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

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the relevance of the field F in the context of solving polynomial equations, specifically in John Fraleigh's book on abstract algebra. The participant questions why F, which can be set as the rational numbers, is significant when E is the real numbers, suggesting that using F as the reals would yield the same results. Another contributor clarifies that the term "classical" refers to the traditional problem of splitting polynomials over integers, which is equivalent to doing so over the field of rational numbers. This highlights the importance of the field F in determining the nature of the polynomials and their coefficients. Understanding the role of F is crucial for grasping the broader implications of polynomial factorization in algebra.
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)
 
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 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
854
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
790
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K