MHB Solving a Polynomial Equation - Discussion in Fraleigh - Page 204

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading John Fraleigh's book, A First Course in Abstract Algebra.

I am at present reading Section 22: Rings of Polynomials.

I need some help with an aspect of Fraleigh's discussion of "solving a polynomial equation" or "finding a zero of a polynomial" ...

The relevant text in Fraleigh is as follows:View attachment 4560

In the above text, we read the following:

" ... ... In terms of this definition, we can rephrase the classical problem of finding all real numbers r such that $$r^2 + r - 6 = 0$$ by letting $$F = \mathbb{Q}$$ and $$E = \mathbb{R}$$ and finding all $$\alpha \in \mathbb{R}$$ such that

$$\phi_\alpha ( x^2 + x - 6 ) = 0
$$

that is finding all zeros of $$x^2 + x - 6$$ in $$\mathbb{R}$$ ... ... "My question is as follows:

What is the relevance of the field $$F$$? It appears that if we made $$F = \mathbb{R}$$ we would have achieved the same result ... .. indeed (if we regard a field as a subfield of itself) we could have taken $$F = E$$ and achieved the same result ...

Can someone please explain the relevance of the subfield $$F$$? ... ... I am sure that I am missing something ...

Peter
*** NOTE ***I do understand that changing $$F$$ changes the nature/type of the polynomials that can be input to the homomorphism $$\phi_\alpha$$ since the co-efficients of the polynomial come from $$F$$ ... but still do not really see the point or relevance of the subfield $$F$$ ...
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Peter,

I could be wrong about this, but I think it comes down to the word "classical" used by Fraleigh. If I'm not mistaken, the classical problem is to split a polynomial over the integers, and it is known that this is equivalent to splitting a polynomial over the field $\mathbb{Q}$ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factorization_of_polynomials)
 
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...
##\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...
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...
Back
Top