Proving a polynomial over Q[x] is irreducible

  • Thread starter Thread starter chaotixmonjuish
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Polynomial
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the irreducibility of the polynomial x^2 + 1 in the context of Q[x]. Participants explore various approaches to demonstrate that the polynomial cannot be factored into linear components with rational coefficients.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the implications of factoring the polynomial and the necessity of maintaining generality in their proofs. There are attempts to manipulate equations derived from assumed factorizations, and some question the restrictions to Q versus R.

Discussion Status

The conversation includes various lines of reasoning and attempts to derive contradictions based on the properties of rational numbers. Some participants have offered hints and suggestions for further exploration, while others express uncertainty about the direction of the proof.

Contextual Notes

There is an emphasis on the requirement to prove irreducibility specifically over Q[x], and participants note the challenge of generalizing their arguments. The discussion also touches on the implications of negative squares in the context of rational numbers.

chaotixmonjuish
Messages
284
Reaction score
0
Show that the polynomial x^2+1 is irreducible in Q[x].

Hint: If not, it must factor as (ax+b)(cx+d) with a,b,c,d in Q. Show that this is impossible.

So I got this far:

ac =1

ad+bc=0

bd=1

I'm not sure how to go further than this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hmm, I don't understand why they restrict to just Q, as it's fairly easy to show that it's irreducible over R as well.

Hint: Square.
 
Well the question restricts it to Q[x].

I asked my prof if just saying it factors to (x-i)(x+i)...however he said it needs to be general. Hence why I have the ac, ac+db, and bd. I'm not sure how to 'generalize' the proof.
 
Looking at the equation, the core issue is that squares can't be negative in Q, right? So, you have a set of mixed products. Try to mix them together in a way that generates an absurdity.
 
So does this work:

ad=-bc
a=-bc/d

sub into the first equation

-bc^2=1
c^2=-1/b^ This is impossible in Q
 
No, b could be negative. Try substituting in the other direction.
 
well I'm saying that c^2 can't equal a negative number in Q, it would imply an i somewhere
 
Yes, but if b is negative, then -1/b will be positive, which is not an issue.
 
hmm...so I'm not sure what you mean then.
 
  • #10
By substitute in the other direction, did you mean:

a=1/c and b=1/d

d/c+c/d=0

This is impossible
 
  • #11
That works, though you did it differently from what I had in mind. I'd like to see you complete the reasoning though.

Here's what I was hinting at: (ad+bc)^2=0

(ad)^2 + 2abcd + (bc)^2 = 0

(ad)^2 + (bc)^2 = -2
 
  • #12
Well to play with my idea more:

d^2+c^2/cd=0

d^2+c^2=0

This is not possible...to be honest I'm not sure how to follow the logic of yours.
 
  • #13
chaotixmonjuish said:
Well to play with my idea more:

d^2+c^2/cd=0

d^2+c^2=0

This is not possible...to be honest I'm not sure how to follow the logic of yours.

What if c and d are 0?

In moving from the second to the third line, I replaced acbd with 1*1.
 
  • #14
But c and d can't be zero because ac=1 and bd=1
 
  • #15
chaotixmonjuish said:
But c and d can't be zero because ac=1 and bd=1

Well then, it seems our work here is done.
 
  • #16
Thanks!
 
  • #17
You can basically show how it's just split into x-i and x+i.


If x2 + 1 =a(x-b)(x-c) then b, c are roots of the equation, so in particular b2 = -1. This is impossible, hence it can't factor
 
  • #18
You can use Eisenstein and the fact f(x) is irreducible if and only if f(x+1) is irreducible.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
48
Views
6K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
5K