( {frac{1}{{left| x right|}} + ... + frac{1}{{{{left| x right|}^{n - 1}}}} + frac{1}{{{{left| x right|}^n}}} + ...} right)$
$ = M$$frac{{{textstyle{1 over {left| x right|}}}}}{{1 - {textstyle{1 over {left| x right|}}}}} = frac{M}{{left| x right| - 1}}$it follows that if $ {x ge M = 1 + max { left| {{a_{n - 1}}} right|,...,left| {{a_0}} right|} } $ then $left| {r(x)} right| < 1$.
But surely, if $left| x right| = M$ then $left| {r(x)} right| < frac{M}{{left| x right| - 1}} = frac{M}{{M - 1}}$ is greater than 1!










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I have looked at the suggested related questions before asking.
From a First Course In Mathematical Analysis, David Brannan, page 148.Is the proof wrong?
zeros Localisation Theorem
Let $p(x) = {x^n} + {a_{n - 1}}{x^{n - 1}} + ... + {a_1}x + {a_0}$,$x in R$,be a polynomial.
Then all zeros of p line in $( - M,M)$, where $M = 1 + max { left| {{a_{n - 1}}} right|,...,left| {{a_1}} right|left| {{a_0}} right|} $



$r(x) = frac{{p(x)}}{{{x^n}}} - 1 = frac{{{a_{n - 1}}}}{x} + ... + frac{{{a_1}}}{{{x^{n - 1}}}} + frac{{{a_0}}}{{{x^n}}},x in R - { 0} $ then, using the triangle inequality for $left| x right| > 1$



$left| {r(x)} right| = left| {frac{{{a_{n - 1}}}}{x} + ... + frac{{{a_1}}}{{{x^{n - 1}}}} + frac{{{a_0}}}{{{x^n}}}} right| le left| {frac{{{a_{n - 1}}}}{x}} right| + ... + left| {frac{{{a_0}}}{{{x^n}}}} right|$



$ le max { left| {{a_{n - 1}}} right|,left| {{a_1}} right|,left| {{a_0}} right|}left( {frac{1}{{left| x right|}} + ... + frac{1}{{{{left| x right|}^{n - 1}}}} + frac{1}{{{{left| x right|}^n}}}} right)$



$ < Mleft( {frac{1}{{left| x right|}} + ... + frac{1}{{{{left| x right|}^{n - 1}}}} + frac{1}{{{{left| x right|}^n}}} + ...} right)$
$ = M$$frac{{{textstyle{1 over {left| x right|}}}}}{{1 - {textstyle{1 over {left| x right|}}}}} = frac{M}{{left| x right| - 1}}$it follows that if $ {x ge M = 1 + max { left| {{a_{n - 1}}} right|,...,left| {{a_0}} right|} } $ then $left| {r(x)} right| < 1$.
But surely, if $left| x right| = M$ then $left| {r(x)} right| < frac{M}{{left| x right| - 1}} = frac{M}{{M - 1}}$ is greater than 1!







real-analysis






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jan 8 at 15:36









Ian

69.2k25393




69.2k25393










asked Dec 23 '18 at 12:43









MegamaticsMegamatics

194




194












  • $begingroup$
    Please see math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/…
    $endgroup$
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Dec 23 '18 at 13:01










  • $begingroup$
    Please don't use x for multiplication. If you really must you can use times which renders as $times$, but even this is rarely needed.
    $endgroup$
    – Ian
    Jan 8 at 15:31




















  • $begingroup$
    Please see math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/…
    $endgroup$
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Dec 23 '18 at 13:01










  • $begingroup$
    Please don't use x for multiplication. If you really must you can use times which renders as $times$, but even this is rarely needed.
    $endgroup$
    – Ian
    Jan 8 at 15:31


















$begingroup$
Please see math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/…
$endgroup$
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Dec 23 '18 at 13:01




$begingroup$
Please see math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/…
$endgroup$
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Dec 23 '18 at 13:01












$begingroup$
Please don't use x for multiplication. If you really must you can use times which renders as $times$, but even this is rarely needed.
$endgroup$
– Ian
Jan 8 at 15:31






$begingroup$
Please don't use x for multiplication. If you really must you can use times which renders as $times$, but even this is rarely needed.
$endgroup$
– Ian
Jan 8 at 15:31












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















0












$begingroup$

Your error is that you wrote that the max is less than $M$ but you really should have just denoted it by $M-1$ to keep things tighter. In the end the numerator here should be $M-1$ if $M$ is defined the way you defined it. This is why I don't like the style of injecting this $1+$ into the definition of symbols, I would prefer to define $M$ to be the maximum and use functions of that if need be in the proof (and even in the statement, in this situation).






