5

As I've learned Calculus, I've tried to follow along with proofs of the rules that I use. In most cases, like say the Power Rule, I'm able to follow along with the proofs using concepts I understand, or things I've already proved like the Binomial Theorem. In other cases, like the Extreme Value Theorem the concepts used to prove it seem to require math that's beyond me, so I save proving them for later.

I recently learned Partial Fraction Decomposition in the context of Integrals, and I became enamored with this technique. I searched for proofs of why it works, and most of them seem to rely on the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra. Most of the proofs of the FTA I've seen rely on either Number Theory or Complex Analysis. I'm interested in proving the FTA regardless of whether I need it to prove partial fractions.

If I want to:

  1. Prove the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra
  2. Prove why Partial Fractions work

What would be the recommended math path for me following Calc? Would it be to study Number Theory concepts like Euclidean Division and GCD, or to focus on complex numbers to prove the FTA?

Also, am I correct to assume that proving FTA should come before proving Partial Fractions always work because the latter proof will follow easily from the former?

Bill Dubuque
  • 285,713
Ben G
  • 1,013
  • 1
  • 8
  • 18
  • 2
    What do you mean by proving partial fractions? You need the FTA in order to prove that every real polynomial decomposes into linear and quadratic factors. If you've decomposed your specific polynomial into linear and quadratic factors then you do not need the FTA -- you've shown it by hand. FTA just shows that this decomposition is always possible in theory. The next step would be to understand why every rational function can be decomposed into the partial fractions that are used in integration, and this does not depend on the FTA. So I'm not sure the FTA is what you're looking for. – Snaw Jan 21 '22 at 00:20
  • I mean proving why they always work, and why the process works as it does. I made a small edit to that effect – Ben G Jan 21 '22 at 00:21
  • Well, if you want to understand why every rational function with denominator decomposed into linear and quadratic factors can be represented as the sum of simple fractions which are useful for integration then you don't need the FTA. You need it just to understand why you can always get to the decomposed denominator in the first place, and my point is that in practice in every exercise you are given you can do the decomposition by hand, so maybe the interesting part for you would be to skip the FTA and just understand why the actual representation as a sum works. – Snaw Jan 21 '22 at 00:26
  • "understand why the actual representation as a sum works." Why is that?

    Also, note that per my question I'm also interested in FTA for its own sake since its so ubiquitous. So if your comment was presented as an answer it might say: 1) take this shortcut to understanding partial fractions, 2) separately here is how you learn towards FTA from where you're at..

    – Ben G Jan 21 '22 at 00:33
  • 1
    FTA is a theorem in complex analysis so you need to learn the material covered in an introductory course on complex analysis. There are nice youtube videos giving pretty good intuition for why the FTA should be true from a naive geometric perspective, but to really get it in a mathematically rigorous way you'd need to study complex analysis (try Tristan Needham's book). For partial fractions decomposition: the wiki article seems good and gives an outline of proof with links to topics for which you may need background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_fraction_decomposition#Basic_principles – Snaw Jan 21 '22 at 01:03
  • Thanks Snaw. I was hoping for something less technical than wiki, which references Bezout's Identity, "the shape of the decomposition defines a linear map from coefficient vectors to polynomials f" etc.. Seems like I should try and get through linear algebra (vector) and some basic numbers theory (Bezout) before attempting the wiki proof..? unless there's a less technical way to following along with its logic – Ben G Jan 21 '22 at 01:07
  • 1
    "the shape of the decomposition defines a linear map from.." etc seems like a tangential note intending to give a higher level overview of what's going on but doesn't seem necessary to understand the proof. You still might be correct that wiki is too terse and quite possibly a more friendly introduction does exist. Yes, you will need the Euclidean algorithm and Bezout's lemma (which again relies on the Euclidean algorithm), you would not need to get very far in a number theory / ring theory course in order to get those, they are usually covered near the beginning of the course. – Snaw Jan 21 '22 at 01:13
  • @bgcode May I suggest not to shy away from content that is a bit technical? The shortest route to proving FTA is learning complex analysis. At most places, students will have gone through at least a year of the maths curriculum before getting there. Some mathematical maturity is required to get there and hoping for "less technical" expositions won't really lead to good understanding of the requisite material. – Jose Avilez Jan 21 '22 at 01:27
  • @JoseAvilez I accept that. Complex Analysis seems like the best route on FTA as well as better understanding of some other concepts I'm interested in, so it has been added to the queue. – Ben G Jan 21 '22 at 02:03
  • Computing partial fraction decompositions of rational functions is a straightforward application of the extended Euclidean algorithm (Bezout equation), e.g. see here in the linked dupe. This algorithm does not require complete prime factorization (FTA) but instead uses only much more efficient squarefree decomposition calculation (using only gcds and derivatives). – Bill Dubuque Nov 16 '25 at 18:39

2 Answers2

5

Partial fraction decomposition can be stated more generally (and independently of FTA) as:

Given polynomials $\,P(x), Q(x)\,$ with $\,\gcd\big(P(x),Q(x)\big) = 1\,$ i.e. relatively coprime, there exist $\,A(x), B(x)\,$ with $\,\deg A \lt \deg P\,$ and $\,\deg B \lt \deg Q\,$ such that:

$$ \frac{1}{P(x)Q(x)} = \frac{A(x)}{P(x)}+\frac{B(x)}{Q(x)} $$

This follows directly from Bézout's identity for polynomials, which states that polynomials $\,A,B\,$ exist that satisfy the respective degree constraints such that:

$$ 1 = \gcd\big(P(x),Q(x)\big) = B(x)P(x) + A(x) Q(x) $$

Dividing the equality by $\,P(x)Q(x)\,$ yields the partial fraction decomposition.

