Quick factoring of large numbers?
I have a quick question here.
For an exercise, I was asked to factor:
$$11x^2 + 14x - 2685 = 0$$
How do I figure this out quickly without staring at it forever? Is there a quicker mathematical way than guessing number combinations, or do I have to guess until I find the right combination of numbers?
The answer is:
$$(11x + 179)(x - 15) = 0 $$
factoring
add a comment |
I have a quick question here.
For an exercise, I was asked to factor:
$$11x^2 + 14x - 2685 = 0$$
How do I figure this out quickly without staring at it forever? Is there a quicker mathematical way than guessing number combinations, or do I have to guess until I find the right combination of numbers?
The answer is:
$$(11x + 179)(x - 15) = 0 $$
factoring
Of course you might systematically try to compute the square root of the discriminant $14^2+11cdot 2685$ instead of guessing and trial division ...
– Hagen von Eitzen
Jun 8 '17 at 5:01
add a comment |
I have a quick question here.
For an exercise, I was asked to factor:
$$11x^2 + 14x - 2685 = 0$$
How do I figure this out quickly without staring at it forever? Is there a quicker mathematical way than guessing number combinations, or do I have to guess until I find the right combination of numbers?
The answer is:
$$(11x + 179)(x - 15) = 0 $$
factoring
I have a quick question here.
For an exercise, I was asked to factor:
$$11x^2 + 14x - 2685 = 0$$
How do I figure this out quickly without staring at it forever? Is there a quicker mathematical way than guessing number combinations, or do I have to guess until I find the right combination of numbers?
The answer is:
$$(11x + 179)(x - 15) = 0 $$
factoring
factoring
edited Jun 8 '17 at 4:30
Siong Thye Goh
98.6k1464116
98.6k1464116
asked Jun 8 '17 at 4:28
Jake
183
183
Of course you might systematically try to compute the square root of the discriminant $14^2+11cdot 2685$ instead of guessing and trial division ...
– Hagen von Eitzen
Jun 8 '17 at 5:01
add a comment |
Of course you might systematically try to compute the square root of the discriminant $14^2+11cdot 2685$ instead of guessing and trial division ...
– Hagen von Eitzen
Jun 8 '17 at 5:01
Of course you might systematically try to compute the square root of the discriminant $14^2+11cdot 2685$ instead of guessing and trial division ...
– Hagen von Eitzen
Jun 8 '17 at 5:01
Of course you might systematically try to compute the square root of the discriminant $14^2+11cdot 2685$ instead of guessing and trial division ...
– Hagen von Eitzen
Jun 8 '17 at 5:01
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
You want to know the divisibility rules for small numbers. We know $2685$ is divisible by $5$ because of the last digit and by $3$ because of the sum of the digits. Once you find those factors, divide them out, getting $179$. The rules show it is not divisible by $2,3,5,11$ (or $7$ if you know that one, but it is less common. I like the double the ones digit and subtract, which just gives a yes/no answer). Since you only need to check primes up to the square root of the number, you would just have to trial divide by $13$ and maybe $7$ to find that $179$ is prime. In exercises there will always be small factors. In RSA encryption, not so much.
add a comment |
Here's one suggestion: Look at $11$ and $-2685$. Factorize $2685$ into primes to get $3.5.179$. Then check the following.
$11.(-3)+(895), 11.(-15)+179, 11.(3)+(-895), 11.(15)+(-179)$ and check which yields $14$. The one that yields $14$ is $11.(-15)+179$. So you get $(11x+179)(x-15)$.
I don't know if this method is standard but it seems to work for me.
add a comment |
As mentioned in a comment, you can take all the fun out of this by just using the quadratic equation. But, OK, I'll bite!!!
So we assume that we don't know that formula and that the polynomial factors over the rational numbers (or alternatively, we can't miss a chance of employing twisted logic and factoring integers).
Recall the rational root theorem. Before tackling this also review the divisibility rules mentioned by Ross Millikan, and for good measure open up a list of the first 1000 prime numbers.
When we look at $11x^2+14x−2685=0$ the fact that $2,685$ has at least three factors all distinct from $11$ puts us in a foul mood (it would be nice if $11$ was factor, since the rational root theorem would be easier to apply). So we come up with a 'lazy idea'.
