MHB Unique Automorphism of R[x] - A Hint for Invertible a & b

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

Let $R$ be a commutative ring with unity and $a,b\in R$ with $a$ invertible.

I want to show that the mapping $x\rightarrow ax+b$ defines a unique automorphism of $R[x]$ that is idempotent in $R$. Could you give me a hint what I am supposed to do? (Wondering)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How does your text/notes define "idempotent in $R$?"
 
Deveno said:
How does your text/notes define "idempotent in $R$?"

It sends each element to itself.
 
First, show it is an ring-homomorphism.

Next, show it is bijective (this is where you will need the fact that $a$ is a unit).

Since constant polynomials (the embedding of $R$ in $R[x]$) have no powers of $x$ at all, it is clear that this mapping is thus idempotent on $R$.
 
Deveno said:
First, show it is an ring-homomorphism.

Let $f(x)=ax+b$ and $p(x)\in R[x]$ a polynomial. Then we have the mapping $\phi : p(x)\mapsto (p\circ f)(x)$.

We have that $$\phi (p_1+p_2)=(p_1+p_2)\circ f$$ Is this equal to $p_1\circ f+p_2\circ f$ ? (Wondering)

We also have that $$\phi (p_1\cdot p_2)=(p_1\cdot p_2)\circ f$$ Is this equal to $(p_1\circ f)(\cdot (p_2\circ f)$ ? (Wondering)

Deveno said:
Next, show it is bijective (this is where you will need the fact that $a$ is a unit).

$$\phi (p_1(x))=\phi (p_2(x))\Rightarrow (p_1\circ f)(x)=(p_2\circ f)(x)\Rightarrow p_1(f(x))=p_2(f(x))$$
Do we conclude from that that $p_1=p_2$ ? (Wondering) To show that the mapping is onto, we have to show that for each $q\in R[x]$ there is a $p\in R[x]$ such that $\phi (p)=q$, right? (Wondering)
So, for each $q$ there is a $p$ such that $p\circ f=q$.

Could you give me a hint how we could show that? (Wondering)
 
mathmari said:
Let $f(x)=ax+b$ and $p(x)\in R[x]$ a polynomial. Then we have the mapping $\phi : p(x)\mapsto (p\circ f)(x)$.

We have that $$\phi (p_1+p_2)=(p_1+p_2)\circ f$$ Is this equal to $p_1\circ f+p_2\circ f$ ? (Wondering)

Is it? Let's write:

$p(x) = \sum\limits_{i = 0}^n c_ix^i$
$q(x) = \sum\limits_{i = 0}^n d_ix^i$

then $\phi(p(x)+q(x)) = (p+q)(f(x)) = \sum\limits_{i = 0}^n (c_i+d_i)(ax + b)^i$

$= \sum\limits_{i = 0}^n c_i(ax + b)^i + \sum\limits_{i = 0}^n d_i(ax + b)^i$

$= p(f(x)) + q(f(x)) = \phi(p(x)) + \phi(q(x))$

We also have that $$\phi (p_1\cdot p_2)=(p_1\cdot p_2)\circ f$$ Is this equal to $(p_1\circ f)(\cdot (p_2\circ f)$ ? (Wondering)

Do we? You try this one.

$$\phi (p_1(x))=\phi (p_2(x))\Rightarrow (p_1\circ f)(x)=(p_2\circ f)(x)\Rightarrow p_1(f(x))=p_2(f(x))$$
Do we conclude from that that $p_1=p_2$ ? (Wondering)

Well, that's what we want to prove-but just stating that isn't a proof. You need to use explicit expressions for $p_1(x), p_2(x)$.
To show that the mapping is onto, we have to show that for each $q\in R[x]$ there is a $p\in R[x]$ such that $\phi (p)=q$, right? (Wondering)
So, for each $q$ there is a $p$ such that $p\circ f=q$.

Could you give me a hint how we could show that? (Wondering)

First, you might try to find a pre-image for $x$ and a constant polynomial $c$.
 
Deveno said:
Let's write:

$p(x) = \sum\limits_{i = 0}^n c_ix^i$
$q(x) = \sum\limits_{i = 0}^n d_ix^i$

then $\phi(p(x)+q(x)) = (p+q)(f(x)) = \sum\limits_{i = 0}^n (c_i+d_i)(ax + b)^i$

$= \sum\limits_{i = 0}^n c_i(ax + b)^i + \sum\limits_{i = 0}^n d_i(ax + b)^i$

$= p(f(x)) + q(f(x)) = \phi(p(x)) + \phi(q(x))$

Ah ok... I see... (Nerd)
Deveno said:
Do we? You try this one.

