MHB Field Theory _ Dummit and Foote - Example 4 - page 516 - Simple Computation

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Dummit and Foote, Chapter 13 - Field Theory.

I am currently studying Example 4 [pages 515 - 516]

I need some help with what D&F call a simple computation.

Example 4 on pages 515-516 reads as follows:View attachment 2731
View attachment 2732

Now in the above example, D&F write the following:

" ... ... In this case, a simple computation shows that we can take $$ a(x) = \frac{1}{3} ( x^2 - x + 1) \text{ (and } b(x) = - \frac{1}{3} )$$ so that

$$ {(1 + \theta)}^{-1} = \frac{ \theta^2 - \theta +1}{3} $$ ... ... "Although I can verify that the expressions for a(x) and b(x) are correct I cannot see how D&F arrived at (or calculated) a(x) and b(x).

Can someone please help me by explaining the process by which one arrives at the explicit expressions for a(x) and b(x)?

Peter

***NOTE*** Some time ago Deveno helped me with the theory of this example, but we did not discuss the details of the computation mentioned above ... now that I am revising this example I am happy with the theory but cannot see how D&F did their computation ...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The "simple computation" is Euclid's algorithm. What that says here is that to find $a(x)$ and $b(x)$ we need to compute the greatest common divisor of $x^3-2$ and $x+1$. To do that, divide $x^3-2$ by $x+1$, getting a quotient and a remainder: $$x^3 - 2 = (x+1)(x^2 - x + 1) - 3.$$ Then rearrange that as $-\frac13(x^3-2) + \frac13(x^2 - x + 1)(x+1) = 1.$
 
Opalg said:
The "simple computation" is Euclid's algorithm. What that says here is that to find $a(x)$ and $b(x)$ we need to compute the greatest common divisor of $x^3-2$ and $x+1$. To do that, divide $x^3-2$ by $x+1$, getting a quotient and a remainder: $$x^3 - 2 = (x+1)(x^2 - x + 1) - 3.$$ Then rearrange that as $-\frac13(x^3-2) + \frac13(x^2 - x + 1)(x+1) = 1.$

Thanks Opalg ... Appreciate the help

Peter
 
There is another way to find $\dfrac{1}{1 + \theta}$ using the fact that:

$\theta^3 = 2$. (1)

We know such an inverse must be of the form $a + b\theta + c\theta^2$, since any higher powers of $\theta$ can be reduced using (1).

We thus have:

$1 = (1 + \theta)(a + b\theta + c\theta^2) = a + (a + b)\theta + (b + c)\theta^2 + c\theta^3$

$= (a + 2c) + (a + b)\theta + (b + c)\theta^2$, so that:

$a + 2c = 1$
$a + b= 0$
$b + c = 0$.

So $a = c$, and thus $a = \frac{1}{3}$, so that:

$\dfrac{1}{1 + \theta} = \dfrac{1 - \theta + \theta^2}{3}$

This (I hope) illustrates the utility of replacing the coset $x + (x^3 - 2)$ with a single symbol, $\theta$.
 
Deveno said:
There is another way to find $\dfrac{1}{1 + \theta}$ using the fact that:

$\theta^3 = 2$. (1)

We know such an inverse must be of the form $a + b\theta + c\theta^2$, since any higher powers of $\theta$ can be reduced using (1).

We thus have:

$1 = (1 + \theta)(a + b\theta + c\theta^2) = a + (a + b)\theta + (b + c)\theta^2 + c\theta^3$

$= (a + 2c) + (a + b)\theta + (b + c)\theta^2$, so that:

$a + 2c = 1$
$a + b= 0$
$b + c = 0$.

So $a = c$, and thus $a = \frac{1}{3}$, so that:

$\dfrac{1}{1 + \theta} = \dfrac{1 - \theta + \theta^2}{3}$

This (I hope) illustrates the utility of replacing the coset $x + (x^3 - 2)$ with a single symbol, $\theta$.

Thanks Deveno ... Appreciate the help and the insights ...

Peter
 
##\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