How Can f and g Be Expressed Using Elementary Symmetric Polynomials?

math_grl
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
Let f, g \in \mathbb{Z}[x, y, z] be given as follows: f = x^8 + y^8 + z^6 and g = x^3 +y^3 + z^3. Express if possible f and g as a polynomial in elementary symmetric polynomials in x, y, z.

Professor claims there is an algorithm we were supposed to know for this question on the midterm. I missed it. Any ideas?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
g can be expressed as required using Newton's formula ; f is not even symmetric.
 
By Newton's formula,
g = (\sigma_1^2 - 2\sigma_2)\sigma_1 - \sigma_1 \sigma_2 + 3\sigma_3 = \sigma_1^2 - 3\sigma_1 \sigma_2 + 3\sigma_3

where the \sigma_i's are the elementary symmetric polynomials?

just trying to verify that I did it right?

and f is not of the form \sum^n_{i=1} x_i^k for some k \in \mathbb{N} so we can't use Newton's formula...but I was wondering one would know precisely that it's not possible to express it in terms of the e.s.p.'s?
 
math_grl said:
and f is not of the form \sum^n_{i=1} x_i^k for some k \in \mathbb{N} so we can't use Newton's formula...but I was wondering one would know precisely that it's not possible to express it in terms of the e.s.p.'s?

Suppose that f = P(s1,s2,...) is expressible in terms of the e.s.p.'s. P won't change on switching y & z ; f will. A contradiction.
 
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