Let
$p(x) = \sum\limits_{i = 0}^n c_ix^i$
$q(x) = \sum\limits_{i = 0}^n d_ix^i$

then $\phi(p(x)q(x)) = (pq)(f(x)) = \sum\limits_{i = 0}^n h_i(ax + b)^i$, where $h_i=a_{j_1}b_{j_2}$ with $j_1+j_2=i$

$\Rightarrow \phi(p(x)q(x)) =\left (\sum\limits_{i = 0}^n c_i(ax + b)^i \right )\cdot \left ( \sum\limits_{i = 0}^n d_i(ax + b)^i\right )$

$= p(f(x)) q(f(x)) = \phi(p(x)) \phi(q(x))$

I am not really sure if this is correct... Especially, the part $\phi(p(x)q(x)) =\left (\sum\limits_{i = 0}^n c_i(ax + b)^i \right )\cdot \left ( \sum\limits_{i = 0}^n d_i(ax + b)^i\right )$.

(Wondering)
 
mathmari said:
Ah ok... I see... (Nerd)

Let
$p(x) = \sum\limits_{i = 0}^n c_ix^i$
$q(x) = \sum\limits_{i = 0}^n d_ix^i$

then $\phi(p(x)q(x)) = (pq)(f(x)) = \sum\limits_{i = 0}^n h_i(ax + b)^i$, where $h_i=a_{j_1}b_{j_2}$ with $j_1+j_2=i$

$\Rightarrow \phi(p(x)q(x)) =\left (\sum\limits_{i = 0}^n c_i(ax + b)^i \right )\cdot \left ( \sum\limits_{i = 0}^n d_i(ax + b)^i\right )$

$= p(f(x)) q(f(x)) = \phi(p(x)) \phi(q(x))$

I am not really sure if this is correct... Especially, the part $\phi(p(x)q(x)) =\left (\sum\limits_{i = 0}^n c_i(ax + b)^i \right )\cdot \left ( \sum\limits_{i = 0}^n d_i(ax + b)^i\right )$.

(Wondering)

That's the right idea, so do a very careful calculation of the coefficient of $(ax + b)^k$ (for an arbitrary, but fixed $k$ in-between $0$ and $2n$) in your product:$\left (\sum\limits_{i = 0}^n c_i(ax + b)^i \right )\cdot \left ( \sum\limits_{i = 0}^n d_i(ax + b)^i\right )$

Also, remember polynomials may have different degrees, so we may have to "pad out with 0's" to be able to use the same $n$.
 
Deveno said:
That's the right idea, so do a very careful calculation of the coefficient of $(ax + b)^k$ (for an arbitrary, but fixed $k$ in-between $0$ and $2n$) in your product:$\left (\sum\limits_{i = 0}^n c_i(ax + b)^i \right )\cdot \left ( \sum\limits_{i = 0}^n d_i(ax + b)^i\right )$

Also, remember polynomials may have different degrees, so we may have to "pad out with 0's" to be able to use the same $n$.

We have the following:
$$\phi(p(x)q(x)) = (pq)(f(x)) = \sum\limits_{i = 0}^{2n} \sum\limits_{j=0}^ic_jd_{i-j}(ax + b)^i$$
Why is this equal to $\left (\sum\limits_{i = 0}^n c_i(ax + b)^i \right )\cdot \left ( \sum\limits_{i = 0}^n d_i(ax + b)^i\right )$ ? (Wondering)
 
  • #10
mathmari said:
We have the following:
$$\phi(p(x)q(x)) = (pq)(f(x)) = \sum\limits_{i = 0}^{2n} \sum\limits_{j=0}^ic_jd_{i-j}(ax + b)^i$$
Why is this equal to $\left (\sum\limits_{i = 0}^n c_i(ax + b)^i \right )\cdot \left ( \sum\limits_{i = 0}^n d_i(ax + b)^i\right )$ ? (Wondering)
As I suggested before, compare the coefficients of $(ax + b)^k$ in each expression.
 
  • #11
Deveno said:
As I suggested before, compare the coefficients of $(ax + b)^k$ in each expression.

The coefficient of $(ax+b)^k$ is $$\sum_{j=0}^kc_jd_{k-j}$$ or not? (Wondering)
 
  • #12
mathmari said:
The coefficient of $(ax+b)^k$ is $$\sum_{j=0}^kc_jd_{k-j}$$ or not? (Wondering)

Lol, don't tell me, convince yourself that it is, in *both* expressions. Try it for $k = 0,1,2$ until you get the hang of how to show it for ANY $k$.
 
