MHB Rotman - Theorem 2.64 - Irreducibility

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Chapter 2: Commutative Rings in Joseph Rotman's book, Advanced Modern Algebra (Second Edition).

I am currently focussed on Theorem 2.64 [pages 115 - 116] concerning irreducibility.

I need help to the proof of this theorem.

Theorem 2.64 and its proof read as follows:https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/2695
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/2696In the above text: Rotman writes:

" ... ... Suppose that $$ f(x) $$ factors in $$ \mathbb{Z} [x] $$; say $$ f(x) = g(x)h(x) $$, where $$ deg(g) \lt deg(f) $$ and $$ deg(h) \lt deg(f) $$. Now $$ \overline{f}(x) = \overline{g}(x) \overline{h}(x) $$ so that $$ deg( \overline{f}) = deg( \overline{g}) + deg( \overline{h}). $$ Now, $$ \overline{f}(x) $$ is monic because f(x) is and so $$ deg( \overline{f}) = deg(f) $$. Thus both $$ deg( \overline{g}) \text{ and } deg( \overline{h}) $$ have degrees less than $$ deg( \overline{f}) $$ ... ..."

My question is as follows:

How does (on what grounds) does Rotman reach the conclusion that both $$ deg( \overline{g}) \text{ and } deg( \overline{h}) $$ have degrees less than $$ deg( \overline{f}) $$?

Indeed, what is preventing one of $$ deg( \overline{g}) , deg( \overline{h}) $$ from being equal to 1 and hence having degree zero and the other having degree n? (Having one of them having degree 0 and being equal to a unit other than 1 would, of course, contradict the monic nature of f, but one of them being equal to 1 seems an open possibility)

Hope someone can help clarify the above issue.

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A polynomial $f(x) \in F[x]$, for any field $F$ is said to be REDUCIBLE if:

$f(x) = g(x)h(x)$

where neither $g$ nor $h$ is a unit in $F[x]$ (a unit in $F[x]$ is, of course, a unit of $F$, that is to say: a non-zero constant polynomial).

If $f \neq 0$, then since $F[x]$ is an integral domain, if $f$ is reducible, neither $g$ nor $h$ can be 0, either.

Furthermore, if $f$ is monic, then without loss of generality we can find $g$ and $h$ monic as well, for if the leading coefficient of $g$ is $a$, then the leading coefficient of $h$ must be $1/a$, in which case we have:

$f(x) = [(1/a)g(x)][ah(x)]$ and both these factors are monic.

Now $\text{deg}(g),\text{deg}(h) > 0$, since these are non-zero non-units. This precludes the possibility that either one is the constant polynomial $1$.

In $\Bbb Z[x]$, the situation is considerably simpler: if such an $f$ factors into two non-unit polynomials OF LESSER DEGREE, then each factor must be AT LEAST degree 1. In other words: polynomials of degree one is "as low as we go"...the reason being, is that irreducibility is defined "only up to units".

We don't want factorizations like $f(x) = (-1)(-f(x))$ to "count", these are somewhat trivial. Again, this is along the same lines as not considering the integer 1 as "prime" for we can "factor it" all day long:

$1 = (-1)(-1)(-1)(-1)(1)(-1)(1)(-1)$, for example.

In a similar vein, in the ring $Z_5[x]$ we can factor the irreducible polynomial $x + 3$ as:

$x + 3 = (2)(3x + 4)$, but this really shouldn't count. Since $2 = 3^{-1}$ in $\Bbb Z_5$, the above factorization is actually:

$\dfrac{3x + 4}{3} = \dfrac{3x + 3}{3} + \dfrac{1}{3} = x + 1 + 2 = x + 3$.

IN GENERAL, for a commutative ring $R$, and an ideal $I$, if we have:

$f(x) = g(x)h(x)$ in $R[x]$, we certainly have:

$\varphi^{\ast}(f(x)) = \varphi^{\ast}(g(x))\varphi^{\ast}(h(x))$ in $R/I[x]$.

The underlying idea is this:

Often we want to establish a particular monic polynomial $f(x) \in \Bbb Z[x]$ is irreducible over $\Bbb Q$. Now Gauss' lemma tells us that if it factors in $\Bbb Q[x]$ (and, again "factors" means here "factors into two non-units", we want non-trivial factorizations), it factors in $\Bbb Z[x]$.

