Simple Question on Polynomial Rings

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Polynomial Rings
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the interpretation of the notation F[x_1, x_2, ..., x_n], where F is a field. Participants confirm that this notation represents the set of all possible polynomials in the variables x_1, x_2, ..., x_n with coefficients in F. It is established that to determine if a polynomial belongs to F[x_1, x_2, ..., x_n], one must check that the coefficients are in F and that the indeterminates are limited to x_1, x_2, ..., x_n. The ambiguity regarding whether F[x_1, x_2, ..., x_n] could represent polynomials with specific properties, such as even coefficients, is clarified as unnecessary once the field F is specified.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of polynomial rings and their notation
  • Familiarity with fields in abstract algebra
  • Knowledge of indeterminates in polynomial expressions
  • Basic concepts of mathematical structures and their representations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of polynomial rings over various fields, such as $\mathbb{Q}[x_1, ..., x_n]$
  • Explore the implications of coefficient restrictions in polynomial rings
  • Learn about the structure of rings and fields in abstract algebra
  • Investigate examples of polynomial rings with specific properties, such as even coefficients
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of abstract algebra, and anyone interested in the formal properties of polynomial rings and their applications in algebraic structures.

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
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • · Replies 27 ·
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
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K