We can substitute $x = z + 1$ into $11x^2+14x−2685=0$ and note after regrouping back into polynomial form, the constant term will decrease and the leading coefficient will remain the same. We can keep doing this and see if life gets any easier.
In general, substituting $x = z + 1$ into $ax^2+bx+c=0$ gives $az^2 +(2a+b)z + (a+b+c)$.
For convenience (and a logical abuse), we will keep using the same variable $z$ as we substitute (it won't matter).
Substitution 1: The equation $11x^2+14x−2685=0$ becomes
$tag 1 11z^2 + 36z -2660$
We see $2$, $5$, and $7$ as factors - reject.
Substitution 2: The equation $11z^2 + 36z -2660$ becomes
$tag 2 11z^2 + 58z -2613$
We see $3$ as a divisor, and when we divide it out we get $871$. The 'easy pickings' divisibility rules are no help, so we check the prime number listing. We see that $871$ is a composite that doesn't include $11$ as a factor - reject.
Substitution 3: The equation $11z^2 + 58z -2613$ becomes
$tag 3 11z^2 + 80z -2544$
Just too many factors - reject.
Substitution 4: The equation $11z^2 + 80z -2544$ becomes
$tag 4 11z^2 + 102z -2453$
The number composite number $2,453$ (see prime list) is not divisible by $2$, $5$ or $3$. With a little amount of work you find that $2,453 = 11 times 223$. THIS IS IT!
Setting up for the rational roots, we are looking at
$quad pm frac {1,11,223,2453}{1,11}$
The number $1$ doesn't work, so we check the next easiest number $pm 11$ and find that $-11$ is a root of equation $text{(4)}$.
Now since the substitution was so simple, we can go back in one step, $-1 -1 -1 -1 = -4$, so that $-15$ is a root of the original equation. In a number of ways you can now get the final answer,
$quad (11x + 179)(x - 15) = 0$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2314327%2fquick-factoring-of-large-numbers%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
You want to know the divisibility rules for small numbers. We know $2685$ is divisible by $5$ because of the last digit and by $3$ because of the sum of the digits. Once you find those factors, divide them out, getting $179$. The rules show it is not divisible by $2,3,5,11$ (or $7$ if you know that one, but it is less common. I like the double the ones digit and subtract, which just gives a yes/no answer). Since you only need to check primes up to the square root of the number, you would just have to trial divide by $13$ and maybe $7$ to find that $179$ is prime. In exercises there will always be small factors. In RSA encryption, not so much.
add a comment |
You want to know the divisibility rules for small numbers. We know $2685$ is divisible by $5$ because of the last digit and by $3$ because of the sum of the digits. Once you find those factors, divide them out, getting $179$. The rules show it is not divisible by $2,3,5,11$ (or $7$ if you know that one, but it is less common. I like the double the ones digit and subtract, which just gives a yes/no answer). Since you only need to check primes up to the square root of the number, you would just have to trial divide by $13$ and maybe $7$ to find that $179$ is prime. In exercises there will always be small factors. In RSA encryption, not so much.
add a comment |
You want to know the divisibility rules for small numbers. We know $2685$ is divisible by $5$ because of the last digit and by $3$ because of the sum of the digits. Once you find those factors, divide them out, getting $179$. The rules show it is not divisible by $2,3,5,11$ (or $7$ if you know that one, but it is less common. I like the double the ones digit and subtract, which just gives a yes/no answer). Since you only need to check primes up to the square root of the number, you would just have to trial divide by $13$ and maybe $7$ to find that $179$ is prime. In exercises there will always be small factors. In RSA encryption, not so much.
You want to know the divisibility rules for small numbers. We know $2685$ is divisible by $5$ because of the last digit and by $3$ because of the sum of the digits. Once you find those factors, divide them out, getting $179$. The rules show it is not divisible by $2,3,5,11$ (or $7$ if you know that one, but it is less common. I like the double the ones digit and subtract, which just gives a yes/no answer). Since you only need to check primes up to the square root of the number, you would just have to trial divide by $13$ and maybe $7$ to find that $179$ is prime. In exercises there will always be small factors. In RSA encryption, not so much.
answered Jun 8 '17 at 4:35
Ross Millikan
291k23196370
291k23196370
add a comment |
add a comment |
Here's one suggestion: Look at $11$ and $-2685$. Factorize $2685$ into primes to get $3.5.179$. Then check the following.
