I Splitting Fields: Anderson and Feil, Theorem 45.4 ....

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Anderson and Feil - A First Course in Abstract Algebra.

I am currently focused on Ch. 45: The Splitting Field ... ...

I need some help with some aspects of the proof of Theorem 45.4 ...

Theorem 45.4 and its proof read as follows:
?temp_hash=979d95a5224d19aff491ca54c9b89ab9.png


My questions on the above proof are as follows:Question 1In the above text from Anderson and Feil we read the following:"... ... This means that ##f = ( x - \alpha)^k g##, where ##k## is an integer greater than ##1## and ##g## is a polynomial over ##K## ... ... Since ##f## is in ##F[x]## ... that is ##f## is over ##F## ... shouldn't ##g## be over ##F## not ##K##?

(I am assuming that ##f## being "over ##F##" means the coefficients of ##f## are in ##F## ... )

Question 2In the above text from Anderson and Feil we read the following:"... ... We then have that ##x - \alpha## is a factor of both ##f## and ##f'##. But if we use term-by-term differentiation instead, it is clear that ##f'\in F[x]##. ... ... "What do Anderson and Feil mean by term-by-term differentiation in this context ... ... and if they do use term-by-term differentiation (what ever they mean) how does this show that ##f'\in F[x]## ... ... ?
Hope someone can help ...

Help will be much appreciated ... ...

Peter
 

Attachments

  • A&W _ Theorem 45.4 ... ... .png
    A&W _ Theorem 45.4 ... ... .png
    52.7 KB · Views: 472
Physics news on Phys.org
If ##\alpha\in K-F## then ##g## will not necessarily be in ##F## as its coefficients will be functions of ##\alpha##.

Consider ##F=\mathbb R,\ K=\mathbb C## and ##f(x)=(x^2+1)^2=(x-i)^2(x+i)^2##, which has roots ##i## and ##-i##, both of multiplicity 2. Taking ##\alpha=i## we get ##g(x)=(x+i)^2##, which is not in ##\mathbb R[x]##.
 
  • Like
Likes Math Amateur
Math Amateur said:
"... ... We then have that ##x - \alpha## is a factor of both ##f## and ##f'##. But if we use term-by-term differentiation instead, it is clear that ##f'\in F[x]##. ... ... "
I was going off to have dinner, thinking I didn't have time to work out the second one. Then I realized it's actually the easier of the two.

By 'term-by-term' they mean writing the polynomial in expanded, unfactorised form as ##f(x)=\sum_{k=0}^n c_kx^k## and then differentiating to get ##f'(x)=\sum_{k=1}^n kc_kx^{k-1}##. The coefficients are of the form ##kc_k## which, since ##k## is in ##\mathbb N## rather than ##F##, means ##\sum_{j=1}^k c_k##, which must be in ##F## since ##c_k## is. Hence ##f'\in F[x]##.
 
  • Like
Likes Math Amateur and Greg Bernhardt
andrewkirk said:
If ##\alpha\in K-F## then ##g## will not necessarily be in ##F## as its coefficients will be functions of ##\alpha##.

Consider ##F=\mathbb R,\ K=\mathbb C## and ##f(x)=(x^2+1)^2=(x-i)^2(x+i)^2##, which has roots ##i## and ##-i##, both of multiplicity 2. Taking ##\alpha=i## we get ##g(x)=(x+i)^2##, which is not in ##\mathbb R[x]##.
Thanks Andrew ... good example ... makes it pretty clear ...

Peter
 
  • Like
Likes Greg Bernhardt
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...
Back
Top