2

When doing partial fraction decomposition, there are three cases:

Case 1: Denominator has distinct linear factors.

$f(x) = \dfrac{P(x)}{(x - a_1)...(x - a_k)} = \dfrac{A}{x - a_2} + \dfrac{B}{x - a_k}$ where $a_1, ..., a_k$ are pairwise distinct.

Case 2: Denominator has repeated linear factors.

$f(x) = \dfrac{P(x)}{(x - a)^c} = \dfrac{B_1}{x - a} + ... + \dfrac{B_c}{(c - a)^c}$

Case 3: Denominator has an irreducible factor of degree 2:

$f(x) = \dfrac{P(x)}{(x - a)(x^2 + bx + c)} = \dfrac{A_1}{x - a} + \dfrac{C_1x + C_2}{x^2 + bx + c}$

In cases 1 and 2, the numerators are all given constant placeholders ($A, B$), but in case 3, the numerator is given a polynomial of degree one as the placeholder ($C_1x + C_2$). I'm curious as to why this is the case. What is the difference between case 1 and 2 and 3 that necessitates this difference in the numerator? What is the reasoning behind this?

I would greatly appreciate it if people could please take the time to elaborate on this.

ADA
  • 1,653
The Pointer
  • 4,182
  • See the Related questions to yours, probably visible in a pane on the right side of your browser window. – Paul Mar 05 '17 at 14:23
  • 1
    I would do this if I were you. try a basic example. Try and decompose $$\frac{1}{(x-1)(x^2-x+1)}=\frac{A}{x-1}+\frac{B}{x^2-x+1}$$ See what happens when you try and solve. Consider you can only have two summands since you only have two factors. What does that mean for the numerators? – AveryJessup Mar 05 '17 at 14:23
  • @AveryJessup It seems that I only get one of the partial fractions -- $\dfrac{1}{(x - 1)(x^2 - x + 1)} = \dfrac{1}{x - 1}$? – The Pointer Mar 05 '17 at 14:35
  • Indeed. If you have any linear algebra, you would call this system inconsistent, since of the impossibility to get singular values. You have three equations and only 2 unknowns. That sets up issues... So you need a third unknown, but with only two fractions, it must be in the numerator of one of the two. But if your third unknown is only a constant, two constants added yield one. So the third unknown must be the coefficient of a higher degree. – AveryJessup Mar 05 '17 at 14:43

1 Answers1

2

I will offer a few explanations (some of which are obviously related, but may be more intuitive from one point of view than another.

"Because you need it"

One obvious thing to do is to try without and see what happens. You have, multiplying up and equating coefficients, $$ 1 = (x^2+2bx+c)A_1 + (x-a)P(x), $$ where $P(x)$ is the numerator of the quadratic fraction. If it's constant, there's no way to eliminate the $A_1 x^2$ without (absurdly) taking $A_1=0$, so the left-hand side would not be constant. If you take $P(x)=C_1x+C_2$, you can get rid of the $x^2$ term.

Asymptotic behaviour

For very large $x$, $x-a \approx x $, $x^2 + 2bx+c \approx x^2$: only the highest-degree terms are important. But this means that $$ \frac{1}{(x-a)(x^2+2bx+c)} \approx \frac{1}{x^3}, $$ while $$ \frac{A_1}{x-a}+\frac{C_2}{x^2+2bx+c} \approx \frac{A_1}{x}. $$ Since both sides need to have the same asymptotics, there needs to be an extra term to cancel the $A_1/x$.

Pretend the denominator is factorisable

Finally, we can pretend the denominator is actually factorisable, and see what happens when we put the fractions back together. $$ \frac{A}{x-a_1} + \frac{B}{x-a_2} = \frac{(A+B)x-a_1 B + a_2 A}{(x-a_1)(x-a_2)}, $$ so if $A+B \neq 0$, there is an $x$ term anyway. (This is actually legitimate, since the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra says any quadratic has two complex roots. Note the $x$ term does not involve the roots at all anyway.) It would be weird if this property didn't carry over to unfactorisable denominators, since we can always just not factor a factorisable quadratic when doing partial fractions.

Chappers
  • 67,606