MHB Polynomials Over a Field - Rotman, Lemma 3.67

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Field Polynomials
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around understanding the proof of Lemma 3.67 from Joseph J. Rotman's "A First Course in Abstract Algebra." Participants are clarifying how the properties of monic and irreducible polynomials lead to the conclusion that if p(x) divides f(x), then the greatest degree monic polynomial d(x) that divides both p(x) and f(x) must equal p(x). The reasoning hinges on the fact that the only monic divisors of an irreducible polynomial are 1 and the polynomial itself. If p(x) does not divide f(x), then d(x) must be 1, reinforcing the relationship between divisibility and polynomial degrees. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding polynomial properties in abstract algebra.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Joseph J. Rotman's book: A First Course in Abstract Algebra with Applications (Third Edition) ...

I am currently focused on Section 3.5 From Numbers to Polynomials ...

I need help with an aspect of the proof of Lemma 3.67 ...

The relevant text from Rotman's book is as follows:View attachment 4640In the proof of the above Lemma, we read the following:

" ... ... If $$p(x) | f(x)$$, then $$d(x) = p(x)$$, for $$p(x)$$ is monic. ... ... "Can someone please explain how $$p(x) | f(x)$$ and $$p(x)$$ being monic implies that $$d(x) = p(x)$$ ... ...

Hope someone can help ... ...

Peter*** EDIT ***

I have just realized that I do not understand how the second line of the proof works ... so if someone can also help me with that, i would appreciate it very much ...
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
$p$ is irreducible (this is like being a prime integer).

So if $d(x)|p(x)$, the ONLY things $d$ can be (if $d$ is monic) are $1$ and $p(x)$.

If $p(x)|f(x)$, then $d(x) = p(x)$, since $\text{deg}(p) > \text{deg}(1) = 0$ (remember, irreducible elements are BY DEFINITION non-units-this is why we say $1$ and $-1$ are not prime, in the integers). Remember $d$ is the monic polynomial OF GREATEST DEGREE that divides both $p$ and $f$.

On the other hand, if $p(x)\not\mid f(x)$, then $d(x) \neq p(x)$, so $d(x)$ must be $1$.
 
Deveno said:
$p$ is irreducible (this is like being a prime integer).

So if $d(x)|p(x)$, the ONLY things $d$ can be (if $d$ is monic) are $1$ and $p(x)$.

If $p(x)|f(x)$, then $d(x) = p(x)$, since $\text{deg}(p) > \text{deg}(1) = 0$ (remember, irreducible elements are BY DEFINITION non-units-this is why we say $1$ and $-1$ are not prime, in the integers). Remember $d$ is the monic polynomial OF GREATEST DEGREE that divides both $p$ and $f$.

On the other hand, if $p(x)\not\mid f(x)$, then $d(x) \neq p(x)$, so $d(x)$ must be $1$.
Thanks Deveno ... but (apologies) I need a bit more help ...

You write:

" ... If $p(x)|f(x)$, then $d(x) = p(x)$, since $\text{deg}(p) > \text{deg}(1) = 0$..."

I am still struggling to see how this follows ... can you be more explicit as to why this follows ...

(Note: I can see that $\text{deg}(p) > \text{deg}(1) = 0$ since an irreducible in a ring is by definition not a unit ... )

Sorry to be slow on this matter ...

Peter
 
Peter said:
Thanks Deveno ... but (apologies) I need a bit more help ...

You write:

" ... If $p(x)|f(x)$, then $d(x) = p(x)$, since $\text{deg}(p) > \text{deg}(1) = 0$..."

I am still struggling to see how this follows ... can you be more explicit as to why this follows ...

(Note: I can see that $\text{deg}(p) > \text{deg}(1) = 0$ since an irreducible in a ring is by definition not a unit ... )

Sorry to be slow on this matter ...

Peter
I do not mean to hijack this thread. but I think I can help you with this Peter.

Suppose $p(x)|f(x)$. Write $D(x)=p(x)$. Note that $D(x)$ divides both $p(x)$ and $f(x)$.

