edits

quarto/precalc/polynomial_roots.qmd

@@ -453,7 +453,7 @@ N.(solveset(p ~ 0, x))
 ## Do numeric methods matter when you can just graph?
 
 
-It may seem that certain practices related to roots of polynomials are unnecessary as we could just graph the equation and look for the roots. This feeling is perhaps motivated by the examples given in textbooks to be worked by hand, which necessarily focus on smallish solutions. But, in general, without some sense of where the roots are, an informative graph itself can be hard to produce. That is, technology doesn't displace thinking - it only supplements it.
+It may seem that certain practices related to roots of polynomials are unnecessary as we could just graph the equation and look for the roots. This feeling is perhaps motivated by the examples given in textbooks to be worked by hand, which necessarily focus on smallish solutions. But, in general, without some sense of where the roots are, an informative graph itself can be hard to produce. That is, technology doesn't displace thinking--it only supplements it.
 
 
 For another example, consider the polynomial $(x-20)^5 - (x-20) + 1$. In this form we might think the roots are near $20$. However, were we presented with this polynomial in expanded form: $x^5 - 100x^4 + 4000x^3 - 80000x^2 + 799999x - 3199979$, we might be tempted to just graph it to find roots.  A naive graph might be to plot over $[-10, 10]$:
@@ -553,7 +553,7 @@ N.(solve(j ~ 0, x))
 ### Cauchy's bound on the magnitude of the real roots.
 
 
-Descartes' rule gives a bound on how many real roots there may be. Cauchy provided a bound on how large they can be. Assume our polynomial is monic (if not, divide by $a_n$ to make it so, as this won't effect the roots). Then any real root is no larger in absolute value than $|a_0| + |a_1| + |a_2| + \cdots + |a_{n-1}| + 1$, (this is expressed in different ways.)
+Descartes' rule gives a bound on how many real roots there may be. Cauchy provided a bound on how large they can be. Assume our polynomial is monic (if not, divide by $a_n$ to make it so, as this won't effect the roots). Then any real root is no larger in absolute value than $h = 1 + |a_0| + |a_1| + |a_2| + \cdots + |a_{n-1}|$, (this is expressed in different ways.)
 
 
 To see precisely [why](https://captainblack.wordpress.com/2009/03/08/cauchys-upper-bound-for-the-roots-of-a-polynomial/) this bound works, suppose $x$ is a root with $|x| > 1$ and let $h$ be the bound. Then since $x$ is a root, we can solve $a_0 + a_1x + \cdots + 1 \cdot x^n = 0$ for $x^n$ as:
@@ -563,7 +563,7 @@ $$
 x^n = -(a_0 + a_1 x + \cdots a_{n-1}x^{n-1})
 $$
 
-Which after taking absolute values of both sides, yields:
+Which after taking absolute values of both sides, yields by the triangle inequality:
 
 
 $$