MHB How Does Algebraic Closure Extend to Multivariable Polynomials?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Closed Fields
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of algebraic closure and its application to multivariable polynomials. It clarifies that algebraic closure is a property of the field K, not the polynomial ring K[x]. If K is algebraically closed, then every polynomial in K[x1, x2, ..., xn] has a solution in K^n, as any fixed values for n-1 variables yield a polynomial in K[x1] that has roots in K. The conversation also emphasizes that solutions to multivariable polynomials are better understood as regions rather than isolated points. The distinction between algebraically closed fields and their polynomial rings is crucial for understanding the nature of solutions in higher dimensions.
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
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K