$11.(-3)+(895), 11.(-15)+179, 11.(3)+(-895), 11.(15)+(-179)$ and check which yields $14$. The one that yields $14$ is $11.(-15)+179$. So you get $(11x+179)(x-15)$.
I don't know if this method is standard but it seems to work for me.
add a comment |
Here's one suggestion: Look at $11$ and $-2685$. Factorize $2685$ into primes to get $3.5.179$. Then check the following.
$11.(-3)+(895), 11.(-15)+179, 11.(3)+(-895), 11.(15)+(-179)$ and check which yields $14$. The one that yields $14$ is $11.(-15)+179$. So you get $(11x+179)(x-15)$.
I don't know if this method is standard but it seems to work for me.
add a comment |
Here's one suggestion: Look at $11$ and $-2685$. Factorize $2685$ into primes to get $3.5.179$. Then check the following.
$11.(-3)+(895), 11.(-15)+179, 11.(3)+(-895), 11.(15)+(-179)$ and check which yields $14$. The one that yields $14$ is $11.(-15)+179$. So you get $(11x+179)(x-15)$.
I don't know if this method is standard but it seems to work for me.
Here's one suggestion: Look at $11$ and $-2685$. Factorize $2685$ into primes to get $3.5.179$. Then check the following.
$11.(-3)+(895), 11.(-15)+179, 11.(3)+(-895), 11.(15)+(-179)$ and check which yields $14$. The one that yields $14$ is $11.(-15)+179$. So you get $(11x+179)(x-15)$.
I don't know if this method is standard but it seems to work for me.
answered Jun 8 '17 at 4:58
Janitha357
1,739516
1,739516
add a comment |
add a comment |
As mentioned in a comment, you can take all the fun out of this by just using the quadratic equation. But, OK, I'll bite!!!
So we assume that we don't know that formula and that the polynomial factors over the rational numbers (or alternatively, we can't miss a chance of employing twisted logic and factoring integers).
Recall the rational root theorem. Before tackling this also review the divisibility rules mentioned by Ross Millikan, and for good measure open up a list of the first 1000 prime numbers.
When we look at $11x^2+14x−2685=0$ the fact that $2,685$ has at least three factors all distinct from $11$ puts us in a foul mood (it would be nice if $11$ was factor, since the rational root theorem would be easier to apply). So we come up with a 'lazy idea'.
We can substitute $x = z + 1$ into $11x^2+14x−2685=0$ and note after regrouping back into polynomial form, the constant term will decrease and the leading coefficient will remain the same. We can keep doing this and see if life gets any easier.
In general, substituting $x = z + 1$ into $ax^2+bx+c=0$ gives $az^2 +(2a+b)z + (a+b+c)$.
For convenience (and a logical abuse), we will keep using the same variable $z$ as we substitute (it won't matter).
Substitution 1: The equation $11x^2+14x−2685=0$ becomes
$tag 1 11z^2 + 36z -2660$
We see $2$, $5$, and $7$ as factors - reject.
Substitution 2: The equation $11z^2 + 36z -2660$ becomes
$tag 2 11z^2 + 58z -2613$
We see $3$ as a divisor, and when we divide it out we get $871$. The 'easy pickings' divisibility rules are no help, so we check the prime number listing. We see that $871$ is a composite that doesn't include $11$ as a factor - reject.
Substitution 3: The equation $11z^2 + 58z -2613$ becomes
$tag 3 11z^2 + 80z -2544$
Just too many factors - reject.
Substitution 4: The equation $11z^2 + 80z -2544$ becomes
$tag 4 11z^2 + 102z -2453$
The number composite number $2,453$ (see prime list) is not divisible by $2$, $5$ or $3$. With a little amount of work you find that $2,453 = 11 times 223$. THIS IS IT!
Setting up for the rational roots, we are looking at
$quad pm frac {1,11,223,2453}{1,11}$
The number $1$ doesn't work, so we check the next easiest number $pm 11$ and find that $-11$ is a root of equation $text{(4)}$.
