Product of polynomials over non-integral domain is 0

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the product of two polynomials over the ring of integers modulo a prime power, specifically $$Z/p^nZ$$. It is established that if $$f(x) * g(x) = 0$$, then the product of the coefficients $$a_i * b_j$$ must equal zero for all indices $$1 \leq i \leq n$$ and $$1 \leq j \leq m$$. A counterexample using $$p=2$$ and $$n=4$$ illustrates that non-zero coefficients can lead to a non-zero product, confirming the necessity of the condition. The proof strategy involves analyzing the powers of the coefficients in relation to their minimal indices.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of polynomial rings, specifically in the context of $$Z/p^nZ$$.
  • Familiarity with prime factorization and its implications in modular arithmetic.
  • Knowledge of algebraic structures and properties of rings.
  • Basic understanding of polynomial multiplication and coefficient extraction.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of polynomial rings over finite fields.
  • Learn about Gauss's lemma and its applications in polynomial factorization.
  • Explore the implications of prime power orders in algebraic structures.
  • Investigate examples of polynomial products in different modular systems.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, algebra students, and anyone interested in the properties of polynomials over modular arithmetic, particularly in the context of prime power rings.

anandvineet27
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Let n belongs to N, let p be a prime number and let $$Z/p^n Z$$denote the ring of
integers modulo $$p^n$$ under addition and multiplication modulo $$p^n$$
.Consider two polynomials $$f(x) = a_0 + a_1 x + a_2 x^2 +...a_n x^n$$ and $$g(x)=b_0 + b_1 x + b_2 x^2 +...b_m x^m$$,given the coefficients are in $$Z/p^nZ$$.
$$f(x)*g(x)=0$$. Show that $$a_i*b_j=0 $ for all $ 1<=i<=n, 1<=j<=m$$

I can't seem to use the fact that the coefficents belong to a ring of prime power order.I started by imposing an order on the coefficient and assuming that there is a smallest index in that order for which ai*bj is not 0, and proceeded from there, but that didn't lead anywhere.
I'll admit that my interest in algebra is of a casual nature, so maybe I'm not aware of a few important results that ones with professional interest would. In any case, i'd liek a pointer in the right direction.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Kindly ignore the degrees of the two polynomials, they have no relation to the index n of the ring $$Z/Z p^n$$
 
cupofcoffee said:
Let n belongs to N, let p be a prime number and let $$Z/p^n Z$$denote the ring of
integers modulo $$p^n$$ under addition and multiplication modulo $$p^n$$
.Consider two polynomials $$f(x) = a_0 + a_1 x + a_2 x^2 +...a_{\color{red}r} x^{\color{red}r}$$ (not the same n, of course) and $$g(x)=b_0 + b_1 x + b_2 x^2 +...b_m x^m$$,given the coefficients are in $$Z/p^nZ$$.
$$f(x)*g(x)=0$$. Show that $$a_i*b_j=0 $ for all $ 1<=i<=n, 1<=j<=m$$

I can't seem to use the fact that the coefficents belong to a ring of prime power order.I started by imposing an order on the coefficient and assuming that there is a smallest index in that order for which ai*bj is not 0, and proceeded from there, but that didn't lead anywhere.
I'll admit that my interest in algebra is of a casual nature, so maybe I'm not aware of a few important results that ones with professional interest would. In any case, i'd liek a pointer in the right direction.
Hi cupofcoffee and welcome to MHB!

Thinking about this problem, I started by trying to concoct a counterexample, in the hope that this would point towards a proof of the result. So suppose we take $p=2$ and $n=4$, so that all the coefficients are in the ring $Z/16$. Let $f(x) = 8+8x+4x^2$ and $g(x) = 2+4x+8x^2$. The constant term in $f(x)*g(x)$ is $8*2$, which is $0$ mod $16$. The coefficient of $x$ is $8*4 + 8*2$ (also $0$ mod $16$). But the coefficient of $x^2$ is $8*8 + 8*4 + 4*2$, which is congruent to $8$ mod $16$ and is therefore not $0$. Thus the product $f(x)*g(x)$ is not zero, and this is reflected by the fact that the product of coefficients $a_2*b_0$ (the coefficient of $x^2$ in $f(x)$ times the constant term in $g(x)$) is nonzero.

