Polynomials/ galois field question

  • Thread starter Thread starter JamesGoh
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Field Polynomials
JamesGoh
Messages
140
Reaction score
0
[SOLVED] polynomials/ galois field question

Im reading through a section that deals with polynomials Galois fields and ran into something that I am not quite understanding.

Say we have an irreducible polynomial, f(x), which has coefficients from GF(2) and roots
\beta, \beta^{2}, \beta^{4}, \beta^{8}, ...\beta^{2}^{e}-1 where e is the smallest integer such that \beta^{2}^{e} = \beta

given by

f(x) = \prod^{e-1}_{i=0} ( X + \beta^{2^i})

Note: Beta term is Beta^(2^i)

In the section I am reading, they do a test to prove f(x) is irreducible. I will state the test below

Say f(x) = a(x).b(x) where a(x) and b(x) are polynomials with coefficients from GF(2)

if we sub one of the roots of f(x) in, say \beta, f(\beta) = 0 which means that either a(\beta) = 0 or b(\beta) = 0, hence a(x) = f(x) or b(x) = f(x). This understanding also says that a(x) or b(x) (depending which one had \beta subbed into it) has all the roots of f(x) (A theory in my textbook says that if f(\beta) = 0, f(\beta^{2^i})=0 for any i)

I get how they arrive at their result, however I am still clueless as to how this proves that
f(x) is irreducible.

insight is appreciated

regards
James
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Ok I read over the notes again and think I may have the answer

Since f(x) = a(x) or f(x) = b(x) when the root is substituted in, it cannot be divided into a smaller polynomial with a non-zero degree. Therefore f(x) must be irreducible.

Thoughts, comments, insights ??
 
I'm confused. You start out by saying that f(x) is irreducible, presumably over GF(2). Then you go on to prove that f(x) is irreducible - this time over what?

Also, why is this in the Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics forum? It really should be in the algebra forum.
 
I'm confused. You start out by saying that f(x) is irreducible, presumably over GF(2). Then you go on to prove that f(x) is irreducible - this time over what?

I answered my own question (see f(x)=a(x).b(x) proof), it was just that I didn't read over the notes properly.

Sorry about the confusion

Also, someone pls move this topic to the correct forum. ta
 
Last edited:
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
Back
Top