MHB How Does Proposition 7 Support Proposition 15 in Dummit and Foote?

Click For Summary
Proposition 15 states that the maximal ideals in the polynomial ring F[x] are generated by irreducible polynomials, and that F[x]/(f(x)) is a field if and only if f(x) is irreducible. The proof relies on Proposition 7, which asserts that every nonzero prime ideal in a Principal Ideal Domain (PID) is a maximal ideal. If f(x) is reducible, it can be factored into polynomials of lower degree, indicating that F[x]/(f(x)) is not a field. Conversely, if f(x) is irreducible, it forms a prime ideal, making it maximal and ensuring that F[x]/(f(x)) is a field. Understanding this connection clarifies how Proposition 7 supports the proof of Proposition 15.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Dummit and Foote Section 9.5 Polynomial Rings Over Fields II and need some help and guidance with the proof of Proposition 15.

Proposition 15 reads as follow:

Proposition 15. The maximal ideals in F[x] are the ideals (f(x)) generated by irreducible polynomials. In particular, F[x]/(f(x)) is a field if and only if f(x) is irreducible.

Dummit and Foote give the proof as follows:

Proof: This follows from Proposition 7 of Section 8.2 applied to the Principal Ideal Domain F[x].


My problem
- can someone show me how Proposition 15 above follows from Proposition 7 of Section 8.2 (see below for Proposition 7 of Section 8.2)

I would be grateful for any help or guidance in this matter.

PeterDummit and Foote - Section 8.2 - Proposition 7

Proposition 7. Every nonzero prime ideal in a Principal Ideal Domain is a maximal ideal.[This problem has also been posted on MHF]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
I am reading Dummit and Foote Section 9.5 Polynomial Rings Over Fields II and need some help and guidance with the proof of Proposition 15.

Proposition 15 reads as follow:

Proposition 15. The maximal ideals in F[x] are the ideals (f(x)) generated by irreducible polynomials. In particular, F[x]/(f(x)) is a field if and only if f(x) is irreducible.

Dummit and Foote give the proof as follows:

Proof: This follows from Proposition 7 of Section 8.2 applied to the Principal Ideal Domain F[x].


My problem
- can someone show me how Proposition 15 above follows from Proposition 7 of Section 8.2 (see below for Proposition 7 of Section 8.2)

I would be grateful for any help or guidance in this matter.

PeterDummit and Foote - Section 8.2 - Proposition 7

Proposition 7. Every nonzero prime ideal in a Principal Ideal Domain is a maximal ideal.[This problem has also been posted on MHF]

So in one direction, the conditional is obvious. That is,

Suppose f(x) is reducible:

Then f(x) = g(x)*h(x) for polynomials g and h of degree less than f, which means that
$$
(g(x) + \langle f(x) \rangle)\,(h(x) + \langle f(x) \rangle)
=(f(x) + \langle f(x) \rangle)
=(0 + \langle f(x) \rangle)
$$
Which means that $F[x]/\langle f(x) \rangle$ is not a domain, and therefore not a field.
Now for the other direction, we'll need that proposition:

Suppose f(x) is irreducible:

Because f(x) is irreducible, we know that $\langle f(x) \rangle$ is a prime ideal.
By proposition 7, since F[x] is a principal ideal domain, we know that $\langle f(x) \rangle$ is a maximal ideal.
Finally, since $\langle f(x) \rangle$ is a maximal ideal and F[x]≠{0} is a commutative ring, we know that $F[x]/\langle f(x) \rangle$ is a field.

Thus, the proof is complete.
 
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
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K