MHB Simple Question on Polynomial Rings

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Polynomial Rings
Click For Summary
When discussing the notation F[x_1, x_2, ..., x_n], it is generally understood to represent the set of all polynomials in the variables x_1, x_2, ..., x_n with coefficients from the field F. The determination of whether a polynomial belongs to this ring only requires checking that its coefficients are in F and that it uses the specified indeterminates. Some participants raised the concern that F[x_1, x_2, ..., x_n] could imply a more specific subset of polynomials, such as those with even coefficients, but this is not the standard interpretation. The consensus is that, like the notation for real numbers, F[x_1, x_2, ..., x_n] is not ambiguous and refers to a complete polynomial ring once F is defined. Therefore, clarity about the field F is crucial for understanding the polynomial ring's structure.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
When we write F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] where F is, say, a field, do we necessarily mean the set of all possible polynomials in x_1, x_2, ... ... x_n with coefficients in F? [In this case, essentially all that is required to determine whether a polynomial belongs to F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] is to check that the co-efficients belong to F and the indeterminates only contain x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n.]

OR

when e write F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] do we mean to include possible cases such as the set of polynomials with even coefficients - that is we may be talking about the set of polynomials with even co-efficients - so we cannot be sure what ring of polynomials we are talking about when we write F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] until we specify the exact nature of ring of polynomials we are talking about further.If the latter is the case when given F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] we can not reason about whether particular polynomials belong to F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] until you know the exact nature of the ring F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n]

I very much suspect that the former is the case but ... ... Can someone please confirm or clarify this?

Peter

[This is also posted on MHF]
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Re: Simple question on polynomial ringsWhen we write [TEX] F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] [/TEX] where F

Peter said:
When we write F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] where F is, say, a field, do we necessarily mean the set of all possible polynomials in x_1, x_2, ... ... x_n with coefficients in F? [In this case, essentially all that is required to determine whether a polynomial belongs to F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] is to check that the co-efficients belong to F and the indeterminates only contain x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n.]

OR

when e write F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] do we mean to include possible cases such as the set of polynomials with even coefficients - that is we may be talking about the set of polynomials with even co-efficients - so we cannot be sure what ring of polynomials we are talking about when we write F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] until we specify the exact nature of ring of polynomials we are talking about further.If the latter is the case when given F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] we can not reason about whether particular polynomials belong to F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] until you know the exact nature of the ring F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n]

I very much suspect that the former is the case but ... ... Can someone please confirm or clarify this?

Peter

[This is also posted on MHF]

Hey Peter!

I am pretty sure that the former is the case.

Lets take a very simple non-polynomial ring example. When we write $\mathbb R$ we mean the set of all reals, not some specific type of them, like say irrationals or something. There is no reason that mathematicians would choose to use a different and quite ambiguous convention for more complicated structures. :)
 
Re: Simple question on polynomial ringsWhen we write [TEX] F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] [/TEX] where F

caffeinemachine said:
Hey Peter!

I am pretty sure that the former is the case.

Lets take a very simple non-polynomial ring example. When we write $\mathbb R$ we mean the set of all reals, not some specific type of them, like say irrationals or something. There is no reason that mathematicians would choose to use a different and quite ambiguous convention for more complicated structures. :)

Thanks caffeinemachine,

You write "There is no reason that mathematicians would choose to use a different and quite ambiguous convention for more complicated structures."

I was more thinking that maybe F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n]would stand for a set of possible structures in the same way that when we say, a ring R., it can stand for many structures ... in the same way, I was thinking that maybe F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] could stand for a number of different polynomial rings.

Mind you, I think you are correct anyway :)

Peter
 
Re: Simple question on polynomial ringsWhen we write [TEX] F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] [/TEX] where F

Peter said:
I was more thinking that maybe F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n]would stand for a set of possible structures in the same way that when we say, a ring R., it can stand for many structures ... in the same way, I was thinking that maybe F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] could stand for a number of different polynomial rings.

I don't quite understand you here. Can you please elaborate?
 
Re: Simple question on polynomial ringsWhen we write [TEX] F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] [/TEX] where F

Peter said:
Thanks caffeinemachine,

You write "There is no reason that mathematicians would choose to use a different and quite ambiguous convention for more complicated structures."

I was more thinking that maybe F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n]would stand for a set of possible structures in the same way that when we say, a ring R., it can stand for many structures ... in the same way, I was thinking that maybe F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] could stand for a number of different polynomial rings.

Mind you, I think you are correct anyway :)

Peter

It does stand for a number of different structures in the same way that $R$ stands for different structures but that is because the $F$ can represent different fields.

So for example the polynomial ring $\mathbb{Q}[x_1,...,x_n]$ has co-efficients from the rationals and would be analogous to the ring $\mathbb{Q}$

And $F[x_1,...,x_n]$ has co-efficients from the field $F$ whatever that may be in the same way that $R$ has elements from $R$ whatever that may be.

However once we specify this field it does not then change
 
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 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
938
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K