Proof

January 25th
84 notes

Source

Polynomials as Sequences

isomorphismes:
One reason polynomials are interesting is that you can use them to encode sequences.

$\begin{matrix} 1 + x + x^2 + x^3 + x^4 + x^5 + x^6 + \cdots \\ \\ 5 + 2 \, x + 13 \, x^2 + 87.1 \, x^3 - x^4 + x^5 - 3 x^6 \cdots \\ \\ (\ 5, \ \ 2, \ \ 13, \ \; 87.1, \ -1, \ \ 1, \ -3, \ \ldots\ ) \\ \\ a + b \, x + c \, x^2 + d \, x^3 + e \, x^4 + f \, x^5 + g \, x^6 + \cdots \\ \\ \sum_0^N \mathrm{const}_i \cdot x^i \end{matrix}$

In fact some of the theory of abstract algebra (the theory of rings) deals specifically with how your perspective changes when you erase all of the x^297 and x^16 terms and think instead about a sequence of numbers, which actually doesn’t represent a sequence at all but one single functional.

$\begin{matrix} 1 + x + x^2 + x^3 + x^4 + x^5 + x^6 + \cdots \\ \\ (\ 1, \ \ 1, \ \ 1, \ \ 1, \ \ 1, \ \ 1, \ \ 1, \ \ldots\ ) \\ \\ 5 + 2 \, x + 13 \, x^2 + 87.1 \, x^3 - x^4 + x^5 - 3 x^6 \cdots \\ \\ (\ 5, \ \ 2, \ \ 13, \ \; 87.1, \ -1, \ \ 1, \ -3, \ \ldots\ ) \\ \\ a + b \, x + c \, x^2 + d \, x^3 + e \, x^4 + f \, x^5 + g \, x^6 + \cdots \\ \\ (\ a, \ \ b, \ \ c, \ \ d, \ \ e, \ \ f, \ \ g, \ \ldots\ ) \\ \\ \sum_0^N \mathrm{const}_i \cdot x^i \\ \\ (\ \mathrm{const}_0, \ \ \mathrm{const}_1, \ \ \mathrm{const}_2, \ \ \mathrm{const}_3, \ \ \mathrm{const}_4, \ \ \mathrm{const}_5, \ \ \mathrm{const}_6, \ \ldots\ ) \end{matrix}$

When you put that together with observations about polynomials
- Every sequence is a functional. (OK, can be made into a functional / corresponds to a functional)
- So plain-old sequences like 2, 8, 197, 1780, … actually represent curvy, warped things.
- Any questions about analyticity, meromorphicity, convergence-of-series, etc, and any tools used to answer them, now apply to plain old sequences-of-numbers.
- Remember Taylor polynomials? There’s a calculus connection here.
- Derivatives and integrals can be performed on any sequence of plain-old-numbers. They correspond (modulo k!) to a left-shift and right-shift of the sequence.
- You can take the Fourier transform of a sequence of numbers.
- How about integer sequences from the OEIS? What do those functions look like? How about once they’re Taylored down? (each term divided by k!.)
- Sequences are lists. Sequences are polynomials. Vectors are lists. Ergo—polynomials are vectors?!
- Yes, they are, and due to Taylor’s theorem sequences-as-vectors constitute a basis for all smooth ℝ→ℝ functionals.
- The first question of algebraic geometry arises from this viewpoint as well. A sequence of “numbers” instantiates a polynomial, which has “zeroes”. (The places where the weighted x^1192 terms sum to 0.)
  
  So middle-school algebra instantiates a natural mapping from one sequence to another. For example (1, 1, −2, −1, 1) ⟼ (−1, 1−φ, 1, φ). Look, I don’t make the rules. That correspondence just is there, because of logic.
  