  • #13
We have the following:
$$\sum_{i=0}^{2n}\sum_{j=0}^ic_jd_{i-j}(ax+b)^i=\sum_{i=0}^{2n}\left (c_0d_i+c_1d_{i-1}+\dots +c_id_0\right )(ax+b)^i \\ =\sum_{i=0}^{2n}[c_0d_i(ax+b)^i+c_1d_{i-1}(ax+b)^i+\dots +c_id_0(ax+b)^i] \\ =\sum_{i=0}^{2n}c_0d_i(ax+b)^i+\sum_{i=0}^{2n}c_1d_{i-1}(ax+b)^i+\dots +\sum_{i=0}^{2n}c_id_0(ax+b)^i$$
right? (Wondering)

We have that $c_i=d_i=0, i>n$.
So, the last equation is equal to $$c_0\sum_{i=0}^nd_i(ax+b)^i+c_1(ax+b)\sum_{i=0}^nd_{i-1}(ax+b)^{i-i}+\dots +\left (\sum_{i=0}^nc_i(ax+b)^i\right ) d_0$$
or not? (Wondering)

Is this equal to $$\left (\sum_{i=0}^nc_i(ax+b)^i\right )\left (\sum_{i=0}^nd_i(ax+b)^i\right )$$ ? (Wondering)
 
  • #14
Use the distributive law.
 
  • #15
Deveno said:
Use the distributive law.

At which point exactly? I got stuck right now... (Wondering)
 
  • #16
We want to show that $\phi$ is multiplicative.

Now:

$\left(\sum\limits_{i = 0}^m c_ix^i\right)\left(\sum\limits_{i = 0}^n d_ix^i\right) = \sum\limits_{i = 0}^{m+n} h_ix^i$

where $h_i = \sum\limits_{j+k = i} c_jd_k$

Thus $\phi\left[\left(\sum\limits_{i = 0}^m c_ix^i\right)\left(\sum\limits_{i = 0}^n d_ix^i\right) \right]$

$= \phi\left(\sum\limits_{i = 0}^{m+n} h_ix^i\right) = \phi\left(\sum\limits_{i = 0}^{m+n} \left(\sum\limits_{j+k = i} c_jd_k\right)x^i\right)$

$= \sum\limits_{i= 0}^{m+n} \phi\left(\left(\sum\limits_{j+k = i}c_jd_k\right)x^i\right)$

(since we already showed $\phi$ is additive)

$= \sum\limits_{i = 0}^{m+n}\left(\sum\limits_{j+k = i}c_jd_k\right)(ax + b)^i$

(by our definition of $\phi$)

$= \left(\sum\limits_{i = 0}^m c_i(ax + b)^i\right)\left(\sum\limits_{i = 0}^n d_i(ax + b)^i\right)$

(to see this, temporarily replace "$(ax + b)$" with "$u$", the polynomial multiplication works out the same)

$ = \left(\phi\left(\sum\limits_{i = 0}^m c_ix^i\right)\right)\left(\phi\left(\sum\limits_{i = 0}^n d_ix^i\right)\right)$, QED.
 
  • #17
Deveno said:
We want to show that $\phi$ is multiplicative.

Now:

$\left(\sum\limits_{i = 0}^m c_ix^i\right)\left(\sum\limits_{i = 0}^n d_ix^i\right) = \sum\limits_{i = 0}^{m+n} h_ix^i$

where $h_i = \sum\limits_{j+k = i} c_jd_k$

Thus $\phi\left[\left(\sum\limits_{i = 0}^m c_ix^i\right)\left(\sum\limits_{i = 0}^n d_ix^i\right) \right]$

$= \phi\left(\sum\limits_{i = 0}^{m+n} h_ix^i\right) = \phi\left(\sum\limits_{i = 0}^{m+n} \left(\sum\limits_{j+k = i} c_jd_k\right)x^i\right)$

$= \sum\limits_{i= 0}^{m+n} \phi\left(\left(\sum\limits_{j+k = i}c_jd_k\right)x^i\right)$

(since we already showed $\phi$ is additive)

$= \sum\limits_{i = 0}^{m+n}\left(\sum\limits_{j+k = i}c_jd_k\right)(ax + b)^i$

(by our definition of $\phi$)

$= \left(\sum\limits_{i = 0}^m c_i(ax + b)^i\right)\left(\sum\limits_{i = 0}^n d_i(ax + b)^i\right)$

(to see this, temporarily replace "$(ax + b)$" with "$u$", the polynomial multiplication works out the same)

$ = \left(\phi\left(\sum\limits_{i = 0}^m c_ix^i\right)\right)\left(\phi\left(\sum\limits_{i = 0}^n d_ix^i\right)\right)$, QED.

Ah ok... I see... (Thinking)
Deveno said:
Next, show it is bijective (this is where you will need the fact that $a$ is a unit).