Now since the substitution was so simple, we can go back in one step, $-1 -1 -1 -1 = -4$, so that $-15$ is a root of the original equation. In a number of ways you can now get the final answer,
$quad (11x + 179)(x - 15) = 0$
add a comment |
As mentioned in a comment, you can take all the fun out of this by just using the quadratic equation. But, OK, I'll bite!!!
So we assume that we don't know that formula and that the polynomial factors over the rational numbers (or alternatively, we can't miss a chance of employing twisted logic and factoring integers).
Recall the rational root theorem. Before tackling this also review the divisibility rules mentioned by Ross Millikan, and for good measure open up a list of the first 1000 prime numbers.
When we look at $11x^2+14x−2685=0$ the fact that $2,685$ has at least three factors all distinct from $11$ puts us in a foul mood (it would be nice if $11$ was factor, since the rational root theorem would be easier to apply). So we come up with a 'lazy idea'.
We can substitute $x = z + 1$ into $11x^2+14x−2685=0$ and note after regrouping back into polynomial form, the constant term will decrease and the leading coefficient will remain the same. We can keep doing this and see if life gets any easier.
In general, substituting $x = z + 1$ into $ax^2+bx+c=0$ gives $az^2 +(2a+b)z + (a+b+c)$.
For convenience (and a logical abuse), we will keep using the same variable $z$ as we substitute (it won't matter).
Substitution 1: The equation $11x^2+14x−2685=0$ becomes
$tag 1 11z^2 + 36z -2660$
We see $2$, $5$, and $7$ as factors - reject.
Substitution 2: The equation $11z^2 + 36z -2660$ becomes
$tag 2 11z^2 + 58z -2613$
We see $3$ as a divisor, and when we divide it out we get $871$. The 'easy pickings' divisibility rules are no help, so we check the prime number listing. We see that $871$ is a composite that doesn't include $11$ as a factor - reject.
Substitution 3: The equation $11z^2 + 58z -2613$ becomes
$tag 3 11z^2 + 80z -2544$
Just too many factors - reject.
Substitution 4: The equation $11z^2 + 80z -2544$ becomes
$tag 4 11z^2 + 102z -2453$
The number composite number $2,453$ (see prime list) is not divisible by $2$, $5$ or $3$. With a little amount of work you find that $2,453 = 11 times 223$. THIS IS IT!
Setting up for the rational roots, we are looking at
$quad pm frac {1,11,223,2453}{1,11}$
The number $1$ doesn't work, so we check the next easiest number $pm 11$ and find that $-11$ is a root of equation $text{(4)}$.
Now since the substitution was so simple, we can go back in one step, $-1 -1 -1 -1 = -4$, so that $-15$ is a root of the original equation. In a number of ways you can now get the final answer,
$quad (11x + 179)(x - 15) = 0$
add a comment |
As mentioned in a comment, you can take all the fun out of this by just using the quadratic equation. But, OK, I'll bite!!!
So we assume that we don't know that formula and that the polynomial factors over the rational numbers (or alternatively, we can't miss a chance of employing twisted logic and factoring integers).
Recall the rational root theorem. Before tackling this also review the divisibility rules mentioned by Ross Millikan, and for good measure open up a list of the first 1000 prime numbers.
When we look at $11x^2+14x−2685=0$ the fact that $2,685$ has at least three factors all distinct from $11$ puts us in a foul mood (it would be nice if $11$ was factor, since the rational root theorem would be easier to apply). So we come up with a 'lazy idea'.
We can substitute $x = z + 1$ into $11x^2+14x−2685=0$ and note after regrouping back into polynomial form, the constant term will decrease and the leading coefficient will remain the same. We can keep doing this and see if life gets any easier.
In general, substituting $x = z + 1$ into $ax^2+bx+c=0$ gives $az^2 +(2a+b)z + (a+b+c)$.
For convenience (and a logical abuse), we will keep using the same variable $z$ as we substitute (it won't matter).
Substitution 1: The equation $11x^2+14x−2685=0$ becomes
$tag 1 11z^2 + 36z -2660$
We see $2$, $5$, and $7$ as factors - reject.
