Why is x not invertible in F[x]?

In summary, The polynomial ring R[x] is a ring consisting of elements of the form a_0 + a_1x + ... + a_nx^n + ... where a_i is in R, with operations of addition and multiplication. When R is a field F, the polynomial ring F[x] is an integral domain but not a field, as shown by the fact that x does not have an inverse. To prove this, we consider two cases: if f(x) is a non-zero polynomial of degree n, then the degree of xf(x) is at least n+1, which is not equal to 1, the degree of the multiplicative identity 1. If f(x)=0, then xf(x) is
  • #1
bartieshaw
50
0
Hey

First off, my terminology in the title may not be correct or what others use because when searching the forums for "polynomial ring" i had a lot of trouble finding anything that matched what i meant when i coined the term...


By polynomial ring i mean, for some ring R the polynomial ring over R is the ring R[x] = {a_0 + a_1x + ... + a_nx^n + ... ; a_i is in R} under the operations (+, .)

Now to my Question -

In the case that R (as above) is a Field, F, the i understand that F[x] is an integral domain, but not a field because of the simple example that my lecturers love to throw about, x in F[x] does not have an inverse (is not a unit)

Now i understand this argument and i don't dispute it, but i was wondering if any of you could tell me, or at least start me off (as it would probably help my understanding) on how to show / prove that x has no inverse in F[x]...

I have thought about this...but I am not sure the following argument is correct

suppose there was g(x) st. xg(x)=1

then xg(x)=x^0

hence g(x) = x^(0-1) = x^-1 which is not polynomial and hence not in F[x]

im thinking maybe a better argument would involve how i started but then somehow using the fact F[x] has no zero divisors would be more correct...but this is just guess work really.


sorry for the long post


cheers

Bart
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Also, the degree of xg(x) is 1+deg(g) > 0=deg(1). Your argument seems circular to me because it rests on the premise that x itself doesn't have a polynomial inverse in R[x], which is what you're proving.
 
  • #3
phoenixthoth said:
Also, the degree of xg(x) is 1+deg(g) > 0=deg(1). Your argument seems circular to me because it rests on the premise that x itself doesn't have a polynomial inverse in R[x], which is what you're proving.


Yeah i know my attempt a a proof was pretty dismal...

Thankyou for your reply, i think that would be it. I am wondering does the degree of 1 (mult. identity) have to be 1? Maybe that is a stupid question, is it by definition deg 1 = 1...?
 
  • #4
I think if f is a constant polynomial other than zero, deg(f) is defined to be zero and if f is the zero polynomial, then its degree is undefined or some people say negative infinity or something. I dunno, maybe some people define the degree of any constant polynomial to be zero...
 
  • #5
Yeah we had deg 0 = - infinity, but nothing defined about constants so maybe it was assumed...


anyway, thanks a bundle for sorting that out for me, now at least when I am in bed i won't be thinking about maths... : )
 
  • #6
I'm surprised deg is defined for the zero polynomial but not other constant polynomials...perhaps it's embedded within the definition for other polynomials?
 
  • #7
hmm...ive looked it up in two textbooks now

The first one, Linear Algebra (LAY) - This is one was from 1st year - mentions non zero constant polynomials and says they have degree 0, but its talking about them in the context of the vector space P_n, so I am not sure if it would apply

My second textbook, A First Course in Abstract Algebra (FRALEIGH) - this one is from 2nd year - does discuss the degree of a polynomial in the context of the polynomial ring, but does not mention the degree of a non zero constant functin.

I will just ask my lecturer tomorrow, he comes around to everyone in the class individually before and after every lecture to see how we are going with his course so i shouldn't have any trouble getting to talk to him...


but for now, SLEEP, its 12.44 here and I am tired


THANK YOU again for your prompt and helpful responses


Bart
 
  • #8
bartieshaw said:
In the case that R (as above) is a Field, F, the i understand that F[x] is an integral domain, but not a field because of the simple example that my lecturers love to throw about, x in F[x] does not have an inverse (is not a unit)
Yes, F[x] is an integral domain.

To show x has no inverse in F[x] we need to show x*f(x) ! = 1.

If, f(x) is a non-zero polynomial then deg f(x) = n where n>=0. And so deg (x*f(x)) >= n+1 >=1. Which means xf(x)!=1.

If, f(x)=0 then x*f(x) = 0 !=1. Unless this is a zero ring, i.e. 1=0. But by convention it is not considered a field. And so this is impossible.
 
  • #9
the degree of a non zero constant is zero.
 

Related to Why is x not invertible in F[x]?

1. What is a polynomial ring?

A polynomial ring is a mathematical structure that is formed by combining a set of polynomials with a set of operations, such as addition and multiplication. It is denoted as R[x], where R is a ring and x is an indeterminate (a variable that has no specific value).

2. How is a polynomial ring different from a field?

A polynomial ring is a ring, which means it follows all the properties of a ring, such as closure, associativity, and distributivity. However, it is not a field because it does not have multiplicative inverses for all its elements. In a field, every non-zero element has a multiplicative inverse.

3. Can a polynomial ring be a field?

No, a polynomial ring cannot be a field. This is because a field must have multiplicative inverses for all its elements, but a polynomial ring does not have this property. However, a field can be a subset of a polynomial ring, such as the set of rational functions.

4. What is the significance of a polynomial ring not being a field?

The fact that a polynomial ring is not a field is significant because it allows us to study and understand different mathematical structures. By studying rings and fields, we can better understand the properties and behaviors of other mathematical structures that are not fields, such as polynomial rings.

5. Can a polynomial ring have zero divisors?

Yes, a polynomial ring can have zero divisors. Zero divisors are elements in a ring that, when multiplied with another element, result in zero. This means that in a polynomial ring, there can be polynomials that, when multiplied, result in the zero polynomial.

Similar threads

  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top