MHB Why Are the Roots of xf(x) and xg(x) Distinct in Finite Fields?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on Proposition 6.5.5 from Beachy and Blair's "Abstract Algebra (3rd Edition)," which asserts that if \( F \) is the splitting field of \( xf(x) \) over \( K \) with distinct roots, it must contain all \( p^n \) distinct roots of \( xg(x) \). The participants clarify that since \( g(x) \) divides \( f(x) \), all roots of \( g(x) \) are also roots of \( f(x) \). They conclude that if the roots of \( f(x) \) are distinct, then the roots of \( g(x) \) must also be distinct, confirming the distinctness of the roots of both polynomials in finite fields.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of polynomial roots in finite fields
  • Familiarity with splitting fields and their properties
  • Knowledge of Beachy and Blair's "Abstract Algebra" concepts
  • Basic principles of polynomial division and induction
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of Proposition 6.5.5 in Beachy and Blair's "Abstract Algebra (3rd Edition)"
  • Explore Lemma 6.5.6 regarding distinct roots in fields of characteristic \( p \)
  • Investigate the structure of finite fields and their multiplicative groups
  • Examine the relationship between irreducible polynomials and field extensions
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, algebra students, and educators focusing on abstract algebra, particularly those interested in polynomial theory and finite fields.

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Beachy and Blair's book: Abstract Algebra (3rd Edition) and am currently studying Proposition 6.5.5.

I need help with the proof of the proposition.

Proposition 6.5.5 and its proof read as follows:View attachment 2848
View attachment 2849In the proof of Proposition 6.5.5 Beachy and Blair write:

" ... ... Since $$F$$ is the splitting field of $$xf(x)$$ over $$K$$ with distinct roots, it must contain all $$p^n$$ distinct roots of $$xg(x)$$ ... "

Although the logic of this statement seems plausible given that $$g(x)$$ is a divisor of $$f(x)$$, I am not sure of the exact logic here ... can someone please give a rigorous explanation of exactly why this follows ...

A second question is this: how do we know that the roots of $$xf(x)$$ and $$xg(x)$$ are distinct?

Any help will be appreciated.

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
I am reading Beachy and Blair's book: Abstract Algebra (3rd Edition) and am currently studying Proposition 6.5.5.

I need help with the proof of the proposition.

Proposition 6.5.5 and its proof read as follows:View attachment 2848
View attachment 2849In the proof of Proposition 6.5.5 Beachy and Blair write:

" ... ... Since $$F$$ is the splitting field of $$xf(x)$$ over $$K$$ with distinct roots, it must contain all $$p^n$$ distinct roots of $$xg(x)$$ ... "

Although the logic of this statement seems plausible given that $$g(x)$$ is a divisor of $$f(x)$$, I am not sure of the exact logic here ... can someone please give a rigorous explanation of exactly why this follows ...

A second question is this: how do we know that the roots of $$xf(x)$$ and $$xg(x)$$ are distinct?

Any help will be appreciated.

Peter

Since $g(x)$ is a divisor of $f(x)$, there is a polynomial $k(x)$ such that $f(x) = g(x)k(x)$. For any root $r$ of $g$, $g(r) = 0$, which implies $f(r) = g(r)k(r) = 0k(r) = 0$. Thus $r$ is a root of $f$. It follows that all the roots of $g$ are roots of $f$. Therefore, if we can show that the roots of $f$ are distinct, then we can claim that the roots of $g$ are distinct. Since 0 is not a root of $f$ (or $g$), this will show that the roots of $xf(x)$ (and hence the roots of $xg(x)$) are distinct.

In Beachy and Blair's book (second edition), Lemma 6.5.6 implies that the roots of $f$ are distinct. The strange thing is, this lemma comes after, not before Proposition 6.5.5. I'll state the lemma here:

Let $F$ be a field of characteristic $p$. If $n$ is a positive integer not divisible by $p$, then the polynomial $x^n - 1$ has no repeated roots in any extension field of $F$.
 
Euge said:
Since $g(x)$ is a divisor of $f(x)$, there is a polynomial $k(x)$ such that $f(x) = g(x)k(x)$. For any root $r$ of $g$, $g(r) = 0$, which implies $f(r) = g(r)k(r) = 0k(r) = 0$. Thus $r$ is a root of $f$. It follows that all the roots of $g$ are roots of $f$. Therefore, if we can show that the roots of $f$ are distinct, then we can claim that the roots of $g$ are distinct. Since 0 is not a root of $f$ (or $g$), this will show that the roots of $xf(x)$ (and hence the roots of $xg(x)$) are distinct.