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I have read your comment. I still do not understand. David Brannan printed this proof. To be clear could you redo the parts that are in error. When you refer to max are you referring to the function max because only mod x is greater or equal M.
    $endgroup$
    – Megamatics
    Jan 8 at 16:15










  • $begingroup$
    @Megamatics The error here is in trying to use $max { |a_0|,dots,|a_n| }<M$. This is true, but it is not sufficiently tight to obtain the desired result. The correct way to proceed would be to simply replace $max { |a_0|,dots,|a_n| }$ by $M-1$ (which is exactly what it is, there is no inequality here). Then you would wind up with $|r(x)|<frac{M-1}{|x|-1}$ which is what you want to see. If $M$ weren't defined with the $1+$ in it to begin with, you would avoid this problem, but the statement would be slightly uglier because the interval would become $[-(M+1),M+1]$.
    $endgroup$
    – Ian
    Jan 8 at 16:39





















0












$begingroup$

I understand now. Because $max { left| {{a_{n - 1}}} right|,...,left| {{a_1}} right|,left| {{a_0}} right|} le M - 1 < M$. So that
$max { left| {{a_{n - 1}}} right|,...,left| {{a_1}} right|,left| {{a_0}} right|} < M$ is true but now the tighter inequality is obliterated.
So looking back one line with $M$ in the sum causes a issue. $M - 1$ should have been carried through rather than $M$ to $frac{M}{{left| x right| - 1}}$. So a better bound on ${r(x)}$ is $frac{{M - 1}}{{left| x right| - 1}}$. I.e. $left| {r(x)} right| le frac{{M - 1}}{{left| x right| - 1}}$ then the argument from there is correct.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$














    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3050316%2fproof-zeros-localisation-theorem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    0












    $begingroup$

    Your error is that you wrote that the max is less than $M$ but you really should have just denoted it by $M-1$ to keep things tighter. In the end the numerator here should be $M-1$ if $M$ is defined the way you defined it. This is why I don't like the style of injecting this $1+$ into the definition of symbols, I would prefer to define $M$ to be the maximum and use functions of that if need be in the proof (and even in the statement, in this situation).






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      I have read your comment. I still do not understand. David Brannan printed this proof. To be clear could you redo the parts that are in error. When you refer to max are you referring to the function max because only mod x is greater or equal M.
      $endgroup$
      – Megamatics
      Jan 8 at 16:15










    • $begingroup$
      @Megamatics The error here is in trying to use $max { |a_0|,dots,|a_n| }<M$. This is true, but it is not sufficiently tight to obtain the desired result. The correct way to proceed would be to simply replace $max { |a_0|,dots,|a_n| }$ by $M-1$ (which is exactly what it is, there is no inequality here). Then you would wind up with $|r(x)|<frac{M-1}{|x|-1}$ which is what you want to see. If $M$ weren't defined with the $1+$ in it to begin with, you would avoid this problem, but the statement would be slightly uglier because the interval would become $[-(M+1),M+1]$.
      $endgroup$
      – Ian
      Jan 8 at 16:39


















    0












    $begingroup$

    Your error is that you wrote that the max is less than $M$ but you really should have just denoted it by $M-1$ to keep things tighter. In the end the numerator here should be $M-1$ if $M$ is defined the way you defined it. This is why I don't like the style of injecting this $1+$ into the definition of symbols, I would prefer to define $M$ to be the maximum and use functions of that if need be in the proof (and even in the statement, in this situation).






