Computation Question in the Ring of Polynomial with Integer Coefficients

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the impossibility of finding an integer m such that the polynomial 3x² + 4x + m is a factor of 6x⁴ + 50 in the ring of polynomials with integer coefficients, Z[x]. The participant highlights that Z[x] is not a field, which prevents the application of the division algorithm for polynomials, leading to the conclusion that division would result in non-integer coefficients. The participant seeks guidance on how to articulate this proof effectively, referencing Pinter's "A Book of Abstract Algebra" for foundational understanding.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of polynomial rings, specifically Z[x]
  • Familiarity with the division algorithm for polynomials
  • Knowledge of fields and their properties in abstract algebra
  • Experience with writing mathematical proofs
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of polynomial rings over fields, particularly Q[x]
  • Learn how to construct formal mathematical proofs in abstract algebra
  • Explore the implications of non-field structures in polynomial factorization
  • Review examples of polynomial division in both Z[x] and Q[x]
USEFUL FOR

Students of abstract algebra, mathematicians interested in polynomial factorization, and anyone seeking to improve their proof-writing skills in the context of algebraic structures.

jmjlt88
Messages
94
Reaction score
0
I have a quick question. The problem reads:

Prove that there is no integer m such that 3x2+4x + m is a factor of 6x4+50 in Z[x].

Now, Z[x] is not a field. So, the division algorithm for polynomials does not guarantee us a quotient and remainder. When I tried dividing 6x4+50 by 3x2+4x + m, it immediately would have push me out of the integers. So, 3x2+4x + m cannot be a factor no matter what m is.

My question, how can write that nicely in a proof? This may be a silly question. I have finished my first run through of Pinter's A Book of Abstract Algebra and I am now going back, re-writing proofs more concisely, fixing mistakes, and trying ones I skipped or did not "get." I only wrote an explanation similar to the one above for my answer with an attempt at divinding the polynomials.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Based on your description, it sounds like you want to work in Q[x]. What does working in Q[x] tell you, and can you relate that fact to the thing you're trying to show?
 

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K