  Instead of thinking sequence → polynomial → curve on a graph → places where the curve passes through a horizontal line, you can think sequence → sequence. How are sequences→ connected to →sequences? Here’s an example sequence (0.0, 1.1, 2.2, 3.3, 4.4, 0, 0, 7.7) to start playing with on WolframAlpha. Try to understand how the roots dance around when you change sequence.
- Looking at sequences as polynomials explains the partition function (how many ways can you split up 7?) As explained here.
- Also, general combinatorics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerative_combinatorics problems besides the partition example, are often answered by a polynomial-as-sequence.
- Did I mention that combinatorics are the basis for Algorithms that make computers run faster?
- Did I mention that Algorithms class is one of the two fundae that set hunky Computer Scientists above the rest of us dipsh_t programmers?
- There is a connection to knots as well.
- Which means that group theory / braid theory / knot theory can be used to simplify any problem that reduces to “some polynomial”.
- Which means that, if complicated systems of particles, financial patterns, whatever, can be reduced to a polynomial, then I can use a much simpler (and more visual) way of reasoning about the complicated thing.
- I think this stuff also relates to Gödel numbers, which encode mathematical proofs.
- You can encode all of the outputs of a ℕ→ℕ function as a sequence. Which means you may be able to factor a sequence into the product of other sequences. In other words, maybe you can multiply simple sequences together to get the complicated sequence—or function—you’re looking for.
This is an example of when the kind of language mathematics is, is quite nice. Every author’s sprawling thoughts coming from here and going to there while taking a detour to la-la land, are condensed by uniformity of notation. Then by force of reasoning, analogies are held fast, concrete is poured over them, and eventually you can walk across the bridge to Tarabithia. Try nailing down parallels between Marx & Engels, it’s much harder.

All of these connections give one an archaeological feeling, like … What exactly am I unearthing here?
(Source: isomorphismes)
1. hipsterocrite reblogged this from proofmathisbeautiful
2. jazzcar reblogged this from proofmathisbeautiful and added:
  
  FUCK YEAH HOLY FUCK I LOVE THIS STUFF LET ME IN THIS GODDAMN CLASS I DON’T WANT TO MISS OUT
3. peopleasflowers reblogged this from proofmathisbeautiful
4. thebrilife liked this
5. whylan liked this
6. alwaysgohard reblogged this from proofmathisbeautiful
7. lowlightdistrict liked this
8. mayonnaise-is-an-instrument reblogged this from proofmathisbeautiful
9. truthisnevervain liked this
10. 1544ad liked this
11. 1544ad reblogged this from proofmathisbeautiful
12. bparramosqueda reblogged this from isomorphismes
13. biognosis liked this
14. webeclubbin liked this
15. raymondradioactive liked this
16. raymondradioactive reblogged this from proofmathisbeautiful
17. mindcrafter liked this
18. guestsinmycorn reblogged this from isomorphismes and added:
  
  probably aren’t...my followers, but insanely interesting
19. singmeeverything liked this
20. yo-yoyosh liked this
21. inuyasha420 reblogged this from isomorphismes
22. insane-mathematician reblogged this from proofmathisbeautiful
23. setlightrun liked this
24. naturalanomaly liked this
25. masterpieceinchaos reblogged this from proofmathisbeautiful
26. digawm reblogged this from isomorphismes
27. angular-momentum said: yay, thanks dude
28. angular-momentum liked this
29. gocchan-tm reblogged this from isomorphismes
30. gocchan-tm liked this
31. fraicheur liked this
32. petalfold reblogged this from proofmathisbeautiful
33. fred-o reblogged this from proofmathisbeautiful and added:
  
  My guess is that one day we discover that everything is 0.
34. haettenschweiler liked this
35. datahacker liked this
36. slave2music reblogged this from proofmathisbeautiful
37. taniedi reblogged this from isomorphismes
38. notthelast liked this
39. oh-look-an-art-major liked this
40. jvonneumann liked this
41. limefriend reblogged this from proofmathisbeautiful
42. doesitsuityou liked this
43. heathermayday reblogged this from proofmathisbeautiful
44. deletedthesolarsystem liked this
45. aineko liked this
46. catatoxic liked this
47. enasmathematikos liked this
48. onebree liked this
49. hipsterocrite liked this
50. Show more notesLoading...

Polynomials as Sequences