To show that $\phi$ is 1-1

I have done the following:

Let $p_1(x)=\sum_{i=0}^nc_ix^i$ and $p_2(x)=\sum_{i=0}^md_ix^i$ and let $n>m$ then
$$\phi (p_1(x))=\phi (p_2(x))\Rightarrow (p_1\circ f)(x)=(p_2\circ f)(x)\Rightarrow p_1(f(x))=p_2(f(x)) \\ \Rightarrow \sum_{i=0}^nc_if(x)^i=\sum_{i=0}^md_if(x)^i\\ \Rightarrow \sum_{i=0}^nc_if(x)^i=\sum_{i=0}^nd_if(x)^i \text{ with } d_i=0 \text{ for } i=m+1, \dots , n \\ \Rightarrow \sum_{i=0}^n (c_i-d_i)f(x)^i=0 \\ \Rightarrow c_i=d_i, \forall i=1, \dots , n$$
This means that $p_1=p_2$, or not? (Wondering)
Deveno said:
First, you might try to find a pre-image for $x$ and a constant polynomial $c$.

Why do we have to do that? (Wondering)
 
  • #18
mathmari said:
Ah ok... I see... (Thinking)


To show that $\phi$ is 1-1

I have done the following:

Let $p_1(x)=\sum_{i=0}^nc_ix^i$ and $p_2(x)=\sum_{i=0}^md_ix^i$ and let $n>m$ then
$$\phi (p_1(x))=\phi (p_2(x))\Rightarrow (p_1\circ f)(x)=(p_2\circ f)(x)\Rightarrow p_1(f(x))=p_2(f(x)) \\ \Rightarrow \sum_{i=0}^nc_if(x)^i=\sum_{i=0}^md_if(x)^i\\ \Rightarrow \sum_{i=0}^nc_if(x)^i=\sum_{i=0}^nd_if(x)^i \text{ with } d_i=0 \text{ for } i=m+1, \dots , n \\ \Rightarrow \sum_{i=0}^n (c_i-d_i)f(x)^i=0 \\ \Rightarrow c_i=d_i, \forall i=1, \dots , n$$
This means that $p_1=p_2$, or not? (Wondering)

Yes, a polynomial is the 0-polynomial if and only if all of its coefficients are 0.

Why do we have to do that? (Wondering)

It just makes things easier, since we already know $\phi$ is a ring-homomorphism.
 
  • #19
Deveno said:
It just makes things easier, since we already know $\phi$ is a ring-homomorphism.

And how could we find a pre-image of $x$ ? I got stuck right now... (Wondering)
 
  • #20
mathmari said:
And how could we find a pre-image of $x$ ? I got stuck right now... (Wondering)

Suppose $ay + b = x$, what is $y$? Why does $a$ have to be a unit to find $y$?
 
  • #21
Deveno said:
Suppose $ay + b = x$, what is $y$? Why does $a$ have to be a unit to find $y$?

$y$ is then equal to $a^{-1}(x-b)$. So that $a^{-1}$ exists $a$ must be a unit, right? (Wondering)

For each $p$ we set $q(x)=p(a^{-1}(x-b))$ and then we have that $\phi (q(x))=(q\circ f)(x)=p(a^{-1}(f(x)-b))=p(a^{-1}(ax+b-b))=p(x)$. That means that $\phi$ is onto, right? (Wondering)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
Yes, because every element of $R[x]$ has a pre-image under $\phi$.

Thus $\phi$ is an automorphism.

Convince yourself that $\phi(f(x)) = f(2x)$ is *not* an automorphism of $\Bbb Z[x]$, even though the image is isomorphic to the domain.
 
  • #23
Deveno said:
Convince yourself that $\phi(f(x)) = f(2x)$ is *not* an automorphism of $\Bbb Z[x]$, even though the image is isomorphic to the domain.

To which domain is the image isomorphic to? (Wondering)

To see why it is not an automorphism we have to check if $\phi$ satisfies the conditions $\phi (f_1+f_2)=\phi (f_1)+\phi (f_2)$ and $\phi (f_1f_2)=\phi (f_1)\phi (f_2)$, right? (Wondering)
 
  • #24
mathmari said:
To which domain is the image isomorphic to? (Wondering)

To see why it is not an automorphism we have to check if $\phi$ satisfies the conditions $\phi (f_1+f_2)=\phi (f_1)+\phi (f_2)$ and $\phi (f_1f_2)=\phi (f_1)\phi (f_2)$, right? (Wondering)

The image is isomorphic to $\Bbb Z[x]$, but it is *not* all of $\Bbb Z[x]$ (you might want to spend a little time to see how that is even possible).

It *is* a ring-homomorphism, just not an automorphism.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top