MHB Field Extensions - Dummit and Foote Chapter 13 - Exercise 2, page 519

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Exercise Field
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
Dummit and Foote Chapter 13, Exercise 2, page 519 reads as follows:

"Show that x^3 - 2x - 2 is irreducible over \mathbb{Q} and let \theta be a root.

Compute (1 + \theta ) ( 1 + \theta + {\theta}^2) and \frac{(1 + \theta )}{ ( 1 + \theta + {\theta}^2)} in \mathbb{Q} (\theta)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My attempt at this problem so far is as follows:

p(x) = x^3 - 2x - 2 is irreducible over \mathbb{Q} by Eisenstein's Criterion.

To compute (1 + \theta ) ( 1 + \theta + {\theta}^2) I adopted the simple (but moderately ineffective) strategy of multiplying out and trying to use the fact that \theta is a root of p(x) - that is to use the fact that {\theta}^3 - 2{\theta} - 2 = 0.

Proceeding this way one finds the following:

(1 + \theta ) ( 1 + \theta + {\theta}^2) = 1 + 2{\theta} + 2{\theta}^2 + {\theta}^3

= ({\theta}^3 - 2{\theta} - 2) + (2{\theta}^2 + 4{\theta} + 3)

2{\theta}^2 + 4{\theta} + 3

Well, that does not seem to be going anywhere really! I must be missing something!

Can someone please help with the above and also help with the second part of the question ...

Peter

[Note: The above has also been posted on MHF]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your answer to the first question is correct. The fact that:

$\theta^3 = 2\theta + 2$ serves to "knock down" any powers of $\theta$ higher than 2 in $\Bbb Q(\theta)$.

To compute the quotient, what we need to do is compute the multiplicative inverse of $1 + \theta + \theta^2$ in $\Bbb Q(\theta)$. The easiest way to do this is to compute the gcd of $x^3 - 2x - 2$ and $x^2 + x + 1$ using the division algorithm:

$x^3 - 2x - 2 = (x - 1)(x^2 + x + 1) - 2x - 1$

$x^2 + x + 1 = (-2x - 1)\left(-\dfrac{x}{2} - \dfrac{1}{4}\right) + \dfrac{3}{4}$

Therefore:

$1 = \left(\dfrac{4}{3}\right)\left(\dfrac{3}{4}\right) = \left(\dfrac{4}{3}\right)\left(x^2 + x + 1 + (-2x - 1)\left(\dfrac{x}{2} + \dfrac{1}{4}\right)\right)$

$= \left(\dfrac{4}{3}\right)\left(x^2 + x + 1 + [x^3 - 2x - 2 - (x - 1)(x^2 + x + 1)]\left(\dfrac{x}{2} + \dfrac{1}{4}\right)\right)$

$= \frac{1}{3}(2x + 1)(x^3 - 2x - 2) - \frac{1}{3}(2x^2 - x - 5)(x^2 + x + 1)$

Taking this last equation mod $x^3 - 2x - 2$, we see that in $\Bbb Q(\theta)$:

$\dfrac{1}{1+\theta+\theta^2} = \frac{1}{3}(5 + \theta - 2\theta^2)$.

Now, multiply the two.
 
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 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
21
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K