Is there a faster way to do this?

  • Thread starter Thread starter e12514
  • Start date Start date
e12514
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Z/p [x] consists of polynomials in x with coefficients in a field Z/p.
I is an ideal of Z/p [x] generated by some irreducible polynomial i(x) in Z/p [x]
(let's say I is generated by an irreducible polynomial i(x) of degree 3 in Z/p [x])

The factor (or quotient)
(Z/p [x])/I = (Z/p [x])/<i(x)> is a field.
To verify that it is,
* (Z/p [x])/<i(x)> is commutative because Z/p [x] is. (ok)
* i(x) is irreducible so (Z/p [x])/<i(x)> has no divisors of zero. (ok)
* (Z/p [x])/<i(x)> needs to be a division ring, that is, every nonzero element needs to be invertible. (needs to be verified)

My (tedious) method is,
WLOG let f(x) = x^2 + ax + b be a polynomial in Z/p [x]
need to find some iverse of f(x) (call it g(x)) in Z/p [x] such that
(f(x).g(x)) + <i(x)> = 1 + <i(x)>

which can be done by multiplying out f(x).g(x) and then dividing by i(x) to get the remainder (very long) which would be of degree 2 (one less than deg(i(x)) )
and then solving the coefficient of x^2 and x to be congruent to 0 mod p
and the constant term to be congruent to 1 mod p
(three equations and three unkowns)

and not only does that take very long, if p is not small then in the end I often end up making a mistake somewhere so my calculated "inverse" of f(x) is incorrect
(end up having f(x).g(x) + <i(x)> different to 1 + <i(x)> )

Is there a better/cleaner/easier/more efficient way to do these sorts of things rather than having to go through all that mess?
(Can take p to be a specific prime, say p=5, or 7, or whatever.)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Z/p is a field, so (Z/p)[x] is a principal ideal domain. If i(x) is irreducible over Z/p, then <i(x)> is a prime ideal and consequently (because we're in a PID) a maximal ideal. And what happens when you mod out by a maximal ideal?
 
Then the factor is a field! Yay, fantastic! Thanks!
This shows that I need to do a lot of extra reading on stuff that is not taught in order to fully understand the material.. I've never heard of a pid before, unless it's lying on some fresh page that I've never looked at in our notes, or it's not covered at my level - first course in abstract algebra... (I had to look up maximal and prime ideals too...)
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
Back
Top