MHB Unique Factorization Domain? Nature of Q_Z[x] - 2

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
Let \mathbb{Q}_\mathbb{Z}[x] denote the set of polynomials with rational coefficients and integer constant terms.

Prove that the only two units in \mathbb{Q}_\mathbb{Z}[x] are 1 and -1.

Help with this exercise would be appreciated.

My initial thoughts on this exercise are as follows:

1 and -1 are the units of $$ \mathbb{Z} $$. Further the constant terms of the polynomials are from $$ \mathbb{Z} $$ and so I suspect the units of \mathbb{Q}_\mathbb{Z}[x] are thus 1 and -1 - but this is not a rigorous proof - indeed it is extremely vague!

Can someone help with a rigorous formulation of these thoughts into a formal proof.

I suspect that such a proof would start as follows:

Units of \mathbb{Q}_\mathbb{Z}[x] would be those p(x) and q(x) such that

p(x)q(x) = 1

can you just assert now that the only possible polynomials in \mathbb{Q}_\mathbb{Z}[x] would be 1 and -1 - what reason would you give - is it obvious?

Hope someone can clarify.

Peter

[This exercise is also posted on MHF]
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, it's obvious.
In fact, you can't define the invers of a non-constant polynomial. How would you for example define the invers polynomial of $x^2-1$? Hence, the only invertible polynomials are the constant polynomials. Since the constant polynomials are integers and $-1$ and $1$ are the only invertible integers they are the only units in the set $\mathbb{Q}_{\mathbb{Z}}[X]$
 
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
48
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
806
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K