The ring-homomorphism $\varphi^{\ast}$ preserves the factorization, so if when we reduce mod $p$, we get an irreducible polynomial, we must not have had any possible factorization to begin with. The point to doing this, is that there often fewer cases to check in $\Bbb Z_p[x]$.

For example, take the polynomial:

$p(x) = x^3 - 2x^2 + 7x + 15 \in \Bbb Z[x]$.

The only thing immediately obvious is that any integral root is $\pm 1,3,5,15$. That's 8 possible roots to try. If we take this polynomial mod 2, we get:

$x^3 + x + [1]$, and we have just 2 roots to try:

$\overline{p}([0]) = [1]$
$\overline{p}([1]) = [1]$neither of which work, so we conclude that $p$ is irreducible over $\Bbb Q$.

In general, it's HARD to decide if a given monic integral polynomial is irreducible, especially if the degree is > 3. Even if we conclude it has no integer roots, it may still factor into integral quadratics, or cubic, etc. So irreducibilty criteria are invaluable (time-savers).

Indeed, the theorem you are looking at now is just a prelude to the important Eisenstein's criterion:

If $f(x) = x^n + a_{n-1}x^{n-1} + \cdots + a_1x + a_0 \in \Bbb Z[x]$ is a polynomial such that:

$p|a_j$, for $j = 0,1,\dots,n-1$ but $p^2\not\mid a_0$, for some prime $p$, then $f(x)$ is irreducible over $\Bbb Q$.

To see how this works, suppose that on the contrary for such a polynomial:

$f(x) = g(x)h(x)$. Reducing mod $p$, we get:

$\overline{f}(x) = \overline{g}(x)\overline{h}(x)$.

Since $p$ divides all but the leading coefficient, we have $\overline{f}(x) = x^n$

Since $\Bbb Z_p[x]$ is a unique factorization domain, we must have $\overline{g}(x) = x^k$ for $0 < k < n$, and $\overline{h}(x) = x^{n-k}$.

But this implies the constant term of $g$ is divisible by $p$, and likewise for $h$, so that $p^2|a_0$, contradiction.
 
Deveno said:
A polynomial $f(x) \in F[x]$, for any field $F$ is said to be REDUCIBLE if:

$f(x) = g(x)h(x)$

where neither $g$ nor $h$ is a unit in $F[x]$ (a unit in $F[x]$ is, of course, a unit of $F$, that is to say: a non-zero constant polynomial).

If $f \neq 0$, then since $F[x]$ is an integral domain, if $f$ is reducible, neither $g$ nor $h$ can be 0, either.

Furthermore, if $f$ is monic, then without loss of generality we can find $g$ and $h$ monic as well, for if the leading coefficient of $g$ is $a$, then the leading coefficient of $h$ must be $1/a$, in which case we have:

$f(x) = [(1/a)g(x)][ah(x)]$ and both these factors are monic.

Now $\text{deg}(g),\text{deg}(h) > 0$, since these are non-zero non-units. This precludes the possibility that either one is the constant polynomial $1$.

In $\Bbb Z[x]$, the situation is considerably simpler: if such an $f$ factors into two non-unit polynomials OF LESSER DEGREE, then each factor must be AT LEAST degree 1. In other words: polynomials of degree one is "as low as we go"...the reason being, is that irreducibility is defined "only up to units".

We don't want factorizations like $f(x) = (-1)(-f(x))$ to "count", these are somewhat trivial. Again, this is along the same lines as not considering the integer 1 as "prime" for we can "factor it" all day long:

$1 = (-1)(-1)(-1)(-1)(1)(-1)(1)(-1)$, for example.

In a similar vein, in the ring $Z_5[x]$ we can factor the irreducible polynomial $x + 3$ as:

$x + 3 = (2)(3x + 4)$, but this really shouldn't count. Since $2 = 3^{-1}$ in $\Bbb Z_5$, the above factorization is actually:

$\dfrac{3x + 4}{3} = \dfrac{3x + 3}{3} + \dfrac{1}{3} = x + 1 + 2 = x + 3$.

IN GENERAL, for a commutative ring $R$, and an ideal $I$, if we have:

$f(x) = g(x)h(x)$ in $R[x]$, we certainly have:

$\varphi^{\ast}(f(x)) = \varphi^{\ast}(g(x))\varphi^{\ast}(h(x))$ in $R/I[x]$.

The underlying idea is this:

Often we want to establish a particular monic polynomial $f(x) \in \Bbb Z[x]$ is irreducible over $\Bbb Q$. Now Gauss' lemma tells us that if it factors in $\Bbb Q[x]$ (and, again "factors" means here "factors into two non-units", we want non-trivial factorizations), it factors in $\Bbb Z[x]$.