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      I have read your comment. I still do not understand. David Brannan printed this proof. To be clear could you redo the parts that are in error. When you refer to max are you referring to the function max because only mod x is greater or equal M.
      $endgroup$
      – Megamatics
      Jan 8 at 16:15










    • $begingroup$
      @Megamatics The error here is in trying to use $max { |a_0|,dots,|a_n| }<M$. This is true, but it is not sufficiently tight to obtain the desired result. The correct way to proceed would be to simply replace $max { |a_0|,dots,|a_n| }$ by $M-1$ (which is exactly what it is, there is no inequality here). Then you would wind up with $|r(x)|<frac{M-1}{|x|-1}$ which is what you want to see. If $M$ weren't defined with the $1+$ in it to begin with, you would avoid this problem, but the statement would be slightly uglier because the interval would become $[-(M+1),M+1]$.
      $endgroup$
      – Ian
      Jan 8 at 16:39
















    0












    0








    0





    $begingroup$

    Your error is that you wrote that the max is less than $M$ but you really should have just denoted it by $M-1$ to keep things tighter. In the end the numerator here should be $M-1$ if $M$ is defined the way you defined it. This is why I don't like the style of injecting this $1+$ into the definition of symbols, I would prefer to define $M$ to be the maximum and use functions of that if need be in the proof (and even in the statement, in this situation).






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    Your error is that you wrote that the max is less than $M$ but you really should have just denoted it by $M-1$ to keep things tighter. In the end the numerator here should be $M-1$ if $M$ is defined the way you defined it. This is why I don't like the style of injecting this $1+$ into the definition of symbols, I would prefer to define $M$ to be the maximum and use functions of that if need be in the proof (and even in the statement, in this situation).







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Jan 8 at 15:38









    IanIan

    69.2k25393




    69.2k25393












    • $begingroup$
      I have read your comment. I still do not understand. David Brannan printed this proof. To be clear could you redo the parts that are in error. When you refer to max are you referring to the function max because only mod x is greater or equal M.
      $endgroup$
      – Megamatics
      Jan 8 at 16:15










    • $begingroup$
      @Megamatics The error here is in trying to use $max { |a_0|,dots,|a_n| }<M$. This is true, but it is not sufficiently tight to obtain the desired result. The correct way to proceed would be to simply replace $max { |a_0|,dots,|a_n| }$ by $M-1$ (which is exactly what it is, there is no inequality here). Then you would wind up with $|r(x)|<frac{M-1}{|x|-1}$ which is what you want to see. If $M$ weren't defined with the $1+$ in it to begin with, you would avoid this problem, but the statement would be slightly uglier because the interval would become $[-(M+1),M+1]$.
      $endgroup$
      – Ian
      Jan 8 at 16:39




















    • $begingroup$
      I have read your comment. I still do not understand. David Brannan printed this proof. To be clear could you redo the parts that are in error. When you refer to max are you referring to the function max because only mod x is greater or equal M.
      $endgroup$
      – Megamatics
      Jan 8 at 16:15










    • $begingroup$
      @Megamatics The error here is in trying to use $max { |a_0|,dots,|a_n| }<M$. This is true, but it is not sufficiently tight to obtain the desired result. The correct way to proceed would be to simply replace $max { |a_0|,dots,|a_n| }$ by $M-1$ (which is exactly what it is, there is no inequality here). Then you would wind up with $|r(x)|<frac{M-1}{|x|-1}$ which is what you want to see. If $M$ weren't defined with the $1+$ in it to begin with, you would avoid this problem, but the statement would be slightly uglier because the interval would become $[-(M+1),M+1]$.
      $endgroup$
      – Ian
      Jan 8 at 16:39


















    $begingroup$
    I have read your comment. I still do not understand. David Brannan printed this proof. To be clear could you redo the parts that are in error. When you refer to max are you referring to the function max because only mod x is greater or equal M.
    $endgroup$
    – Megamatics
    Jan 8 at 16:15




    $begingroup$
    I have read your comment. I still do not understand. David Brannan printed this proof. To be clear could you redo the parts that are in error. When you refer to max are you referring to the function max because only mod x is greater or equal M.
    $endgroup$
    – Megamatics
    Jan 8 at 16:15












    $begingroup$
    @Megamatics The error here is in trying to use $max { |a_0|,dots,|a_n| }<M$. This is true, but it is not sufficiently tight to obtain the desired result. The correct way to proceed would be to simply replace $max { |a_0|,dots,|a_n| }$ by $M-1$ (which is exactly what it is, there is no inequality here). Then you would wind up with $|r(x)|<frac{M-1}{|x|-1}$ which is what you want to see. If $M$ weren't defined with the $1+$ in it to begin with, you would avoid this problem, but the statement would be slightly uglier because the interval would become $[-(M+1),M+1]$.
    $endgroup$
    – Ian
    Jan 8 at 16:39






