Irreducibility and Roots in ##\Bbb{C}##

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bashyboy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Roots
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving that an irreducible polynomial p(x) in Q[x] cannot have repeated roots in C. The approach taken is to prove the contrapositive: if p(x) has a repeated root, then it must also have a repeated root in Q, indicating that p(x) can be factored into lower-degree polynomials. The argument uses the relationship between the greatest common divisor of p and its derivative, showing that if the gcd is not 1, p(x) cannot be irreducible. The conclusion reinforces that irreducibility in Q[x] implies the absence of repeated roots in C.
Bashyboy
Messages
1,419
Reaction score
5

Homework Statement



Prove that if ##p(x) \in \Bbb{Q}[x]## is an irreducible polynomial, then ##p(x)## has no repeated roots in ##\Bbb{C}##.

Homework Equations



I will appeal to the theorem I attempted to prove here: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/repeated-roots-and-being-relatively-prime-w-derivative.927168/

Let ##k## be a subfield of the field ##K##. If ##f(x), g(x) \in k[x]##, then their gcd in ##k[x]## is equal to their gcd in ##K[x]##.

If ##k## is a field, then a polynomial ##p(x) \in k[x]## is irreducible if and only if ##\deg (p) = n \ge 1##and there is no factorization in ##k[x]## of the form ##p(x) = g(x) h(x)## in which both factors have a degree smaller than ##n##.

The Attempt at a Solution



I will prove the contrapositive. Suppose that ##p(x)## has a repeated root in ##\Bbb{C}##. Then ##(p,p')_{\Bbb{Q}} = (p,p')_{\Bbb{C}} \neq 1##, and according to the theorem given in the link above, ##p## must have a repeated root in ##\Bbb{Q}##. This means that ##(x-a)^2 |p(x)##, where ##a \in \Bbb{Q}## is the repeated root of ##p##, and so ##p(x) = (x-a)^2 f(x)##. This means ##\deg(p(x)) = \deg((x-a)^2 f(x)) = 2 + \deg(f)## and hence ##\deg(f) < \deg (p)## and ##2 \le \deg (p)##. If ##2 = \deg(p)##, then ##\deg (f) = 0## and so ##f(x) = r \in \Bbb{Q}##, which gives us ##p(x) = r(x-a)^2 = r(x-a)(x-a)##, each factor having a degree smaller than ##p##'s. Thus ##p(x)## is not irreducible whether ##\deg(p) = 2## or ##\deg (p) < 2##.

How does this sound?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Correct. The proof of the statement you used is the interesting part.
 
  • Like
Likes Bashyboy
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
48
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K