MHB Quadratic Polynomials and Irreducibles and Primes

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on understanding Theorem 1.2.2 from "Introductory Algebraic Number Theory" by Alaca and Williams, specifically regarding the factorization of quadratic polynomials in integral domains. The key point is the contradiction arising from the roots of the polynomial, where one root, -d^{-1}t, is shown to be both in and not in the domain D. This contradiction indicates that the polynomial cannot factor into linear factors within D[X]. Participants clarify the significance of the roots a/p and b/p not being in D, reinforcing the conclusion about the absence of factorization. The exchange highlights the importance of distinguishing between the polynomial rings D[X] and F[X] in the context of the theorem.
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 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 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