    $begingroup$
    @Megamatics The error here is in trying to use $max { |a_0|,dots,|a_n| }<M$. This is true, but it is not sufficiently tight to obtain the desired result. The correct way to proceed would be to simply replace $max { |a_0|,dots,|a_n| }$ by $M-1$ (which is exactly what it is, there is no inequality here). Then you would wind up with $|r(x)|<frac{M-1}{|x|-1}$ which is what you want to see. If $M$ weren't defined with the $1+$ in it to begin with, you would avoid this problem, but the statement would be slightly uglier because the interval would become $[-(M+1),M+1]$.
    $endgroup$
    – Ian
    Jan 8 at 16:39













    0












    $begingroup$

    I understand now. Because $max { left| {{a_{n - 1}}} right|,...,left| {{a_1}} right|,left| {{a_0}} right|} le M - 1 < M$. So that
    $max { left| {{a_{n - 1}}} right|,...,left| {{a_1}} right|,left| {{a_0}} right|} < M$ is true but now the tighter inequality is obliterated.
    So looking back one line with $M$ in the sum causes a issue. $M - 1$ should have been carried through rather than $M$ to $frac{M}{{left| x right| - 1}}$. So a better bound on ${r(x)}$ is $frac{{M - 1}}{{left| x right| - 1}}$. I.e. $left| {r(x)} right| le frac{{M - 1}}{{left| x right| - 1}}$ then the argument from there is correct.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$


















      0












      $begingroup$

      I understand now. Because $max { left| {{a_{n - 1}}} right|,...,left| {{a_1}} right|,left| {{a_0}} right|} le M - 1 < M$. So that
      $max { left| {{a_{n - 1}}} right|,...,left| {{a_1}} right|,left| {{a_0}} right|} < M$ is true but now the tighter inequality is obliterated.
      So looking back one line with $M$ in the sum causes a issue. $M - 1$ should have been carried through rather than $M$ to $frac{M}{{left| x right| - 1}}$. So a better bound on ${r(x)}$ is $frac{{M - 1}}{{left| x right| - 1}}$. I.e. $left| {r(x)} right| le frac{{M - 1}}{{left| x right| - 1}}$ then the argument from there is correct.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$
















        0












        0








        0





        $begingroup$

        I understand now. Because $max { left| {{a_{n - 1}}} right|,...,left| {{a_1}} right|,left| {{a_0}} right|} le M - 1 < M$. So that
        $max { left| {{a_{n - 1}}} right|,...,left| {{a_1}} right|,left| {{a_0}} right|} < M$ is true but now the tighter inequality is obliterated.
        So looking back one line with $M$ in the sum causes a issue. $M - 1$ should have been carried through rather than $M$ to $frac{M}{{left| x right| - 1}}$. So a better bound on ${r(x)}$ is $frac{{M - 1}}{{left| x right| - 1}}$. I.e. $left| {r(x)} right| le frac{{M - 1}}{{left| x right| - 1}}$ then the argument from there is correct.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        I understand now. Because $max { left| {{a_{n - 1}}} right|,...,left| {{a_1}} right|,left| {{a_0}} right|} le M - 1 < M$. So that
        $max { left| {{a_{n - 1}}} right|,...,left| {{a_1}} right|,left| {{a_0}} right|} < M$ is true but now the tighter inequality is obliterated.
        So looking back one line with $M$ in the sum causes a issue. $M - 1$ should have been carried through rather than $M$ to $frac{M}{{left| x right| - 1}}$. So a better bound on ${r(x)}$ is $frac{{M - 1}}{{left| x right| - 1}}$. I.e. $left| {r(x)} right| le frac{{M - 1}}{{left| x right| - 1}}$ then the argument from there is correct.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Jan 8 at 23:36

























        answered Jan 8 at 19:28









        MegamaticsMegamatics

        194




        194






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3050316%2fproof-zeros-localisation-theorem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Plaza Victoria

            Puebla de Zaragoza

            Musa