Why Do Prime Numbers Play a Role in Proving the Irreducibility of Polynomials?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Square1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Polynomial
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the irreducibility of the polynomial f = x³ + 2x² + 1 over the field Q[x]. The proof employs a contradiction approach, demonstrating that if the polynomial were reducible, it would necessitate a rational root of the form r/s, where r and s are coprime. The introduction of a prime number p that divides s leads to a contradiction, as it implies that p must also divide r, violating the coprimality condition. Ultimately, the analysis shows that no rational roots exist, confirming the polynomial's irreducibility.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of polynomial functions and their degrees
  • Knowledge of rational numbers and the concept of coprimality
  • Familiarity with prime numbers and their properties
  • Basic experience with proof techniques, particularly proof by contradiction
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the concept of irreducibility in polynomials over various fields
  • Learn about the Rational Root Theorem and its applications
  • Explore proof techniques in abstract algebra, focusing on contradiction
  • Investigate the role of prime factorization in number theory
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, particularly those studying abstract algebra, educators teaching polynomial theory, and anyone interested in the properties of irreducible polynomials.

Square1
Messages
143
Reaction score
1
Hi. There is a polynomial f = (x^3) + 2(x^2) + 1, f belongs to Q[x]. It will be shown that the polynomial is irreducible by contradiction. If it is reducible, (degree here is three) it must have a root in Q, of the form r/s where (r,s) = 1. Plugging in r/s for variable x will resolve to
r^3 + 2(r^2)s + (s^3) = 0


I don't understand the next part of the solution. Why introduce this prime number that divides s.
--
Suppose a prime number p divides s.
This implies p divides 2(r^2)s + (s^2)
Or, this implies also the above equals 2(r^2)pa + (p^3)(a^3) = p(2(r^2)a + (p^2)(a^3)) which implies p divides (r^3) which also means p divides r which is contradiction because (r,s) = 1
---
So I follow the above steps, but what does prime number p dividing s or r have anything to do with this?


Next part of solution.
--> If s = 1, (r^3) + 2(r^2) + 1 = 0 means r((r^2) + 2r) = -1 implies r = 1 or -1, but 1 and -1 are not roots, seen by evaluating.
Same argument for s = -1.
This means that r/s is not a root, so not irreducible in Q[x]
---
So I'm lost about this step too. Only thing that I think is that if you let s = 1 or -1, it's as if you are trying to find something about a root in Z...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
sry. i guess this is homework styled question. I don't see a delete button.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
48
Views
5K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
996
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K