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

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!
 
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...
##\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...
Back
Top