MHB Polynomials Over a Field - Rotman, Lemma 3.87

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Field Polynomials
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 3.6 Unique Factorization ...

I need help with an aspect of the proof of Lemma 3.87 ...

The relevant text from Rotman's book is as follows:
View attachment 4653
In the proof of Lemma 3.87 above, we read the following:

" ... ... By induction, there are $$d_j(x) \in k[x]$$ with each $$d_j(x) = 0$$ or $$deg(d_j) \lt deg(b)$$, such that

$$g(x) = d_m b^{m-1} + \ ... \ + d_2 b = d_1$$ ... ... "Can someone help me with the proof of this statement ... that is, how to set up for induction in this case, and work through the proof by induction ...

Help with this matter will be much appreciated ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Suppose $f(x) = a$, a constant. Then we may take $d_j(x) = 0$ for every $j > 0$, and $d_0(x) = a = f(x)$.

Since $\text{deg}(d_0) = 0$ and $\text{deg}(b) \geq 1$, the theorem's hypotheses are satisfied, in this case. This is our "base" case, inducting on the degree of $f$.

With our inductive hypothesis, we assume the theorem holds for any polynomial $g$ with $0 \leq \text{deg}(g) < \text{deg}(f)$.

If $\text{deg}(b) < \text{deg}(f)$, dividing $f$ by $b$ yields such a $g$. Note if $\text{deg}(b) >\text{deg}(f)$, we can simply take $d_j(x) = 0$ for $j > 0$, and $d_0(x) = f(x)$, as in the constant case.

The case $\text{deg}(b) = \text{deg}(f)$ is slightly more interesting. Note that since $\deg{b} \geq 1$, this is true (in this case of equal degrees of $b$ and $f$) for $f$. In this case, we take $d_j(x) = 0$, for all $j > 1$.

If the leading coefficient of $b$ is, say $a_0$, and the leading coefficient of $f$ is $c_0$, we may take $d_1(x) = \dfrac{c_0}{a_0}$, which has degree 0, which is less than that of $b$.

Then $f(x) - d_1(x)b(x)$ is either the 0-polynomial, or has degree < the degree of $f$ = the degree of $b$, and we may take $d_0(x) = f(x) - d_1(x)b(x)$, which gives:

$f(x) = d_1(x)b(x) + d_0(x)$.

Otherwise, we are down to the case where $\text{deg}(b) < \text{deg}(f)$.

In this case, we have $f = gb + r$, where $\text{deg}(r) < \text{deg}(b)$, or $r = 0$. I leave the $r = 0$ case to you (hint: we can do it in one term).

So, by our inductive hypothesis, we have:

$g(x) = d'_{m-1}(x)b(x)^{m-1} +\cdots + d'_1(x)b(x) + d'_0$.

(the degree of $g$ is at most one less than the degree of $f$, hence the "$m-1$"-the coefficients may actually stop earlier, we may have $d_j = 0$ for all $j > k$ for some $0 \leq k \leq m-1$).

Let $d_j(x) = d'_{j-1}(x)$, and $d_0(x) = r(x)$.

Then $f(x) = g(x)b(x) + r(x) = (d'_{m-1}(x)b(x)^{m-1} + \cdots + d'_1(x)b(x) + d'_0)b(x) + r(x)$

$= d'_{m-1}b(x)^m + \cdots + d'_1(x)b(x)^2 + d'_0b(x) + r(x)$

$= d_m(x)b(x)^m + \cdots + d_2(x)b(x)^2 + d_1(x)b(x) + d_0(x)$.

So if the theorem holds for any polynomial of degree less than $f$, it holds for $f$ as well, and thus for ALL $f$.
 
Deveno said:
Suppose $f(x) = a$, a constant. Then we may take $d_j(x) = 0$ for every $j > 0$, and $d_0(x) = a = f(x)$.

Since $\text{deg}(d_0) = 0$ and $\text{deg}(b) \geq 1$, the theorem's hypotheses are satisfied, in this case. This is our "base" case, inducting on the degree of $f$.

With our inductive hypothesis, we assume the theorem holds for any polynomial $g$ with $0 \leq \text{deg}(g) < \text{deg}(f)$.

If $\text{deg}(b) < \text{deg}(f)$, dividing $f$ by $b$ yields such a $g$. Note if $\text{deg}(b) >\text{deg}(f)$, we can simply take $d_j(x) = 0$ for $j > 0$, and $d_0(x) = f(x)$, as in the constant case.

The case $\text{deg}(b) = \text{deg}(f)$ is slightly more interesting. Note that since $\deg{b} \geq 1$, this is true (in this case of equal degrees of $b$ and $f$) for $f$. In this case, we take $d_j(x) = 0$, for all $j > 1$.

If the leading coefficient of $b$ is, say $a_0$, and the leading coefficient of $f$ is $c_0$, we may take $d_1(x) = \dfrac{c_0}{a_0}$, which has degree 0, which is less than that of $b$.

Then $f(x) - d_1(x)b(x)$ is either the 0-polynomial, or has degree < the degree of $f$ = the degree of $b$, and we may take $d_0(x) = f(x) - d_1(x)b(x)$, which gives:

$f(x) = d_1(x)b(x) + d_0(x)$.

Otherwise, we are down to the case where $\text{deg}(b) < \text{deg}(f)$.

In this case, we have $f = gb + r$, where $\text{deg}(r) < \text{deg}(b)$, or $r = 0$. I leave the $r = 0$ case to you (hint: we can do it in one term).

So, by our inductive hypothesis, we have:

$g(x) = d'_{m-1}(x)b(x)^{m-1} +\cdots + d'_1(x)b(x) + d'_0$.

(the degree of $g$ is at most one less than the degree of $f$, hence the "$m-1$"-the coefficients may actually stop earlier, we may have $d_j = 0$ for all $j > k$ for some $0 \leq k \leq m-1$).

Let $d_j(x) = d'_{j-1}(x)$, and $d_0(x) = r(x)$.

Then $f(x) = g(x)b(x) + r(x) = (d'_{m-1}(x)b(x)^{m-1} + \cdots + d'_1(x)b(x) + d'_0)b(x) + r(x)$

$= d'_{m-1}b(x)^m + \cdots + d'_1(x)b(x)^2 + d'_0b(x) + r(x)$

$= d_m(x)b(x)^m + \cdots + d_2(x)b(x)^2 + d_1(x)b(x) + d_0(x)$.

So if the theorem holds for any polynomial of degree less than $f$, it holds for $f$ as well, and thus for ALL $f$.
Hi Deveno,

Thanks for a really clear post ... extremely helpful!

Another example of induction for me as well ... a case of complete or strong induction, I think ...

Thanks again for your support ...

Peter
 
Yes, it would be strong induction, because unless $b$ is of degree $1$, we go more than "one notch down".
 
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...
##\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...
Back
Top