MHB Quadratic Polynomials and Irreducibles and Primes

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading "Introductory Algebraic Number Theory"by Saban Alaca and Kenneth S. Williams ... and am currently focused on Chapter 1: Integral Domains ...

I need some help with the proof of Theorem 1.2.2 ...

Theorem 1.2.2 reads as follows:
View attachment 6514
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/6515
In the above text from Alaca and Williams, we read the following:

"... ... Then the roots of $$f(X)$$ in $$F$$ are $$-ds/p$$ and $$-d^{-1} t $$. But $$d^{-1} t \in D$$ while neither $$a/p$$ nor $$b/p$$ is in $$D$$. Thus no such factorization exists. ... I am unsure of how this argument leads top the conclusion that $$f(X)$$ does not factor into linear factors in $$D[X]$$ ... in other words how does the argument that "" ... $$d^{-1} t \in D$$ while neither $$a/p$$ nor $$b/p$$ is in $$D$$ ... "lead to the conclusion that no such factorization exists. ...

Indeed ... in particular ... how does the statement "neither $$a/p$$ nor $$b/p$$ is in $$D$$" have meaning in the assumed factorization $$f(X) = (cX + s) ( dX + t )$$ ... ... ? ... What is the exact point being made about the assumed factorization ... ?I am also a little unsure of what is going on when Alaca and Williams change or swap between $$D[X]$$ and $$F[x]$$ ...Can someone help with an explanation ...

Help will be appreciated ...

Peter
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Peter,

The contradiction here is that $-d^{-1}t$ is in $D$ and also not in $D$. As $d, t\in D$, $-d^{-1}t\in D$. On the other hand, $-d^{-1}t$ is one of the roots of $f$ in $F[X]$, namely $a/p$ or $b/p$; since neither $a/p$ nor $b/p$ is in $D$, $-d^{-1}t$ is not in $D$.
 
Euge said:
Hi Peter,

The contradiction here is that $-d^{-1}t$ is in $D$ and also not in $D$. As $d, t\in D$, $-d^{-1}t\in D$. On the other hand, $-d^{-1}t$ is one of the roots of $f$ in $F[X]$, namely $a/p$ or $b/p$; since neither $a/p$ nor $b/p$ is in $D$, $-d^{-1}t$ is not in $D$.
Thanks Euge ... that is clear now ...

Appreciate your help ...

Peter
 
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...
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...
##\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...
Back
Top