Can we use that example to form a proof? For $g\in Z/p^nZ$, let $d(g)$ be the power of $p$ that occurs in the prime factorisation of $g$. We want to show that, for the coefficients of $f(x)$ and $g(x)$, $d(a_i) + d(b_j) \geqslant n$ for all $i$ and all $j$. Choose $a_i$ with $d(a_i)$ minimal among all the coefficients of $f(x)$. If there is more than one such $a_i$, choose the first one (in other words, the one with the smallest $i$). Similarly, choose $b_j$ with $d(b_j)$ minimal among all the coefficients of $g(x)$, and again if there is more than one, choose the first one. Your job is now to show that if $d(a_i) + d(b_j) < n$ then the coefficient of $x^{i+j}$ in $f(x)*g(x)$ cannot be $0$ (mod $p^n$) and therefore $f(x)*g(x) \ne0$.
 
Umm , let's say i and j are our chosen indices. I's not clear to me why the coefficient of
$$x^(i+j)$$ should be non zero, (as i and j appear in the coefficients of other terms as well.)
While it might seem natural to check for $$x^(i+j)$$ first, it would be rather pointless to go looking for a proof if we're no sure one exists.
I hope u undersand the issue
 
cupofcoffee said:
Umm , let's say i and j are our chosen indices. I's not clear to me why the coefficient of
$$x^{i+j}$$ should be non zero, (as i and j appear in the coefficients of other terms as well.)
While it might seem natural to check for $$x^{i+j}$$ first, it would be rather pointless to go looking for a proof if we're no sure one exists.
I hope u undersand the issue
Let $k=i+j$, and let $d_0 = d(a_i) + d(b_j)$. The coefficient of $x^{i+j}$ in $f(x)*g(x)$ will be a sum of terms of the form $a_r*b_s$, where $r+s=k$. For each such term (other than $a_i*b_j$), either $r<i$ or $s<j$. In the first case, since $r<i$ and $i$ is the smallest index for which $d(a_i)$ is minimal, it follows that $d(a_r)>d(a_i).$ Also, since $d(b_j)$ is minimal, we must have $d(b_s)\geqslant d(b_j).$ Thus $d(a_r*b_s) = d(a_r) + d(b_s) > d_0.$ In the second case, where $s<j$, a similar argument shows that, again, $d(a_r*b_s) > d_0.$

Therefore, in the coefficient $$\sum_{r+s=k}a_r*b_s$$ of $x^k$, the only term in which the power of $p$ is as low as $d_0$ is the single term $a_i*b_j.$ That is therefore the power of $p$ that occurs in the coefficient of $x^k$. But that coefficient has to be zero (in $Z/p^nZ$), because $f(x)*g(x) = 0.$ Therefore $d_0\geqslant n$, so that $a_i*b_j = 0.$
 
Last edited:
cupofcoffee said:
Let n belongs to N, let p be a prime number and let $$Z/p^n Z$$denote the ring of
integers modulo $$p^n$$ under addition and multiplication modulo $$p^n$$
.Consider two polynomials $$f(x) = a_0 + a_1 x + a_2 x^2 +...a_n x^n$$ and $$g(x)=b_0 + b_1 x + b_2 x^2 +...b_m x^m$$,given the coefficients are in $$Z/p^nZ$$.
$$f(x)*g(x)=0$$. Show that $$a_i*b_j=0 $ for all $ 1<=i<=n, 1<=j<=m$$

I can't seem to use the fact that the coefficents belong to a ring of prime power order.I started by imposing an order on the coefficient and assuming that there is a smallest index in that order for which ai*bj is not 0, and proceeded from there, but that didn't lead anywhere.
I'll admit that my interest in algebra is of a casual nature, so maybe I'm not aware of a few important results that ones with professional interest would. In any case, i'd liek a pointer in the right direction.

The first thing that comes to my mind is that there is a correspondence between this question and this one:

http://www.mathhelpboards.com/f14/polynomial-rings-4768/

The idea would be as follows:
Let $f(x) = a_0 + a_1 x + a_2 x^2 +...a_n x^n$ and $g(x)=b_0 + b_1 x + b_2 x^2 +...b_m x^m$ be polynomials in $\mathbb{Z}_{p^k}$. Then, we can take the following corresponding polynomials in $\mathbb{Q}[x]$, namely consider the polynomials
$$p(x)=\frac{a_0}{p^k}+\frac{a_1}{p^k}x+\cdots+ \frac{a_n}{p^k} x^n\\
q(x)=\frac{b_0}{p^k}+\frac{b_1}{p^k}x+\cdots+\frac{b_n}{p^k}x^n
$$
$f(x)\,g(x)$ is equal to zero in $\mathbb{Z_{p^k}}[x]$ iff $p(x)\,q(x)\in \mathbb{Z}[x]$.

Just an initial idea, I'll try to put more thought into it.

EDIT: in fact, this is a valid way to prove the statement. However, it does presuppose Gauss's lemma. Also, my other proof wasn't very well stated.

DOUBLE EDIT: ends up Opalg's steps amount to the same under sufficient scrutiny
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
48
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K