Substitution 2: The equation $11z^2 + 36z -2660$ becomes
$tag 2 11z^2 + 58z -2613$
We see $3$ as a divisor, and when we divide it out we get $871$. The 'easy pickings' divisibility rules are no help, so we check the prime number listing. We see that $871$ is a composite that doesn't include $11$ as a factor - reject.
Substitution 3: The equation $11z^2 + 58z -2613$ becomes
$tag 3 11z^2 + 80z -2544$
Just too many factors - reject.
Substitution 4: The equation $11z^2 + 80z -2544$ becomes
$tag 4 11z^2 + 102z -2453$
The number composite number $2,453$ (see prime list) is not divisible by $2$, $5$ or $3$. With a little amount of work you find that $2,453 = 11 times 223$. THIS IS IT!
Setting up for the rational roots, we are looking at
$quad pm frac {1,11,223,2453}{1,11}$
The number $1$ doesn't work, so we check the next easiest number $pm 11$ and find that $-11$ is a root of equation $text{(4)}$.
Now since the substitution was so simple, we can go back in one step, $-1 -1 -1 -1 = -4$, so that $-15$ is a root of the original equation. In a number of ways you can now get the final answer,
$quad (11x + 179)(x - 15) = 0$
As mentioned in a comment, you can take all the fun out of this by just using the quadratic equation. But, OK, I'll bite!!!
So we assume that we don't know that formula and that the polynomial factors over the rational numbers (or alternatively, we can't miss a chance of employing twisted logic and factoring integers).
Recall the rational root theorem. Before tackling this also review the divisibility rules mentioned by Ross Millikan, and for good measure open up a list of the first 1000 prime numbers.
When we look at $11x^2+14x−2685=0$ the fact that $2,685$ has at least three factors all distinct from $11$ puts us in a foul mood (it would be nice if $11$ was factor, since the rational root theorem would be easier to apply). So we come up with a 'lazy idea'.
We can substitute $x = z + 1$ into $11x^2+14x−2685=0$ and note after regrouping back into polynomial form, the constant term will decrease and the leading coefficient will remain the same. We can keep doing this and see if life gets any easier.
In general, substituting $x = z + 1$ into $ax^2+bx+c=0$ gives $az^2 +(2a+b)z + (a+b+c)$.
For convenience (and a logical abuse), we will keep using the same variable $z$ as we substitute (it won't matter).
Substitution 1: The equation $11x^2+14x−2685=0$ becomes
$tag 1 11z^2 + 36z -2660$
We see $2$, $5$, and $7$ as factors - reject.
Substitution 2: The equation $11z^2 + 36z -2660$ becomes
$tag 2 11z^2 + 58z -2613$
We see $3$ as a divisor, and when we divide it out we get $871$. The 'easy pickings' divisibility rules are no help, so we check the prime number listing. We see that $871$ is a composite that doesn't include $11$ as a factor - reject.
Substitution 3: The equation $11z^2 + 58z -2613$ becomes
$tag 3 11z^2 + 80z -2544$
Just too many factors - reject.
Substitution 4: The equation $11z^2 + 80z -2544$ becomes
$tag 4 11z^2 + 102z -2453$
The number composite number $2,453$ (see prime list) is not divisible by $2$, $5$ or $3$. With a little amount of work you find that $2,453 = 11 times 223$. THIS IS IT!
Setting up for the rational roots, we are looking at
$quad pm frac {1,11,223,2453}{1,11}$
The number $1$ doesn't work, so we check the next easiest number $pm 11$ and find that $-11$ is a root of equation $text{(4)}$.
Now since the substitution was so simple, we can go back in one step, $-1 -1 -1 -1 = -4$, so that $-15$ is a root of the original equation. In a number of ways you can now get the final answer,
$quad (11x + 179)(x - 15) = 0$
edited Nov 26 at 0:08
answered Nov 26 at 0:01
CopyPasteIt
4,0021627
4,0021627
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2314327%2fquick-factoring-of-large-numbers%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Of course you might systematically try to compute the square root of the discriminant $14^2+11cdot 2685$ instead of guessing and trial division ...
– Hagen von Eitzen
Jun 8 '17 at 5:01