MHB Why do we conclude that p|exactly one of b0,c0?

  • Thread starter Thread starter evinda
  • Start date Start date
evinda
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
0
Hi! :)

I am looking at the proof of the Eisenstein's criterion
(Let $f(x)=a_nx^n+a_{n-1}x^{n-1}+...+a_1x+a_0 \in \mathbb{Z}$ and let's suppose that there is a prime $p$ such that
$p \nmid a_n$ & $p \mid a_i \forall i=0,1,...,n-1$ & $p^2 \nmid a_0$.
Then $f(x)$ is unfactorable into the product of non constant polynomials with rational coefficients):

We suppose that the conditions: $p \nmid a_n$ & $p \mid a_i \forall i=0,1,...,n-1$ & $p^2 \nmid a_0$ are satisfied.Also,we suppose that $f(x)$ is not irreducible.
Then,from Gauss's lemma, it will be like that: $f(x)=(b_mx^m+...+b_1x+b_0) \cdot (c_kx^k+...+c_1x+c_0) , b_i,b_j \in \mathbb{Z}, b_mc_k \neq 0, m+k=n$

So,we get:

$(1) b_0c_0=a_0$
$(2) b_1c_0+c_1b_0=a_1$
$(3) c_0b_2+c_1b_1+c_2b_0=a_2$
.
.
.
.
$(n) b_mc_k=a_n$

$p \mid a_0 \Rightarrow p \mid b_0c_0 \Rightarrow p \mid$ at least one of $b_0,c_0$

Then, because of the fact that $p^2 \nmid a_0 \Rightarrow$ $p$ does not divide both $b_0,c_0 \Rightarrow p \mid$ exactly one of $b_0,c_0$

Why is it like that?? I haven't understood it..Isn't it possible that,for example, $p^2 \mid b_0$ ?? :confused: (Thinking)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
evinda said:
$p \mid a_0 \Rightarrow p \mid b_0c_0 \Rightarrow p \mid$ at least one of $b_0,c_0$

Then, because of the fact that $p^2 \nmid a_0 \Rightarrow$ $p$ does not divide both $b_0,c_0 \Rightarrow p \mid$ exactly one of $b_0,c_0$

Why is it like that?? I haven't understood it..Isn't it possible that,for example, $p^2 \mid b_0$ ??
The fact that $p^2\nmid b_0$ is true, but it is not stated in the first two paragraphs of the quote above. They only claim something about the divisibility by $p$ (not $p^2$), namely, that
\[
(p\mid b_0\lor p\mid c_0)\land\neg(p\mid b_0\land p\mid c_0)\qquad(*)
\]
First, (*) is true because if $p\mid b_0$ and $p\mid c_0$, then there exist integers $m,n$ such that $b_0=pm$ and $c_0=pn$, so $a_0=b_0c_0=p^2mn$, i.e., $p^2\mid a_0$, contrary to the assumption. Second, you are right that $p^2\nmid b_0$ and $p^2\nmid c_0$. If $p^2\mid b_0$, then $p^2\mid b_0c_0=a_0$.
 
Primes have the property that if $p|ab$ then either $p|a$ or $p|b$ (or both).

Now, here if $p|b_0c_0$, by the above, either $p|b_0$ or $p|c_0$. Could it be both?

No, because then we would have $p^2|b_0c_0 = a_0$ contrary to our original condition on $p$.

So it has to be one or the other, since both can't happen.

Now, if $p|b_0$ and $p^2|b_0$ then $p^2|a_0$ (which cannot be the case). So we only have ONE factor of $p$ in the product $b_0c_0$, and it has to be in $b_0$ or $c_0$.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
The fact that $p^2\nmid b_0$ is true, but it is not stated in the first two paragraphs of the quote above. They only claim something about the divisibility by $p$ (not $p^2$), namely, that
\[
(p\mid b_0\lor p\mid c_0)\land\neg(p\mid b_0\land p\mid c_0)\qquad(*)
\]
First, (*) is true because if $p\mid b_0$ and $p\mid c_0$, then there exist integers $m,n$ such that $b_0=pm$ and $c_0=pn$, so $a_0=b_0c_0=p^2mn$, i.e., $p^2\mid a_0$, contrary to the assumption. Second, you are right that $p^2\nmid b_0$ and $p^2\nmid c_0$. If $p^2\mid b_0$, then $p^2\mid b_0c_0=a_0$.

Deveno said:
Primes have the property that if $p|ab$ then either $p|a$ or $p|b$ (or both).

Now, here if $p|b_0c_0$, by the above, either $p|b_0$ or $p|c_0$. Could it be both?

No, because then we would have $p^2|b_0c_0 = a_0$ contrary to our original condition on $p$.

So it has to be one or the other, since both can't happen.

Now, if $p|b_0$ and $p^2|b_0$ then $p^2|a_0$ (which cannot be the case). So we only have ONE factor of $p$ in the product $b_0c_0$, and it has to be in $b_0$ or $c_0$.

I understand..Thank you very much! :D
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
4K
Back
Top