MHB Function Field over k --> k(x) - Rotman Definition and Proposition 3.29

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Joseph J. Rotman's book: A First Course in Abstract Algebra with Applications (Third Edition) ...

I am currently focused on Section 3.3 Polynomials ...

I need help with an aspect of the proof of Proposition 3.29 concerning elements of the function field $$k(x)$$.

Rotman's definition of a function field over $$k$$ and his Proposition 3.29 and its proof read as follows:View attachment 4695

In the proof of Proposition 3.29 displayed above, we read the following:

" ... ... elements in $$k(x)$$ have the form $$f(x) {g(x)}^{-1}$$ ... ... "I am perplexed by the above statement as it includes the polynomial $${g(x)}^{-1}$$ and I thought the only inverses in $$k[x]$$ were the constant polynomials ... and that no other inverses existed in $$k[x]$$ ... so how are we to make sense of the above statement ... unless we just regard $$f(x) {g(x)}^{-1}$$ as the result of $$f(x)$$ divided by $$g(x)$$ ...

Can someone please clarify the above issue ...

Peter
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Let's consider the rationals $\Bbb Q$, the fraction field of $\Bbb Z$. Its elements are represented in the form $m/n$, where $m\in \Bbb Z$ and $n\in \Bbb Z \setminus \{0\}$. Based on your reasoning, $1/n$ (or $n^{-1}$) is an integer. See where the problem is? Certainly, $1/2$ is not an integer. In fact, $1/n$ is only an integer for $n = \pm 1$.
 
Last edited:
Recall that $k(x)$ isn't IN $k[x]$, it's "bigger".

Specifically, $k(x)$ is an equivalence over $k[x] \times (k[x] - \{0\})$, and $\dfrac{1}{g(x)}$ refers to the equivalence class of the pair:

$(1,g(x))$.

In $k(x)$ this is indeed a multiplicative inverse for $g(x)$ (which is identified with the equivalence class of $(g(x), 1)$ because the identification:

$f(x) \mapsto [(f(x),1)]$ is indeed an injective ring-homomorphism)

and the multiplication in $k(x)$ is given by:

$[(a(x),b(x))]\cdot[(c(x),d(x))] = [(a(x)c(x),b(x)d(x))]$, so:

$[(1,g(x))]\cdot[(g(x),1)] = [(g(x),g(x))] = [(1,1)]$.

(Recall that $[(a(x),b(x))] = [(c(x),d(x))]$ if and only if $a(x)d(x) = b(x)c(x)$, and surely $g(x)\cdot 1 = 1 \cdot g(x)$).

It is sometimes "easier" to visualize $\dfrac{1}{g(x)}$, as the function:

$f: K - S \to K$, where $S = \{a \in K: g(a) = 0\}$. given by:

$f(c) = \dfrac{1}{g(c)}$

Typically, when $K = \Bbb R$, these rational functions have vertical asymptotes at the zeroes of $g$.

For example, for $g(x) = x$, we get the hyperbola $y = \dfrac{1}{x}$, which has a vertical asymptote at $x = 0$ (Note this functions is NOT a polynomial function, for polynomial functions are defined at every point of $\Bbb R$).
 
Deveno said:
Recall that $k(x)$ isn't IN $k[x]$, it's "bigger".

Specifically, $k(x)$ is an equivalence over $k[x] \times (k[x] - \{0\})$, and $\dfrac{1}{g(x)}$ refers to the equivalence class of the pair:

$(1,g(x))$.

In $k(x)$ this is indeed a multiplicative inverse for $g(x)$ (which is identified with the equivalence class of $(g(x), 1)$ because the identification:

$f(x) \mapsto [(f(x),1)]$ is indeed an injective ring-homomorphism)

and the multiplication in $k(x)$ is given by:

$[(a(x),b(x))]\cdot[(c(x),d(x))] = [(a(x)c(x),b(x)d(x))]$, so:

$[(1,g(x))]\cdot[(g(x),1)] = [(g(x),g(x))] = [(1,1)]$.

(Recall that $[(a(x),b(x))] = [(c(x),d(x))]$ if and only if $a(x)d(x) = b(x)c(x)$, and surely $g(x)\cdot 1 = 1 \cdot g(x)$).

It is sometimes "easier" to visualize $\dfrac{1}{g(x)}$, as the function:

$f: K - S \to K$, where $S = \{a \in K: g(a) = 0\}$. given by:

$f(c) = \dfrac{1}{g(c)}$

Typically, when $K = \Bbb R$, these rational functions have vertical asymptotes at the zeroes of $g$.

For example, for $g(x) = x$, we get the hyperbola $y = \dfrac{1}{x}$, which has a vertical asymptote at $x = 0$ (Note this functions is NOT a polynomial function, for polynomial functions are defined at every point of $\Bbb R$).
Euge, Deveno

Thanks for the help ...

Still reflecting and to an extent puzzling over this ...

I think that you are both saying that a nonconstant polynomial g(x) does not have an inverse in k[x] but does have an inverse in k(x) ... namely the equivalence class of (1, g(x) ) ... is that correct?

Peter
 
Yes, in exactly the same an integer $n$ does not have an inverse in the integers, but has one in the rationals.

Recall that in the rationals "fractions" are NOT unique:

$\dfrac{1}{2} = \dfrac{2}{4} = \dfrac{3}{6} =\cdots$ etc.,

but that all of these fractions have the same RATIO as each other, and it is this ratio that is captured by the equivalence class.

I urge you to read the "mathematics" section in this link, to better appreciate what this means:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudoxus_of_Cnidus
 
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...
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...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...
Back
Top