Extension of Rational Roots Test to UFDs

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the irreducibility of the polynomial p(x) = x² - √2 in the ring ℤ[√2]. Participants explore the implications of showing irreducibility in the field of fractions ℚ[√2] and consider the relevance of the rational roots test in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Some participants suggest that demonstrating irreducibility in ℚ[√2] is sufficient, while others question the necessity of this approach. There is discussion about the rational roots test and its application to UFDs, with some uncertainty about the conditions under which certain roots can be considered.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, raising questions about the rational roots test and the properties of UFDs. There is a recognition of the need for further exploration regarding the divisibility and irreducibility of elements in ℤ[√2]. Some guidance has been offered regarding Eisenstein's criterion and the nature of primes in this context.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity of moving between fields and UFDs, raising questions about the implications of algebraic versus transcendental elements. There is also mention of potential gaps in understanding the structure of ℤ[√2] as a UFD.

Kreizhn
Messages
714
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


Show that [itex]p(x) = x^2 - \sqrt2[/itex] is irreducible in [itex]\mathbb Z[\sqrt 2][/itex].

The Attempt at a Solution



I think I have this, but I just want to make sure my reasoning is correct. I'm sure there are other ways.

Firstly, it is sufficient to show that p(x) is irreducible in the field of fractions, which is [itex]\mathbb Q[\sqrt 2][/itex]. Next, since it has degree 2, it is sufficient to show that p(x) has no root in [itex]\mathbb Q[\sqrt 2][/itex]. Finally, we apply the Field of Fractions Root Test (my name for the rational roots test extended to general UFD's) to say that the only possible roots of p(x) are [itex]\pm \sqrt2[/itex]. Since neither is a root, we're done.

I think the only thing I'm not really sure about here is the "rational roots test," and perhaps the fact that [itex]\mathbb Q[\sqrt 2][/itex] is a UFD. As a matter of fact, a good question might be, if R is a UFD, is [itex]R[\alpha][/itex] a UFD?

I think this would be true, though I'm not certain. In particular, if we move to field theory and S is a field extension of R with [itex]\alpha[/itex] transcendental over R, then [itex]R[\alpha] \cong R[x][/itex] and since R is a UFD, then R[x] is a UFD, so [itex]R[\alpha][/itex] is a UFD. (In fact we can so more right? Since then [itex]R[\alpha][/itex] is actually a Euclidean domain). But what if alpha is algebraic? It seems to me that this would actually be weaker and should still hold.

What then do we do when we move out of fields and back into UFDs? Can a similar argument be applied?

Edit: Certainly in this case, [itex]\mathbb Q[/itex] is a field so we needn't consider UFD's exclusively, but it's interesting to me as a general question.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Kreizhn said:

Homework Statement


Show that [itex]p(x) = x^2 - \sqrt2[/itex] is irreducible in [itex]\mathbb Z[\sqrt 2][/itex].

The Attempt at a Solution



I think I have this, but I just want to make sure my reasoning is correct. I'm sure there are other ways.

Firstly, it is sufficient to show that p(x) is irreducible in the field of fractions, which is [itex]\mathbb Q[\sqrt 2][/itex].

This is true and it is called Gauss' lemma. However, I really don't see the point in moving to the field of fractions. It only makes the question harder!

Next, since it has degree 2, it is sufficient to show that p(x) has no root in [itex]\mathbb Q[\sqrt 2][/itex]. Finally, we apply the Field of Fractions Root Test (my name for the rational roots test extended to general UFD's) to say that the only possible roots of p(x) are [itex]\pm \sqrt2[/itex]. Since neither is a root, we're done.

In general, if we have R a UFD and if we have a solution b to

[tex]a_nX^n+...+a_1X+a_0=0[/itex],<br /> <br /> then<br /> <br /> [tex]b(a_nb^{n-1}+...+a_1=-a_0[/tex]<br /> <br /> so any solution in R must divide a<sub>0</sub>. The only problem with your method is how you can be certain that [itex]\pm\sqrt{2}[/itex] are the only numbers dividing [itex]\pm\sqrt{2}[/itex][/tex][itex]?<br /> <br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="" data-source="" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> I think the only thing I'm not really sure about here is the "rational roots test," and perhaps the fact that [itex]\mathbb Q[\sqrt 2][/itex] is a UFD. As a matter of fact, a good question might be, if R is a UFD, is [itex]R[\alpha][/itex] a UFD? </div> </div> </blockquote><br /> This is not true. For example [itex]\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-5}][/itex] is not a UFD. So you'll still have some more things to check to see if [itex]\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{2}][/itex] is actually a UFD...<br /> <br /> Also, you should consider Eisenstein's criterion, which is a really handy tool to decide divisibility. You'll only need to know the primes in [itex]\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{2}][/itex] to be able to apply it.[/itex]
 
