Gcd of polynomials is 1. There is an nxn matrix with determinant....

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on constructing an \( n \times n \) matrix over a field \( F \) with a determinant of 1, given that the greatest common divisor (gcd) of polynomials \( p_1, \ldots, p_n \in F[x] \) is 1. For \( n=2 \), the matrix can be easily constructed using coefficients \( a_1, a_2 \) such that \( p_1 a_1 + p_2 a_2 = 1 \). For \( n=3 \), the existence of coefficients \( a_1, a_2, a_3 \) satisfying \( p_1 a_1 + p_2 a_2 + p_3 a_3 = 1 \) is established, leading to a matrix form that can be generalized for larger \( n \) using induction.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of polynomial rings, specifically \( F[x] \)
  • Knowledge of determinants and matrix theory
  • Familiarity with the concept of gcd in the context of polynomials
  • Basic principles of mathematical induction
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the properties of determinants in polynomial matrices
  • Study the application of the Euclidean algorithm in polynomial gcd calculations
  • Investigate the generalization of matrix constructions for \( n > 3 \)
  • Learn about the implications of these results in abstract algebra and linear algebra
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, algebraists, and students studying linear algebra and polynomial theory, particularly those interested in matrix determinants and polynomial gcd properties.

caffeinemachine
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
799
Reaction score
15
Let $F$ be any field. Let $p_1,\ldots, p_n\in F[x]$. Assume that $\gcd(p_1,\ldots,p_n)=1$. Show that there is an $n\times n$ matrix over $F[x]$ of determinant $1$ whose first row is $p_1,\ldots,p_n$.

When $n=2$ this is easy since then there exist $a_1,a_2\in F[x]$ such that $p_1a_1+p_2a_2=1$. So the required matrix has first row $p_1,p_2$ and the second row $-a_2,a_1$.

I am stuck when $n>2$.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Re: gcd of polynomials is 1. there is an nxn matrix with determinant...

caffeinemachine said:
Let $F$ be any field. Let $p_1,\ldots, p_n\in F[x]$. Assume that $\gcd(p_1,\ldots,p_n)=1$. Show that there is an $n\times n$ matrix over $F[x]$ of determinant $1$ whose first row is $p_1,\ldots,p_n$.

When $n=2$ this is easy since then there exist $a_1,a_2\in F[x]$ such that $p_1a_1+p_2a_2=1$. So the required matrix has first row $p_1,p_2$ and the second row $-a_2,a_1$.

I am stuck when $n>2$.

For $n=3$ there exist $a_1,a_2,a_3\in F[x]$ such that $p_1a_1+p_2a_2+p_3a_3=1$.
So a matrix that has a matching determinant will do the trick.

For instance:
$$\begin{bmatrix}p_1 & p_2 & p_3 \\ 1 & -a_1/a_2 & 0 \\ 0 & a_3 & -a_2 \end{bmatrix}$$
Next step is to try and construct such a matrix for any n.
Put for instance 1 below $p_1$ and zeroes below that.
Then complete the proof with full induction.
 
Re: gcd of polynomials is 1. there is an nxn matrix with determinant...

I like Serena said:
For $n=3$ there exist $a_1,a_2,a_3\in F[x]$ such that $p_1a_1+p_2a_2+p_3a_3=1$.
So a matrix that has a matching determinant will do the trick.

For instance:
$$\begin{bmatrix}p_1 & p_2 & p_3 \\ 1 & -a_1/a_2 & 0 \\ 0 & a_3 & -a_2 \end{bmatrix}$$
Next step is to try and construct such a matrix for any n.
Put for instance 1 below $p_1$ and zeroes below that.
Then complete the proof with full induction.

This looks promising but there seems to be a small problem with this construction that $a_1/a_2$ might not necessarily lie in $F[x]$. Can we somehow still make it work?
 