We claim that $D(x)|d(x)$. This is because we can write $d(x)=p(x)a(x)+f(x)b(x)$ for some polynomials $a(x)$ and $b(x)$.

From this we conclude that $d(x)=p(x)q(x)$ for some polynomial $q(x)$. But since $d(x)|p(x)$, we must have $q(x)=1$ (since $d(x)$ is a monic.)
 
Deveno said:
$p$ is irreducible (this is like being a prime integer).

So if $d(x)|p(x)$, the ONLY things $d$ can be (if $d$ is monic) are $1$ and $p(x)$.

If $p(x)|f(x)$, then $d(x) = p(x)$, since $\text{deg}(p) > \text{deg}(1) = 0$ (remember, irreducible elements are BY DEFINITION non-units-this is why we say $1$ and $-1$ are not prime, in the integers). Remember $d$ is the monic polynomial OF GREATEST DEGREE that divides both $p$ and $f$.

On the other hand, if $p(x)\not\mid f(x)$, then $d(x) \neq p(x)$, so $d(x)$ must be $1$.

Hi Deveno,

I have been reflecting on what you have said and I think I now follow why if $$p(x) | f(x)$$ it follows that $$d(x) = p(x)$$ ...My rough reasoning is as follows:We have that $$d(x) = (p,f)$$ ...

so that $$d|p$$ and $$d|f$$ ...

We also have that $$p(x)$$ is a monic irreducible polynomial ...

Now, p irreducible implies that if $$p = uv$$ then one of $$u, v$$ is a unit ... take it to be $$u$$ ...

But $$p$$ is monic, so if the divisors of $$p$$ are monic (as $$d$$ is!) then $$u = 1$$ and $$v = p$$

Thus the only monic divisors of p(x) are 1 and d(x)Now, suppose $$p(x) |f(x)$$ ...

We know that $$p(x)$$, being irreducible, is not a unit so $$\text{deg } p \gt 0 $$ ...

But we also know that $$d(x) | f(x)$$ and, further that $$d$$ is the monic polynomial of greatest degree that divides both $$p$$ and $$f$$ ...

So, if $$p \neq d$$ then since $$p|f$$ and $$d|f$$ ... we have that $$d$$ is greater degree than $$p$$ ... ... which cannot be true as we also have that $$d|p$$ ...

So it must be that $$p = d$$ ...
Can you please confirm that my reasoning is OK ... ... or alternatively, point out deficiencies or errors ...

Peter
 
caffeinemachine said:
I do not mean to hijack this thread. but I think I can help you with this Peter.

Suppose $p(x)|f(x)$. Write $D(x)=p(x)$. Note that $D(x)$ divides both $p(x)$ and $f(x)$.

We claim that $D(x)|d(x)$. This is because we can write $d(x)=p(x)a(x)+f(x)b(x)$ for some polynomials $a(x)$ and $b(x)$.

From this we conclude that $d(x)=p(x)q(x)$ for some polynomial $q(x)$. But since $d(x)|p(x)$, we must have $q(x)=1$ (since $d(x)$ is a monic.)
Hi caffeinemachine,

Thanks for your help ... most welcome ...... Yes follow that $d(x)=p(x)q(x)$ for some polynomial $q(x)$ ...

But do not quite see how $$d(x)$$ being monic and $d(x)|p(x)$ mean that $q(x)=1$ ...

Can you help?

Peter
 
Peter said:
Hi caffeinemachine,

Thanks for your help ... most welcome ...... Yes follow that $d(x)=p(x)q(x)$ for some polynomial $q(x)$ ...

But do not quite see how $$d(x)$$ being monic and $d(x)|p(x)$ mean that $q(x)=1$ ...

Can you help?

Peter
Since $d(x)|p(x)$, we know there is a polynomial $a(x)$ such that $d(x)a(x)=p(x)$, which gives $p(x)q(x)a(x)=p(x)$. This leads to $q(x)a(x)=1$. Thus $q(x)$ must be a constant polynomial. Now since $d(x)$ is moinc we must have $q(x)=1$/
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K