Division algorithm in A[x] (A NOT a field)

sidm
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
is it possible? I'm reading a proof where A is a local ring and f is a monic polynomial, v another polynomial in A[x] then the author says there is q,r with v=qf+r and degf<r.

I thought the algorithm required divison of coefficients?! Maybe it's true we can always do this with f monic?

thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm assuming you mean to require deg r < deg f (not the other way around).

No division of coefficients is required as long as f is monic (you don't need that A is local either). If f has degree larger than v you can just let r=f, q=0. Thus you can assume deg(f) \leq deg(v). Let (v,f) be a pair of polynomials for which no such division exists, and for which the degree of v is minimal.

If deg v = 0, then deg f = 0 and since f is monic f=1 so we can let q=v, r=0.

If deg v > 0 let:
h(x) = v(x) - Ax^{\deg(v) - \deg(f)}f(x)
where A is the coefficient of the term of highest degree in v(x). Then deg h < deg v and therefore we can divide h by f to give it polynomials q(x) and r(x) with deg r < deg f such that:
h(x) = q(x)f(x) + r(x)
so
v(x) = (q(x)+Ax^{\deg(v) - \deg(f)})f(x) + r(x)
which shows that division is possible.
 
ahhh, this is a good fact to know, much appreciated!
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
Back
Top