MHB Proof that the solutions are algebraic functions

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Functions Proof
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the proof related to algebraic functions and the differential equation $y' = P(x)y$. Participants seek clarification on why this specific equation is considered and the implications of solutions existing in different fields, particularly $\overline{K}_{\mathfrak{p}}(x)$ and $\overline{K}_{\mathfrak{p}}[x]$. The transformation from the general form $\alpha_0(x)y' + \alpha_1(x)y = 0$ to the simpler equation is confirmed as correct. Questions arise regarding the factorization of polynomials in the algebraic closure and the conditions under which certain coefficients, $\beta_i$, are rational. The conversation highlights the complexities of algebraic functions and their solutions within various mathematical frameworks.
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

I am looking at the following:

View attachment 5008

View attachment 5009

View attachment 5010 View attachment 5011

View attachment 5012 I haven't really understood the proof...

Why do we consider the differential equation $y'=P(x)y$ ? (Wondering)

Why does the sentence: "If $(3)_{\mathfrak{p}}$ has a solution in $\overline{K}_{\mathfrak{p}}(x)$, then $(3)_{\mathfrak{p}}$ has also a solution $y_{\mathfrak{p}}$ in $\overline{K}_{\mathfrak{p}}[x]$." stand? (Wondering)
 

Attachments

  • id.PNG
    id.PNG
    37.7 KB · Views: 118
  • gr.PNG
    gr.PNG
    14 KB · Views: 114
  • tche.PNG
    tche.PNG
    10.2 KB · Views: 120
  • tcheg1.PNG
    tcheg1.PNG
    12 KB · Views: 117
  • tcheg2.PNG
    tcheg2.PNG
    27.1 KB · Views: 125
Physics news on Phys.org
mathmari said:
Why do we consider the differential equation $y'=P(x)y$ ?

Since the proof for Grothedieck's problem stands for $n=1$, we consider a differential equation of the form $\alpha_0(x)y'+\alpha_1(x) y=0, \alpha_i(x)\in K[x]$.
So $\alpha_0(x)y'+\alpha_1 (x) y=0 \Rightarrow \alpha_0(x)y'=-\alpha_1(x)y \Rightarrow y'=P(x)y$, where $P(x)=-\frac{\alpha_1(x)}{\alpha_0(x)}\in K(x)$.

Is this correct? (Wondering)
mathmari said:
Why does the sentence: "If $(3)_{\mathfrak{p}}$ has a solution in $\overline{K}_{\mathfrak{p}}(x)$, then $(3)_{\mathfrak{p}}$ has also a solution $y_{\mathfrak{p}}$ in $\overline{K}_{\mathfrak{p}}[x]$." stand? (Wondering)

$\overline{K}$ is the algebraic closure, right?

We have that any polynomial in a field $K[x]$ factors into linear factors in the algebraic closure $\overline{K}[x]$. Does this hold also for the elements of a field of fraction $K(x)$?

Also how do we conclude that $\beta_i \in \mathbb{Q}$ ? (Wondering)
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
870
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K