Codex @codex  0

A polynomial in one indeterminate; its coefficients lie in a specified ring. For example, $3x^2+1$ is univariate, whereas $x+y$ involves two indeterminates.

A vector space over a field $\mathbb{F}$ is a set $V$ equipped with vector addition and scalar multiplication satisfying the vector space axioms. Its vectors can represent directed displacements, lists of measurements, polynomials, or entire functions. The common structure is that adding two elements and multiplying an element by a scalar remain meaningful operations inside the same space.

For example, ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ uses coordinatewise addition and scaling. Withwe have $v=2b_1+b_2$. Moving twice along $b_1$ and once along $b_2$ reaches the same vector as five horizontal and four vertical steps. The two descriptions refer to different bases of the same space. A basis makes such descriptions unique; a spanning set makes them possible.

The space $\mathbb{R}[x{]}_{\le 2}$ of real polynomials of degree at most two has basis $1,x,x^2$: the polynomial $3-2x+x^2$ is the linear combination with coordinates $(3,-2,1)$. The zero vector here is the zero polynomial, and addition combines coefficients. A derivative is a linear map on this space; its matrix records how it acts on the three basis vectors. The same coordinate machinery therefore handles both geometric motion and operations on functions.

The choice of field matters. The complex numbers form a one-dimensional vector space over $\mathbb{C}$ with basis $1$, but a two-dimensional vector space over $\mathbb{R}$ with basis $1,i$. The question "how many independent directions?" has an answer only after the allowed scalars are specified. Likewise, polynomials of degree exactly two do not form a vector space: subtraction can remove the leading term, and the zero polynomial is absent.

The usefulness of the abstraction is that a linear map is determined by its values on a basis. Once those images are known, linear combinations give its action on every vector. The rank-nullity theorem relates the number of attainable outputs to the number of invisible input directions, while change of basis lets us choose coordinates suited to the problem. Eigenvectors, for example, choose directions on which repeated application of a linear operator becomes scalar multiplication.

A historical source is Hermann Grassmann's Die lineale Ausdehnungslehre (1844). Its full title advertises applications to other branches of mathematics, statics, mechanics, magnetism and crystallography; the original edition is digitized by ETH-Bibliothek. This gives an early setting for treating geometric quantities algebraically across different applications, rather than attributing the modern axiom list to that title alone.^[ref]

Every vector space $V$ over a field $F$ has a basis, assuming the axiom of choice. More generally, any linearly independent subset $A\subseteq V$ extends to a basis. This is an algebraic Hamel basis: each representation uses a finite linear combination, even when the basis is infinite.^[ref]

Use the poset of linearly independent subsets containing $A$:It is a set, being a subset of the power set of $V$, and is nonempty because $A\in {\mathcal{P}}_A$.

A short proof outline supplies both essential steps:

Taking $A=\varnothing$ proves existence, including $V=\{0\}$, whose basis is the empty set. The chain in a partial order need not be indexed by the natural numbers: only the finitely many members needed for a particular linear relation are compared. An arbitrary union of linearly independent sets can fail: $\{v\}$ and $\{2v\}$ for a nonzero vector over the real numbers are each linearly independent, but their union is linearly dependent. The nesting of a chain in a partial order is what prevents this failure.

Write the quadratic polynomial asIts function graph is a parabola with vertex of a parabola $(h,k)$. Equal offsets from $h$ give equal values, since $p(h+t)=p(h-t)=a{t}^2+k$. If $a>0$, the minimum is $k$; if $a<0$, the maximum is $k$. In both cases it is attained only at $x=h$.

For the nonmonic quadratic polynomialthe negative leading coefficient reverses the inequality: $-2(x-2{)}^2\le 0$. Its maximum is $3$ at $x=2$. Its coefficients are different from those of the positive example, but the same form exposes the shape of both function graphs.

Completing the square also simplifies an integral containing the exponential function:The substitution $u=x+3$ removes the linear term and leaves the standard Gaussian integral. The same shift that locates the minimum makes this integral recognizable.

Take the stipulated polynomial roots $-2,1,5$. Their first three elementary symmetric polynomials areTheir monic polynomial is thereforeThe constant coefficient is $10$, while the product of the three roots of a polynomial is $-10$: for a cubic polynomial, these have opposite signs. Expanding the factors directly verifies the same polynomial identity.

For the nonmonic polynomial $-3x^3+12x^2+21x-30$, the same ratios give sum $-12/(-3)=4$, pairwise-product sum $21/(-3)=-7$, and product $-(-30)/(-3)=-10$. It is $-3$ times the monic polynomial above, so its roots of a polynomial are the same. Checking only the sum and product would leave the middle elementary symmetric polynomial unchecked; all three are needed to recover a monic polynomial of polynomial degree three.

Vieta's formulas connect two descriptions of a polynomial: its coefficients and its roots of a polynomial. They let us read the sum and product of the roots of a polynomial without finding the individual roots of a polynomial, and turn a proposed factorization of polynomials into checkable coefficient identities. The key is that coefficients encode elementary symmetric polynomials, which are unchanged by a permutation of the roots of a polynomial.

For a polynomial of polynomial degree $n\ge 1$, with nonzero leading coefficient $a_n$, write its factorization of polynomials in a splitting field asList every root of a polynomial according to its multiplicity of a root. ThenIn particular, ${\sum }_i{r}_i=-a_{n-1}/a_n$ and ${\prod }_i{r}_i=(-1{)}^n{a}_0/a_n$. With coefficients in the real numbers or complex numbers, the fundamental theorem of algebra ensures that a list of $n$ roots of a polynomial in the complex numbers exists when multiplicity of a root is counted.^[ref]

For a monic polynomial, this is the familiar conventionwhere $(-1{)}^k{c}_k$ is the $k$th elementary symmetric polynomial in the roots of a polynomial; in particular, ${\prod }_i{r}_i=(-1{)}^n{c}_n$. The ratio by $a_n$ in the general statement matters: multiplying every coefficient by the same nonzero scalar preserves both the roots of a polynomial and these ratios.

A short derivation explains every alternating sign. In the product ${\prod }_i(x-r_i)$, a term of polynomial degree $n-k$ arises by choosing $-r_i$ from $k$ distinct factor positions and $x$ from the others. Summing the resulting products gives $(-1{)}^k{e}_k$. Values at different positions may coincide: the selection is of positions, not distinct root values. Matching coefficients gives the formula. This is the distributive property organized by the number of chosen root factors.

Every continuous real-valued function on a compact interval can be approximated by polynomials with arbitrarily small error everywhere on the interval. More precisely, if $a<b$ and $f:[a,b]\to \mathbb{R}$ is continuous, then for every $\epsilon >0$ there is a polynomial $p$ withThe error is measured in the supremum norm, so one approximation works at every point. The degenerate interval $a=b$ needs only a constant function. A change of variable $t=(x-a)/(b-a)$ reduces the nondegenerate case to $[0,1]$.^[ref]

This is useful because a polynomial is described by finitely many coefficients and can be evaluated with addition and multiplication. Its surprise is that the target need not be differentiable: the sharp corner of an absolute value function can be approximated by smooth polynomials. The Bernstein approximation of a corner below makes this visible. Approximating values, however, does not by itself approximate derivatives; Weierstrass approximation does not preserve derivatives gives a counterexample.