MHB Kunz - Vanishing Ideal and Minimum Polynomial

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Minimum Polynomial
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Ernst Kunz book, "Introduction to Plane Algebraic Curves"

I need help with some aspects of Kunz' definition of the vanishing ideal of an algebraic curve and Kunz' definition of a minimal polynomial ...

The relevant text from Kunz is as follows:https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/4552
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/4553My questions on the above text are as follows ... ...Question 1In the text above from Kunz, we read the following ...

" ... ... Theorem 1.7 $$\mathscr{J} ( \Gamma )$$ is the principal ideal generated by $$f_1 \ ... \ ... \ f_n$$. ... ... "

This definition surprised me since I think of a principal ideal as being generated by one element ... ... ? ...

But the I noted that in Definition 1.8 Kunz writes $$\mathscr{J} ( \Gamma ) = (f) $$ with $$f \in K [ X,Y ]$$ ... ...

SO maybe Kunz is defining $$\mathscr{J} ( \Gamma )$$ as a principal ideal generated by $$f$$ ... ... but also generated by $$f_1 \ ... \ ... \ f_n$$ ... ... is that correct?Can someone please confirm that my analysis is correct ... or possibly correct the errors in my thinking ...
Question 2In the above text, Kunz writes the following:

" ... ... Definition 1.8 Given $$\mathscr{J} ( \Gamma ) = (f)$$ with $$f \in K [ X,Y ]$$, we call $$f$$ a minimal polynomial for \Gamma. ... ... "I am a bit puzzled by this since I am more used to a minimum polynomial being associated with the root $$\alpha$$ of a polynomial ... not being associated with an algebraic curve $$\Gamma$$ ... ...

... ... indeed a more usual definition is found in Steven Roman's book on Field Theory ... ... as follows:View attachment 4555
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/4554

Can someone clarify this by showing that Kunz and Roman's definitions of minimum polynomial are actually the same ... ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
Question 1In the text above from Kunz, we read the following ...

" ... ... Theorem 1.7 $$\mathscr{J} ( \Gamma )$$ is the principal ideal generated by $$f_1 \ ... \ ... \ f_n$$. ... ... "

This definition surprised me since I think of a principal ideal as being generated by one element ... ... ? ...

But the I noted that in Definition 1.8 Kunz writes $$\mathscr{J} ( \Gamma ) = (f) $$ with $$f \in K [ X,Y ]$$ ... ...

SO maybe Kunz is defining $$\mathscr{J} ( \Gamma )$$ as a principal ideal generated by $$f$$ ... ... but also generated by $$f_1 \ ... \ ... \ f_n$$ ... ... is that correct?Can someone please confirm that my analysis is correct ... or possibly correct the errors in my thinking ...

I think you might've misread the notation. He doesn't say that $\mathcal{J}(\Gamma) = (f_1,\ldots, f_h)$ but $\mathcal{J}(\Gamma) = (f_1\cdots f_h)$, in other words, $\mathcal{J}(\Gamma)$ is generated by the product $f_1\ldots f_h$, and not by the individual $f_1,\ldots, f_h$. So he has used the term "principal ideal" in the usual way.
Question 2In the above text, Kunz writes the following:

" ... ... Definition 1.8 Given $$\mathscr{J} ( \Gamma ) = (f)$$ with $$f \in K [ X,Y ]$$, we call $$f$$ a minimal polynomial for \Gamma. ... ... "I am a bit puzzled by this since I am more used to a minimum polynomial being associated with the root $$\alpha$$ of a polynomial ... not being associated with an algebraic curve $$\Gamma$$ ... ...

... ... indeed a more usual definition is found in Steven Roman's book on Field Theory ... ... as follows:Can someone clarify this by showing that Kunz and Roman's definitions of minimum polynomial are actually the same ... ...

Peter

You haven't made a parallel comparison. Roman is referring to the minimum polynomial for an algebraic element of a field, whereas Kunz is referring to a minimum polynomial for a subset of the affine plane over a field.
 
Euge said:
I think you might've misread the notation. He doesn't say that $\mathcal{J}(\Gamma) = (f_1,\ldots, f_h)$ but $\mathcal{J}(\Gamma) = (f_1\cdots f_h)$, in other words, $\mathcal{J}(\Gamma)$ is generated by the product $f_1\ldots f_h$, and not by the individual $f_1,\ldots, f_h$. So he has used the term "principal ideal" in the usual way.

You haven't made a parallel comparison. Roman is referring to the minimum polynomial for an algebraic element of a field, wheras Kunz is referring to a minimum polynomial for a subset of the affine plane over a field.
Thanks Euge ...

You write:

"I think you might've misread the notation. He doesn't say that $\mathcal{J}(\Gamma) = (f_1,\ldots, f_h)$ but $\mathcal{J}(\Gamma) = (f_1\cdots f_h)$, in other words, $\mathcal{J}(\Gamma)$ is generated by the product $f_1\ldots f_h$, and not by the individual $f_1,\ldots, f_h$. So he has used the term "principal ideal" in the usual way."

Yes, you are quite right ... thanks for that ...
You also write:

"You haven't made a parallel comparison. Roman is referring to the minimum polynomial for an algebraic element of a field, whereas Kunz is referring to a minimum polynomial for a subset of the affine plane over a field."

Yes, OK ... see that ...

Is Kunz definition a common/traditional definition? ... the definitions I found in my textbooks seemed to all refer to an algebraic element of a field ... ...

Peter
 
Peter said:
Is Kunz definition a common/traditional definition? ... the definitions I found in my textbooks seemed to all refer to an algebraic element of a field ... ...

Yes, I believe Kunz's definition is common.
 
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...
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...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...
Back
Top