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
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
48
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K