micromass said:
The only problem with your method is how you can be certain that [itex]\pm\sqrt{2}[/itex] are the only numbers dividing [itex]\pm\sqrt{2}[/tex]?[/itex]
[itex] <br /> I guess that I was perhaps a little sloppy here. Indeed, [itex]\pm 1[/itex] should also divide it, but they clearly don't work. Anyway, to be more complete, if [itex]\alpha = a + b\sqrt 2[/itex] and we give the norm [itex]N(\alpha) = a^2 - 2b^2[/itex] then if [itex]p \big| \sqrt{2}[/itex] then [itex]N(p) \big| N(\sqrt2) = -2[/itex], so [itex]N(p) = \pm 1, \pm 2[/itex]. But then I need to go into Pell's equation and so maybe that's not the best way of doing this.<br /> <br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="micromass" data-source="post: 3414602" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> micromass said: </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> This is not true. For example [itex]\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-5}][/itex] is not a UFD. So you'll still have some more things to check to see if [itex]\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{2}][/itex] is actually a UFD... </div> </div> </blockquote>Ah yes, I actually knew this. Don't know why that must have slipped my mind.<br /> <br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="micromass" data-source="post: 3414602" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> micromass said: </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> Also, you should consider Eisenstein's criterion, which is a really handy tool to decide divisibility. You'll only need to know the primes in [itex]\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{2}][/itex] to be able to apply it. </div> </div> </blockquote><br /> How can one determine these primes? The easiest case here would be to use [itex]\sqrt 2[/itex] assuming it's prime. Assuming that I use the fact that [itex]\mathbb Z[\sqrt2][/itex] is a UFD, this amounts to showing that [itex]\sqrt2[/itex] is irreducible. But then arne't we back to Pell's equation?[/itex]
 
Kreizhn said:

Homework Statement


Show that [itex]p(x) = x^2 - \sqrt2[/itex] is irreducible in [itex]\mathbb Z[\sqrt 2][/itex].

The Attempt at a Solution



I think I have this, but I just want to make sure my reasoning is correct. I'm sure there are other ways.

Firstly, it is sufficient to show that p(x) is irreducible in the field of fractions, which is [itex]\mathbb Q[\sqrt 2][/itex]. Next, since it has degree 2, it is sufficient to show that p(x) has no root in [itex]\mathbb Q[\sqrt 2][/itex]. Finally, we apply the Field of Fractions Root Test (my name for the rational roots test extended to general UFD's) to say that the only possible roots of p(x) are [itex]\pm \sqrt2[/itex]. Since neither is a root, we're done.

I think the only thing I'm not really sure about here is the "rational roots test," and perhaps the fact that [itex]\mathbb Q[\sqrt 2][/itex] is a UFD. As a matter of fact, a good question might be, if R is a UFD, is [itex]R[\alpha][/itex] a UFD?

I think this would be true, though I'm not certain. In particular, if we move to field theory and S is a field extension of R with [itex]\alpha[/itex] transcendental over R, then [itex]R[\alpha] \cong R[x][/itex] and since R is a UFD, then R[x] is a UFD, so [itex]R[\alpha][/itex] is a UFD. (In fact we can so more right? Since then [itex]R[\alpha][/itex] is actually a Euclidean domain). But what if alpha is algebraic? It seems to me that this would actually be weaker and should still hold.

What then do we do when we move out of fields and back into UFDs? Can a similar argument be applied?

Edit: Certainly in this case, [itex]\mathbb Q[/itex] is a field so we needn't consider UFD's exclusively, but it's interesting to me as a general question.

So it by brute force. Say that

[tex](a+b\sqrt{2})(c+d\sqrt{2})=\sqrt{2}[/tex]

We can assume gcd(a,b)=1 and gcd(c,d)=1. Then we have

[tex]ac+2bd=0~\text{and}~bc+ad=1[/tex]

The first equation gives us ac=2bd. Since gdc(c,d)=1, we obtain that c divides 2b.
However, when multiplying the second equation by c, we get that

[tex]c=bc^2+acd=b(c^2+2d)[/tex]

so b divides c. Thus [itex]c=\pm b[/itex] or [itex]c=\pm 2b[/itex]. In the same fashion [itex]a=\pm d[/itex] or [itex]a=\pm 2d[/itex]. Use this information to finally obtain that only +/- 1 or [itex]\pm \sqrt{2}[/itex] can be the divisors.
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K