MHB Is Gauss' Lemma the Key to Non-UFDs in Polynomial Rings?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Polynomial Rings
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on proving that if a monic polynomial p(x) in an integral domain R factors non-trivially in the field of fractions F, then R is not a unique factorization domain (UFD). The proof utilizes Gauss' Lemma, demonstrating that if R were a UFD, certain coefficients must belong to R, leading to a contradiction. Questions arise regarding the reasoning behind the coefficients being in R and the implications of r and s being units, which confirm that a(x) must also reside in R[x]. The conclusion drawn is that the conditions established indicate R cannot be a UFD, specifically deducing that the polynomial ring $\mathbb{Z}[2\sqrt{2}]$ is not a UFD.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
Exercise 1, Section 9.3 in Dummit and Foote, Abstract Algebra, reads as follows:

Let R be an integral domain with quotient field F and let $$ p(x) \in R[x] $$ be monic. Suppose p(x) factors non-trivially as a product of monic polynomials in F[x], say $$ p(x) = a(x)b(x) $$, and that $$ a(x) \notin R[x] $$. Prove that R is not a unique factorization domain. Deduce that $$ \mathbb{Z}[2\sqrt{2}$$ is not a unique factorization domain.
=======================================================================================

I found a proof on Project Crazy Project which reads as follows:

Suppose to the contrary that R is a unique factorization domain. By Gauss’ Lemma, there exist $$ r, s \in F $$ such that $$ ra(x), sb(x) \in R[x] $$and $$ (ra(x))(sb(x)) = p(x) $$. Since p(x), a(x) and b(x) are monic, comparing leading terms we see that rs = 1. Moreover, since a(x) is monic and $$ra(x) \in R[x] $$, we have $$ r \in R $$. Similarly, $$s \in R $$, and thus $$ r \in R $$is a unit. But then $$ a(x) \in R $$, a contradiction. So R cannot be a unique factorization domain.

======================================================================================

Question (1)

Consider the following statement in the Project Crazy Project Proof:

"Moreover, since a(x) is monic and $$ ra(x) \in R[x] $$, we have $$r \in R $$."

My reasoning regarding this statement is as follows:

Consider a(x) = x^n + a_{n-1}x^{n-1} + ... ... + a_1x + a_0 ... ... ... (a)

Then ra(x) = rx^n + ra_{n-1}x^{n-1} + ... ... + ra_1x + ra_0 ... ... ... (b)

In equation (b) r is the coefficient of x^n and coefficients of polynomials in R[x] must belong to R

Thus r \in R

Is this reasoning correct? Can someone please indicate any errors or confirm the correctness.

========================================================================================


Question (2)
The last part of the Project Crazy Project (PCP) reads as follows:

Moreover, since a(x) is monic and $$ra(x) \in R[x] $$, we have $$r \in R $$ Similarly, $$s \in R $$, and thus $$ r \in R $$is a unit. But then $$ a(x) \in R $$, a contradiction. So R cannot be a unique factorization domain.Why does r and s being units allow us to conclude that a(x) \in R[x]? (I am assuming that the author of PCP has made an error in writing R in this expression and that he should have written R[x]

I would be very appreciative of some help.

Peter

[Please note that this set of questions is also posted on MHF]
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Since ##r## is a unit and ##ra(x)\in R[x]##, then the product ##r^{-1}(ra(x))\in R[x]##, that is, ##a(x)\in R[x]##.
 
  • Like
Likes Math Amateur and Greg Bernhardt
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 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
765
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K