The ring-homomorphism $\varphi^{\ast}$ preserves the factorization, so if when we reduce mod $p$, we get an irreducible polynomial, we must not have had any possible factorization to begin with. The point to doing this, is that there often fewer cases to check in $\Bbb Z_p[x]$.

For example, take the polynomial:

$p(x) = x^3 - 2x^2 + 7x + 15 \in \Bbb Z[x]$.

The only thing immediately obvious is that any integral root is $\pm 1,3,5,15$. That's 8 possible roots to try. If we take this polynomial mod 2, we get:

$x^3 + x + [1]$, and we have just 2 roots to try:

$\overline{p}([0]) = [1]$
$\overline{p}([1]) = [1]$neither of which work, so we conclude that $p$ is irreducible over $\Bbb Q$.

In general, it's HARD to decide if a given monic integral polynomial is irreducible, especially if the degree is > 3. Even if we conclude it has no integer roots, it may still factor into integral quadratics, or cubic, etc. So irreducibilty criteria are invaluable (time-savers).

Indeed, the theorem you are looking at now is just a prelude to the important Eisenstein's criterion:

If $f(x) = x^n + a_{n-1}x^{n-1} + \cdots + a_1x + a_0 \in \Bbb Z[x]$ is a polynomial such that:

$p|a_j$, for $j = 0,1,\dots,n-1$ but $p^2\not\mid a_0$, for some prime $p$, then $f(x)$ is irreducible over $\Bbb Q$.

To see how this works, suppose that on the contrary for such a polynomial:

$f(x) = g(x)h(x)$. Reducing mod $p$, we get:

$\overline{f}(x) = \overline{g}(x)\overline{h}(x)$.

Since $p$ divides all but the leading coefficient, we have $\overline{f}(x) = x^n$

Since $\Bbb Z_p[x]$ is a unique factorization domain, we must have $\overline{g}(x) = x^k$ for $0 < k < n$, and $\overline{h}(x) = x^{n-k}$.

But this implies the constant term of $g$ is divisible by $p$, and likewise for $h$, so that $p^2|a_0$, contradiction.

Thanks for the help Deveno ... ... just working through your post in detail now ...

Tanks again,

Peter
 
Peter said:
Thanks for the help Deveno ... ... just working through your post in detail now ...

Tanks again,

Peter

Thanks again for the help, Deveno ... as I worked through your post and also checked on the Theorem 2.64 again, I became aware that the proof did not seem to explicitly make use of the fact that p is prime ... can you help?

My question is - why, exactly, does p have to be prime ... is it to ensure $$ \mathbb{F}_p $$ is a field, so that $$ \mathbb{F}_p [x] $$ is a domain? (Presumably we want $$ \mathbb{F}_p [x] $$ to be a domain - but why?)

Can you clarify this issue?

Peter
 
It is a theorem that $\Bbb Z/n\Bbb Z$ is an integral domain if and only if $n$ is not composite (the trivial ring $\{0\}$ is "technically" an integral domain, but a somewhat boring one (this is the $n = 1$ case), and the integers themselves are an integral domain (this is the $n = 0$ case)).

Put another way: $\Bbb Z/n\Bbb Z$ is a non-trivial finite integral domain if and only if $n$ is prime.

To see this, suppose $n = ab$ with $1 < a,b < n$.

Then $[a] = [ab] = [n] = [0]$, so $[a]$ and $$ are zero divisors.

On the other hand if $n = p$, a prime, then $\text{gcd}(a,p) = 1$ for all $0 < a < p$, and thus $[a]$ is a unit, so there are no zero divisors.

Now if $n$ is composite, then $\Bbb Z_n[x]$ surely has zero divisors (for example, at least all the zero divisors of $\Bbb Z_n$, realized as constant polynomials). So $\Bbb Z_n[x]$ isn't even an integral domain, MUCH LESS an unique factorization domain. And if we don't have a UFD, we can't test for irreducibility by testing for primality (primality is easier to test for than irreducibility).

The presence of zero divisors in a ring is generally unhelpful to solving problems. For example, if $a$ is a zero divisor in a ring $R$, we can have $ab = ac$, with $b \neq c$. So even if we know $ab = x$, and we know what $a$ and $x$ are, we don't have a way to find out what $b$ is.
 
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...

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
24
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top