MHB How Does Algebraic Closure Extend to Multivariable Polynomials?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Closed Fields
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
Dummit and Foote in their book Abstract Algebra give the following definition of an algebraically closed field ... ...View attachment 5679From the remarks following the definition it appears that the definition only applies to $$K[x]$$ ...

Does it also apply to $$K[x_1, x_2], K[x_1, x_2, x_3], \ ... \ ... \ , K[x_1, x_2, \ ... \ ... \ , x_n] , \ ... \ ... \ ...$$ ?

That is ... when we say $$K$$ is an algebraically closed field does it imply that every polynomial in $$K[x_1, x_2, \ ... \ ... \ , x_n]$$ has a root in $$K$$ ... ... ?

... ... or maybe it is better if I say ... how does the definition of algebraically closed generalise to $$K[x_1, x_2, \ ... \ ... \ , x_n]$$ ... ... ?

Hope someone can clarify this issue ... ...

Peter
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you are asking the wrong question: algebraic closure is a property of a field $K$, not the ring $K[x]$.

But it is trivially true that if $K$ is algebraically closed, any $p \in K[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ has a solution point in $K^n$, for, let:

$(a_2,\dots,a_n)$ be any $n-1$-tuple in $K^{n-1}$. We then obtain a polynomial in $K[x_1]$, which by dint of the algebraic closure of $K$ has a root in $K$.

In fact, what one typically sees is not a collection of "points" (a 0-manifold), but rather regions of solutions. For example, with $K = \Bbb R$, and:

$p(x,y) = xy - 1$

(a quadratic in two indeterminates)

the zero-set is a hyperbola, and it really doesn't make sense to speak of "roots" as *numbers*. A pair of numbers either lies in the zero-set, or it does not. If $K$ is algebraically closed, the zero-set of $p(x,y) \in K[x,y]$ will of necessity be non-empty, but if $K$ is not algebraically closed, it may not be, for example, the zero-set of $f(x,y) \in \Bbb R[x,y]$ given by:

$f(x,y) = x^2 + y^2 + 1$

is null.
 
Deveno said:
I think you are asking the wrong question: algebraic closure is a property of a field $K$, not the ring $K[x]$.

But it is trivially true that if $K$ is algebraically closed, any $p \in K[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ has a solution point in $K^n$, for, let:

$(a_2,\dots,a_n)$ be any $n-1$-tuple in $K^{n-1}$. We then obtain a polynomial in $K[x_1]$, which by dint of the algebraic closure of $K$ has a root in $K$.

In fact, what one typically sees is not a collection of "points" (a 0-manifold), but rather regions of solutions. For example, with $K = \Bbb R$, and:

$p(x,y) = xy - 1$

(a quadratic in two indeterminates)

the zero-set is a hyperbola, and it really doesn't make sense to speak of "roots" as *numbers*. A pair of numbers either lies in the zero-set, or it does not. If $K$ is algebraically closed, the zero-set of $p(x,y) \in K[x,y]$ will of necessity be non-empty, but if $K$ is not algebraically closed, it may not be, for example, the zero-set of $f(x,y) \in \Bbb R[x,y]$ given by:

$f(x,y) = x^2 + y^2 + 1$

is null.
Thanks for clarifying the issue, Deveno ...

What you said regarding the hyperbole was most helpful ...

Thanks again,

Peter
 
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...
##\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...

Similar threads

Back
Top