In particular:

  • for $\,P(x)=x+p_0\,$ this means $\,\frac{1}{(x+p)Q(x)} = \frac{a_0}{x+p_0}+\frac{B(x)}{Q(x)}\,$ for some constant $\,a_0\,$;

  • for $\,P(x)=x^2+p_1x+p_0\,$ this means $\,\frac{1}{(x^2+p_1x+p_0)Q(x)} = \frac{a_1 x + a_0}{x^2+p_1x+p_0}+\frac{B(x)}{Q(x)}\,$.

Applying the same steps to $\,\frac{1}{Q(x)}\,$ in the second term gives in the end the familiar decomposition with linear and quadratic denominators - and the existence of such factorization is the (only) part which relies on the FTA.

dxiv
  • 78,115
  • Ok great, I will study this answer. Would a reasonable path be: basic number theory -> bezout -> partial fractions, and save FTA for later courses (e.g. complex analysis)? – Ben G Jan 21 '22 at 01:17
  • 2
    @bgcode It all begins in basic algebra with euclidean division, where Bézout's identity comes from. In this respect, it works the same for polynomial long division as it does for integers. The FTA is only indirectly related to all this. In practice, partial fraction decomposition requires actually factoring the denominator. It is not enough to know that a factorization exists, which is what FTA states. – dxiv Jan 21 '22 at 01:23
  • So I just need to understand how division works to prove Bezout? – Ben G Jan 21 '22 at 01:25
  • @bgcode Yes, euclidean division not only proves Bézout's identity, but also allows you to calculate the actual polynomials $A,B$ involved. – dxiv Jan 21 '22 at 01:26
  • When I look for guides to Bezout's identity, they're not part of Algebra courses (e.g. you won't find on Khan). This one from Brilliant is part of an Elementary Number Theory course https://brilliant.org/wiki/bezouts-identity/ – Ben G Jan 21 '22 at 02:01
  • 1
    @bgcode Euclidean division is very much a matter of algebra. In abstract algebra there is a whole class of Euclidean rings which formalizes the notion of "integer-like" euclidean division. And, once you truly understand euclidean division, both the gist and the mechanics of it, Bézout's identity becomes "obvious". – dxiv Jan 21 '22 at 02:58
  • @dvix Wouldn't division fall under Arithmetic rather than Algebra? – Ben G Jan 21 '22 at 18:35
  • 2
    Guess it depends on how you define each, though arithmetic is generally understood to deal with numbers, mostly integers. That does cover integer division, and some notion of remainder (used with mixed fractions, for example). But euclidean division is stated in terms of variables and abstractions rather than concrete numbers, which pushes it more towards algebra. That said, math is not a fragmented map with rigid boundaries, and different people may label the same areas with different names. – dxiv Jan 22 '22 at 07:28
1

This can be proved using basic linear algebra. Lets say we want to use partial fraction decomposition on polynomials $\frac{P(x)}{Q(x)}$ with $\deg(P(x)) < \deg(Q(x))$ (if degree were not lesser user polynomial division algorithm to get it in that form). Then consider the vector space over $\mathbb{R}$ $$ \cal{S} =\{\frac{G(x)}{Q(x)}: \deg(G(x)) < \deg(Q(x))\}.$$ If we set $n = \deg(Q(x))$ then $\cal{S}$ has degree $n$. Then note by the fundamental theorem of algebra $Q(x)$ can be decomposed as a product $\prod (x-a_i)(x^2 + b_ix + c_i)$ where note we may have repeated elements in the product. If we group them up, then lets say we have a term of the form $(x-a)^m$, then note that elements of the form $\{\frac{1}{x-a}, \frac{1}{(x-a)^2},\ldots,\frac{1}{(x-a)^m}\}$ are linearly independent. Note that such elements are in $\mathcal{S}$ by noting that $$\frac{1}{(x-a)^s} = \frac{\frac{Q(x)}{(x-a)^s}}{Q(x)}, 1 \leq s \leq m.$$ Similarly if we have a grouping of $\frac{1}{(x^2 + bx + c)^k}$ then we have linearly independent vectors of the form $\{\frac{1}{x^2+bx+c}, \frac{x}{x^2+bx+c}, \ldots, \frac{1}{(x^2 + bx + c)^k}, \frac{x}{(x^2 + bx + c)^k}\}$ where again those vectors are in $\mathcal{S}$. Its not hard to see if we put all those basis elements together, they form a linearly independent set of size $n = \dim\mathcal{S}$ and so form a basis of $\mathcal{S}$. This then becomes the basis of writing $$\frac{P(x)}{Q(x)} = \sum_i\sum_j \frac{A_{i,j}}{(x-a_i)^j} + \sum_t\sum_k(\frac{B_{t,k}}{(x^2+b_tx+c_t)^k} + \frac{C_{t,k}x}{(x^2+b_tx+c_t)^k}).$$