MHB Field extensions and roots of polynomials

Click For Summary
The polynomial x^5 + 2x^4 - 16x^3 + 6x - 10 has no roots in the field extension F of Q with degree 24. The argument relies on the polynomial being irreducible over Q, which can be established using Eisenstein's criterion with the prime p = 2. Since the polynomial is irreducible and has degree 5, it follows that [Q(a):Q] = 5. Consequently, the relationship [F:Q] = [F:Q(a)][Q(a):Q] leads to a contradiction, confirming that the polynomial does not have roots in F. This proof highlights the importance of establishing irreducibility in polynomial root discussions.
mathgirl1
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Let F be a field extension of Q (the rationals) with [F:Q] = 24. Prove that the polynomial $$x^5+2x^4-16x^3+6x-10$$ has no roots in F.

Proof:

Let $$a$$ be a root of $$x^5+2x^4-16x^3+6x-10$$. Since the polynomial has degree 5 by theorem we know that $$[Q(a):Q]=5$$. If $$a \in F$$ and $$[F:Q]=24$$ then by theorem we have that $$ [F:Q] = [F:Q(a)][Q(a):Q] \implies 24 = [F:Q(a)] 5 $$ which means that $$ [F:Q(a)] $$can not be an integer which would imply that the polynomial has not roots in F.

I think this is pretty accurate but also seems kind of too simple. Can someone please confirm whether this is correct or give advice to proceed correctly?

Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi mathgirl,

It's not true that since the polynomial has degree $5$, then $[\Bbb Q(a):\Bbb Q] = 5$ as a direct consequence. What you've missed in your argument is that the polynonmial is irreducible over $\Bbb Q$. Since the polynomial is irreducible of degree $5$, then $[\Bbb Q(a): \Bbb Q] = 5$. The irreducibility may be proven by applying Eisenstein's criterion for the prime $p = 2$.
 
Ah ha! Yes! Thank you very much! I knew I was missing something. Much appreciated!
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
546
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K