MHB Field Theory - Nicholson - Splitting Fields - Section 6.3 - Example 1

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Nicholson: Introduction to Abstract Algebra, Section 6.3 Splitting Fields.

Example 1 reads as follows: (see attachment)

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

Example 1. Find an extension E \supseteq \mathbb{Z}_2 in which f(x) = x^3 + x + 1 factors completely into linear factors.

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

The solution reads as follows:

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

Solution. The polynomial f(x) is irreducible over \mathbb{Z}_2 (it has no root in \mathbb{Z}_2 ) so

E = \{ a_0 + a_1 t + a_2 t^2 \ | \ a_i \in \mathbb{Z}_2 , f(t) = 0 \}

is a field containing a root t of f(x).

Hence x + t = x - t is a factor of f(x)

The division algorithm gives f(x) = (x+t) g(x) where g(x) = x^2 + tx + (1 + t^2)

, so it suffices to show that g(x) also factors completely in E.

Trial and error give g(t^2) = 0 so g(x) = (x + t^2)(x + v) for some v \in F.

... ... etc (see attachment)

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

My problem is that I cannot show how g(t^2) = 0 implies that g(x) = (x + t^2)(x + v) for some v \in F.

I would appreciate some help.

Peter

[Note; This has also been posted on MHF]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There are a couple of ways to go about this:

One way is simply to divide $g(x)$ by $x + t^2$:

$g(x) = x^2 + tx + (1+t^2) = (x + t^2)(x + (t+t^2)) + (1 + t^2 + t^3 + t^4)$

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

$= (x + t^2)(x + (t+t^2)) + t + t^2 + t(t + 1)$

(since $t^3 + t + 1 = 0$ means $t^3 = -t - 1 = t + 1$, and similarly $t^3 + 1 = -t = t$)

$= (x + t^2)(x + (t+t^2)) + t + t^2 + t + t^2 = (x + t^2)(x + (t+t^2))$

which immediately gives $v = t + t^2$.

There seems to be a typo in the book, it should read: "for some $v \in E$".

A more abstract approach is this:

We have that $g(x)$ has a root in $\Bbb Z_2(t)$, namely $t^2$, so it follows by the division algorithm that $g(x) = (x + t^2)(x + c_0)$ for some $c_0 \in \Bbb Z_2(t)$ (this is because:

$a \in F$ is a root of $f(x) \in F[x] \iff (x - a)|f(x)$ for any field $F$. The other factor must be linear because the degree of $g$ is 2, and the factor $x + t^2$ is linear).

By the uniqueness of this factorization, we can take $v = c_0$.

Multiplying this out, we obtain:

$x^2 + tx + (1 + t^2) = g(x) = x^2 + (t^2 + v)x + t^2v$ yielding:

$t = t^2 + v$
$v = t - t^2 = t + t^2$.

*******

It might be helpful to keep in mind this basic fact:

for any polynomial $p(x) \in F[x]$ for any field $F$, and any $a \in F$ we have:

$p(x) + q(x)(x - a) + r(x)$ with deg(r) < deg($x-a$) = 1, or $r(x) = 0$, that is:

$r$ is a CONSTANT polynomial. Which one? Clearly, $p(a)$, that is:

$p(x) = (x - a)q(x) + p(a)$.
 
##\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...

Similar threads

Back
Top