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

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Polynomial Rings
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on Gauss' Lemma as a pivotal concept in proving that certain polynomial rings, specifically $$\mathbb{Z}[2\sqrt{2}]$$, are not unique factorization domains (UFDs). The proof utilizes the fact that if a monic polynomial $$p(x)$$ in an integral domain $$R$$ factors non-trivially in the field of fractions $$F$$, then the coefficients of the resulting polynomials must belong to $$R$$, leading to a contradiction. This establishes that the existence of such a factorization implies that $$R$$ cannot be a UFD.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of integral domains and unique factorization domains (UFDs).
  • Familiarity with polynomial rings, specifically $$R[x]$$ and $$F[x]$$.
  • Knowledge of Gauss' Lemma and its implications in algebra.
  • Basic concepts of field theory and monic polynomials.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of Gauss' Lemma in various algebraic structures.
  • Explore the properties of unique factorization domains and their significance in algebra.
  • Investigate the structure of polynomial rings over different integral domains.
  • Learn about the relationship between units in a ring and their impact on polynomial factorization.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, algebra students, and educators interested in abstract algebra, particularly those focusing on polynomial rings and unique factorization domains.

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   Reactions: Math Amateur and Greg Bernhardt

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
988
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K