In Beachy and Blair's book (second edition), Lemma 6.5.6 implies that the roots of $f$ are distinct. The strange thing is, this lemma comes after, not before Proposition 6.5.5. I'll state the lemma here:

Let $F$ be a field of characteristic $p$. If $n$ is a positive integer not divisible by $p$, then the polynomial $x^n - 1$ has no repeated roots in any extension field of $F$.

Thanks Euge ... ... Very much appreciate your help,

Peter
 
For a field $F$, it is a theorem that any polynomial of degree $m$ in $F[x]$ has at MOST $m$ distinct roots. This is easily shown using induction on $m$ and the division algorithm (this is where we require $F$ to be a field, so that $F[x]$ is Euclidean).

If $F$ is a finite field with $|F| = p^n$, then since $F^{\ast}$ is a finite group of order $p^n - 1$, it follows (from Lagrange) that for EVERY $\alpha \in F^{\ast}$:

$\alpha^{|F^{\ast}|} = 1$, that is: $\alpha^{p^n - 1} = 1$.

It follows, then, that every element of $F^{\ast}$ is thus a root of $x^{p^n - 1} - 1$. As we have $p^n - 1$ elements of $F^{\ast}$, and these elements ARE distinct, these must be ALL the roots of $x^{p^n - 1} - 1$, since we could have at most $p^n - 1$ such roots.

Perhaps this is why B&B do not invoke Lemma 6.5.6.

**********************

It is mildly instructive to investigate this for small values of $p$, and $n$. For example, suppose $p = 2, n = 2$. Then $p^n - 1 = 3$, and the roots we are seeking are roots of:

$x^3 - 1$.

Now we trivially have $1$ as a root, and so if $F = \{0,1,u,1+u\}$, so that $F^{\ast} = \{1,u,1+u\}$ it follows that $u,1+u$ must be roots of:

$\dfrac{x^3 - 1}{x - 1} = x^2 + x + 1$.

Note that here we have approached $\Bbb F_4$ from "the other side" than we did when we created $\Bbb F_4$ as:

$\Bbb Z_2(u) = \Bbb Z_2[x]/(x^2 + x + 1)$,

Instead of extending $\Bbb Z_2$ to a field that includes a root of an irreducible polynomial of degree 2 in $\Bbb Z_2[x]$, we started with a field of a given order, and recovered the irreducible polynomial that gives rise to the extension.

You might play around with this, and look at what you can discover with $p = 3$ and $n = 2,3,4$, for example.
 
Deveno said:
For a field $F$, it is a theorem that any polynomial of degree $m$ in $F[x]$ has at MOST $m$ distinct roots. This is easily shown using induction on $m$ and the division algorithm (this is where we require $F$ to be a field, so that $F[x]$ is Euclidean).

If $F$ is a finite field with $|F| = p^n$, then since $F^{\ast}$ is a finite group of order $p^n - 1$, it follows (from Lagrange) that for EVERY $\alpha \in F^{\ast}$:

$\alpha^{|F^{\ast}|} = 1$, that is: $\alpha^{p^n - 1} = 1$.

It follows, then, that every element of $F^{\ast}$ is thus a root of $x^{p^n - 1} - 1$. As we have $p^n - 1$ elements of $F^{\ast}$, and these elements ARE distinct, these must be ALL the roots of $x^{p^n - 1} - 1$, since we could have at most $p^n - 1$ such roots.

Perhaps this is why B&B do not invoke Lemma 6.5.6.

**********************

It is mildly instructive to investigate this for small values of $p$, and $n$. For example, suppose $p = 2, n = 2$. Then $p^n - 1 = 3$, and the roots we are seeking are roots of:

$x^3 - 1$.

Now we trivially have $1$ as a root, and so if $F = \{0,1,u,1+u\}$, so that $F^{\ast} = \{1,u,1+u\}$ it follows that $u,1+u$ must be roots of:

$\dfrac{x^3 - 1}{x - 1} = x^2 + x + 1$.

Note that here we have approached $\Bbb F_4$ from "the other side" than we did when we created $\Bbb F_4$ as:

$\Bbb Z_2(u) = \Bbb Z_2[x]/(x^2 + x + 1)$,

Instead of extending $\Bbb Z_2$ to a field that includes a root of an irreducible polynomial of degree 2 in $\Bbb Z_2[x]$, we started with a field of a given order, and recovered the irreducible polynomial that gives rise to the extension.

You might play around with this, and look at what you can discover with $p = 3$ and $n = 2,3,4$, for example.

Thanks Deveno ... Just working through your post carefully now ...

Peter
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K