Relatively Prime Polynomials in Extension Fields

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on proving that if two polynomials f(x) and g(x) are relatively prime in F[x], they remain relatively prime in an extension field K[x]. Participants explore the implications of irreducible factors and the role of field automorphisms, particularly in the context of complex roots and conjugate pairs. A key point raised is the relationship between the existence of coefficients s(x) and t(x) in F[x] that satisfy the equation f(x)s(x) + g(x)t(x) = 1, which indicates their relative primeness. The conversation emphasizes that this property holds true in any extension, paralleling concepts from integer arithmetic. Ultimately, the proof hinges on understanding how these algebraic structures behave across fields.
e(ho0n3
Messages
1,349
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
Recall that two polynomials f(x) and g(x) from F[x] are said to be relatively prime if there is no polynomial of positive degree in F[x] that divides both f(x) and g(x). Show that if f(x) and g(x) are relatively prime in F[x], they are relatively prime in K[x], where K is an extension of F.

The attempt at a solution
I'm guessing this will be a proof by contradiction where the contradiction will be that f(x) and g(x) are not relatively prime in F[x]:

Let p(x) be an irreducible factor of the divisor of f(x) and g(x) in K[x]. How can I show that p(x) divides f(x) and g(x) in F[x]?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can't do what you ask for in your last sentence: p(x) isn't even necessarily in F[x]. But the question doesn't ask you to show that.
 
Is there another way of getting a contradiction? I can't think of anything else.
 
Why have you stopped what you're doing? The only thing wrong was your assumption that any factor p(x) in K[x] must be in F[x].

Consider an example if it helps you. E.g. x^2+1 and x^4-1 over Q[x]. These are not relatively prime, but you don't prove that by considering *one* irreducible linear factor in C[x], since x-i and x+i are not in Q[x].
 
I got the impression that my whole approach was wrong.

So are you saying I have to consider all the irreducible factors in K[x]? In what way? Perhaps the product of some of the irreducible linear factors of the divisor is a member of F[x], e.g. (x - i)(x + i) = x2 + 1 in your example?
 
Let's suppose that I have a polynomial f(x) with rational coefficients. And suppose that, passing to the complex numbers, I know x-i is a root of f. What other linear factor must be a root of f(x)?

What do you know about things like Aut(K:F)? The field automorphisms of K that fix F. Such as complex conjugation in Aut(C:Q).
 
n_bourbaki said:
Let's suppose that I have a polynomial f(x) with rational coefficients. And suppose that, passing to the complex numbers, I know x-i is a root of f. What other linear factor must be a root of f(x)?
I'm guessing x + i. I don't really know. To find another linear factor I would try to find a zero of f(x)/(x - i).

What do you know about things like Aut(K:F)? The field automorphisms of K that fix F. Such as complex conjugation in Aut(C:Q).
I've never seen that notation before.

My problem is from a chapter on extension and splitting fields.
 
Yes, that makes sense - you can assume that K is a splitting field for f(x).

You do know the first part: complex roots of a real polynomial occur in complex conjugate pairs.
 
n_bourbaki said:
You do know the first part: complex roots of a real polynomial occur in complex conjugate pairs.
That's an interesting fact. So in the case of Q and C, the contradiction works. But in general? Does p(x) have a conjugate?
 
  • #10
I was told that since f(x) and g(x) are relatively prime in F[x], then there are s(x) and t(x) in F[x] with f(x)s(x) + g(x)t(x) = 1. This equation is also valid in K[x] and this supposedly implies that f(x) and g(x) are relatively prime in K[x]. I don't understand this implication. Why is this?
 
  • #11
It's just euclid's algorithm. Just think of Z rather than a polynomial algebra.

You can do it with a contradiction for any extension. But you don't need to.
 
  • #12
Does f(x)s(x) + g(x)t(x) = 1 imply that f(x) and g(x) are relatively prime? Isn't it the other way around?
 
  • #13
It is exactly the same as it is for the integers. You should be able to answer your own question.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
48
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K