Re: gcd of polynomials is 1. there is an nxn matrix with determinant...

caffeinemachine said:
This looks promising but there seems to be a small problem with this construction that $a_1/a_2$ might not necessarily lie in $F[x]$. Can we somehow still make it work?

Good point. :o

You already know that $\begin{bmatrix}p_2 & p_3 \\ -a_3' & a_2' \end{bmatrix}$ is a solution for n=2.

So we're looking for a solution of the following form for n=3:
$$\begin{bmatrix}p_1 & p_2 & p_3 \\ 1 & x & y \\ 0 & a_3 & -a_2 \end{bmatrix}$$
In other words:
$$p_1(-a_2 x - a_3 y) = p_1a_1$$
$$a_2 x + a_3 y = -a_1$$
This works if $\gcd(a_2, a_3)$ divides $a_1$.
Not yet sure how and if we can proof that though...
 
caffeinemachine said:
Let $F$ be any field. Let $p_1,\ldots, p_n\in F[x]$. Assume that $\gcd(p_1,\ldots,p_n)=1$. Show that there is an $n\times n$ matrix over $F[x]$ of determinant $1$ whose first row is $p_1,\ldots,p_n$.

When $n=2$ this is easy since then there exist $a_1,a_2\in F[x]$ such that $p_1a_1+p_2a_2=1$. So the required matrix has first row $p_1,p_2$ and the second row $-a_2,a_1$.

I am stuck when $n>2$.
For $n=3$ there exist $a_1,a_2,a_3\in F[x]$ such that $p_1a_1+p_2a_2+p_3a_3=1$. Let $d = \text{gcd}(a_2,a_3)$ and let $a_2 = db_2$ and $a_3 = db_3$, where $\text{gcd}(b_2,b_3) = 1.$ Then there exist $c_2$ and $c_3$ such that $a_1 = c_2b_2+c_3b_3.$ Consequently $$\begin{vmatrix}p_1&p_2&p_3 \\ 0&b_3&-b_2 \\ -d&c_2&c_3 \end{vmatrix} = p_1(b_3c_3+b_2c_2) -p_2(-b_2d) + p_3(b_3d) = p_1a_1 + p_2a_2+p_3a_3=1.$$

Where do we go from there? I don't have time at present to think about how to deal with $n>3$, but here are a couple of comments. First, this problem does not really appear to be about $F[x]$, it looks as though the result should apply to elements of any euclidean domain. Second, the upper right corner $\begin{array}{cc}p_2&p_3 \\b_3&-b_2 \end{array}$ of the above determinant has the same general appearance as the determinant that solves the $n=2$ case. That might perhaps mean that there is scope for some sort of inductive procedure here.
 
Opalg said:
For $n=3$ there exist $a_1,a_2,a_3\in F[x]$ such that $p_1a_1+p_2a_2+p_3a_3=1$. Let $d = \text{gcd}(a_2,a_3)$ and let $a_2 = db_2$ and $a_3 = db_3$, where $\text{gcd}(b_2,b_3) = 1.$ Then there exist $c_2$ and $c_3$ such that $a_1 = c_2b_2+c_3b_3.$ Consequently $$\begin{vmatrix}p_1&p_2&p_3 \\ 0&b_3&-b_2 \\ -d&c_2&c_3 \end{vmatrix} = p_1(b_3c_3+b_2c_2) -p_2(-b_2d) + p_3(b_3d) = p_1a_1 + p_2a_2+p_3a_3=1.$$

Where do we go from there? I don't have time at present to think about how to deal with $n>3$, but here are a couple of comments. First, this problem does not really appear to be about $F[x]$, it looks as though the result should apply to elements of any euclidean domain. Second, the upper right corner $\begin{array}{cc}p_2&p_3 \\b_3&-b_2 \end{array}$ of the above determinant has the same general appearance as the determinant that solves the $n=2$ case. That might perhaps mean that there is scope for some sort of inductive procedure here.
Thanks a ton!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K