MHB Why can we show that an other polynomial is irreducible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter evinda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Polynomial
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving the irreducibility of the polynomial f(x) = 10x^4 - 18x^3 + 4x^2 + 7x + 16 in the rational numbers. The approach involves using a ring homomorphism to reduce the polynomial modulo a prime, specifically m = 3, to analyze its factorization in Z_3[x]. It is shown that the reduced polynomial x^4 + x^2 + x + 1 has no roots in Z_3, indicating it cannot be factored into lower-degree polynomials. Consequently, since no factorization exists in Z_3[x], it follows that f(x) is irreducible in Z and, by Gauss's lemma, also in Q. The discussion concludes with clarification on the reasoning behind the irreducibility proof.
evinda
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
0
Hello! :)
I am looking at the exercise:

Prove that $f(x)=10x^4-18x^3+4x^2+7x+16 \in \mathbb{Z}[x]$ is irreducible in $\mathbb{Q}[x]$.

According to my notes,a way to do this is the following:

We know that $\forall m>1 \exists $ ring homomorphism $\widetilde{ \phi }: \mathbb{Z}[x] \to \mathbb{Z}_m[X]$. We choose a prime $m$,that does not divide the coefficient of the highest degree of the terms.A logic choice is $m=3$.So, if $f(x)=g(x) \cdot h(x), g(x),h(x) \in \mathbb{Z}[x]$,then $\widetilde{ \phi }(f(x))=\widetilde{ \phi }(g(x)) \cdot \widetilde{ \phi }(h(x))$.

$\widetilde{ \phi }(f(x))=x^4+x^2+x+1= \text{ the product of two non-zero polynomial of } \mathbb{Z}_3[x]$

We have $2$ cases:
  • $x^4+x^2+x+1=\text{ polynomial of degree } 1 \cdot \text{ polynomial of degree } 3$
  • $x^4+x^2+x+1= (ax^2+bx+c) \cdot (a'x^2+b'x+c')$

First case:

Is means that there is a root in $\mathbb{Z}_3$:

$[a]x+, [a] \neq [0] \Rightarrow \text{ root }: [a]^{-1}$.-> Why is $[a]^{-1}$ the root and not $[-b][a]^{-1}$ ?So,we have to check if one of $0,1,2 \in \mathbb{Z}_3$ is a root and we conclude that none of these numbers are roots,so the first case is rejected.

Second case:

$$\left\{\begin{matrix}
x^4: & 1=aa' \\
x^3: & 0=ab'+ba' \\
x^2: & 1=ac'+a'c+bb' \\
x: & 1=bc'+cb' \\
\text{ constant: } & 1=cc'
\end{matrix}\right.$$

$a=a'=1 \text{ or } 2$ and $c=c'=1 \text{ or } 2 $

We get the relations $b+b'=0$ & $c(b+b')=1$ that can't be true.

So,the second case is also rejected.
-> But...why if we have shown that $x^4+x^2+x+1$ is irreducible in $\mathbb{Z}_3 $,have we proven that $f(x)=10x^4-18x^3+4x^2+7x+16 \in \mathbb{Z}[x]$ is irreducible in $\mathbb{Z}$ ,and so also in $\mathbb{Q}$? :confused:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
evinda said:
$[a]x+, [a] \neq [0] \Rightarrow \text{ root }: [a]^{-1}$.-> Why is $[a]^{-1}$ the root and not $[-b][a]^{-1}$ ?

You are right, it should be $[-b][a]^{-1}$ (but that does not affect the overall argument).

evinda said:
-> But...why if we have shown that $x^4+x^2+x+1$ is irreducible in $\mathbb{Z}_3 $,have we proven that $f(x)=10x^4-18x^3+4x^2+7x+16 \in \mathbb{Z}[x]$ is irreducible in $\mathbb{Z}$ ,and so also in $\mathbb{Q}$? :confused:
If there was a factorisation in $\mathbb{Z}[x]$ then by reducing all the coefficients mod 3 you would get a factorisation in $\mathbb{Z}_3[x]$. Since you have shown that there is no such factorisation it follows that the polynomial is irreducible over $\mathbb{Z}$, and hence (by Gauss's lemma) also over $\mathbb{Q}$.
 
Opalg said:
You are right, it should be $[-b][a]^{-1}$ (but that does not affect the overall argument).If there was a factorisation in $\mathbb{Z}[x]$ then by reducing all the coefficients mod 3 you would get a factorisation in $\mathbb{Z}_3[x]$. Since you have shown that there is no such factorisation it follows that the polynomial is irreducible over $\mathbb{Z}$, and hence (by Gauss's lemma) also over $\mathbb{Q}$.

Ok,thanks! :)
 
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 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
48
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
762
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K