Polynomials Over a Field - Rotman, Lemma 3.87

In summary, the conversation was about a proof in Joseph J. Rotman's book on Abstract Algebra. The specific topic was Section 3.6 Unique Factorization and the conversation revolved around the use of induction in the proof of Lemma 3.87. The conversation included a detailed explanation of the proof and its steps using examples and inductive hypotheses. The summary concludes that the theorem holds for all polynomials of degree less than the one in question, proving its validity for all polynomials.
  • #1
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
3,998
48
I am reading Joseph J. Rotman's book: A First Course in Abstract Algebra with Applications (Third Edition) ...

I am currently focused on Section 3.6 Unique Factorization ...

I need help with an aspect of the proof of Lemma 3.87 ...

The relevant text from Rotman's book is as follows:
View attachment 4653
In the proof of Lemma 3.87 above, we read the following:

" ... ... By induction, there are \(\displaystyle d_j(x) \in k[x]\) with each \(\displaystyle d_j(x) = 0\) or \(\displaystyle deg(d_j) \lt deg(b)\), such that

\(\displaystyle g(x) = d_m b^{m-1} + \ ... \ + d_2 b = d_1\) ... ... "Can someone help me with the proof of this statement ... that is, how to set up for induction in this case, and work through the proof by induction ...

Help with this matter will be much appreciated ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Suppose $f(x) = a$, a constant. Then we may take $d_j(x) = 0$ for every $j > 0$, and $d_0(x) = a = f(x)$.

Since $\text{deg}(d_0) = 0$ and $\text{deg}(b) \geq 1$, the theorem's hypotheses are satisfied, in this case. This is our "base" case, inducting on the degree of $f$.

With our inductive hypothesis, we assume the theorem holds for any polynomial $g$ with $0 \leq \text{deg}(g) < \text{deg}(f)$.

If $\text{deg}(b) < \text{deg}(f)$, dividing $f$ by $b$ yields such a $g$. Note if $\text{deg}(b) >\text{deg}(f)$, we can simply take $d_j(x) = 0$ for $j > 0$, and $d_0(x) = f(x)$, as in the constant case.

The case $\text{deg}(b) = \text{deg}(f)$ is slightly more interesting. Note that since $\deg{b} \geq 1$, this is true (in this case of equal degrees of $b$ and $f$) for $f$. In this case, we take $d_j(x) = 0$, for all $j > 1$.

If the leading coefficient of $b$ is, say $a_0$, and the leading coefficient of $f$ is $c_0$, we may take $d_1(x) = \dfrac{c_0}{a_0}$, which has degree 0, which is less than that of $b$.

Then $f(x) - d_1(x)b(x)$ is either the 0-polynomial, or has degree < the degree of $f$ = the degree of $b$, and we may take $d_0(x) = f(x) - d_1(x)b(x)$, which gives:

$f(x) = d_1(x)b(x) + d_0(x)$.

Otherwise, we are down to the case where $\text{deg}(b) < \text{deg}(f)$.

In this case, we have $f = gb + r$, where $\text{deg}(r) < \text{deg}(b)$, or $r = 0$. I leave the $r = 0$ case to you (hint: we can do it in one term).

So, by our inductive hypothesis, we have:

$g(x) = d'_{m-1}(x)b(x)^{m-1} +\cdots + d'_1(x)b(x) + d'_0$.

(the degree of $g$ is at most one less than the degree of $f$, hence the "$m-1$"-the coefficients may actually stop earlier, we may have $d_j = 0$ for all $j > k$ for some $0 \leq k \leq m-1$).

Let $d_j(x) = d'_{j-1}(x)$, and $d_0(x) = r(x)$.

Then $f(x) = g(x)b(x) + r(x) = (d'_{m-1}(x)b(x)^{m-1} + \cdots + d'_1(x)b(x) + d'_0)b(x) + r(x)$

$= d'_{m-1}b(x)^m + \cdots + d'_1(x)b(x)^2 + d'_0b(x) + r(x)$

$= d_m(x)b(x)^m + \cdots + d_2(x)b(x)^2 + d_1(x)b(x) + d_0(x)$.

So if the theorem holds for any polynomial of degree less than $f$, it holds for $f$ as well, and thus for ALL $f$.
 
  • #3
Deveno said:
Suppose $f(x) = a$, a constant. Then we may take $d_j(x) = 0$ for every $j > 0$, and $d_0(x) = a = f(x)$.

Since $\text{deg}(d_0) = 0$ and $\text{deg}(b) \geq 1$, the theorem's hypotheses are satisfied, in this case. This is our "base" case, inducting on the degree of $f$.

With our inductive hypothesis, we assume the theorem holds for any polynomial $g$ with $0 \leq \text{deg}(g) < \text{deg}(f)$.

If $\text{deg}(b) < \text{deg}(f)$, dividing $f$ by $b$ yields such a $g$. Note if $\text{deg}(b) >\text{deg}(f)$, we can simply take $d_j(x) = 0$ for $j > 0$, and $d_0(x) = f(x)$, as in the constant case.

The case $\text{deg}(b) = \text{deg}(f)$ is slightly more interesting. Note that since $\deg{b} \geq 1$, this is true (in this case of equal degrees of $b$ and $f$) for $f$. In this case, we take $d_j(x) = 0$, for all $j > 1$.

If the leading coefficient of $b$ is, say $a_0$, and the leading coefficient of $f$ is $c_0$, we may take $d_1(x) = \dfrac{c_0}{a_0}$, which has degree 0, which is less than that of $b$.

Then $f(x) - d_1(x)b(x)$ is either the 0-polynomial, or has degree < the degree of $f$ = the degree of $b$, and we may take $d_0(x) = f(x) - d_1(x)b(x)$, which gives:

$f(x) = d_1(x)b(x) + d_0(x)$.

Otherwise, we are down to the case where $\text{deg}(b) < \text{deg}(f)$.

In this case, we have $f = gb + r$, where $\text{deg}(r) < \text{deg}(b)$, or $r = 0$. I leave the $r = 0$ case to you (hint: we can do it in one term).

So, by our inductive hypothesis, we have:

$g(x) = d'_{m-1}(x)b(x)^{m-1} +\cdots + d'_1(x)b(x) + d'_0$.

(the degree of $g$ is at most one less than the degree of $f$, hence the "$m-1$"-the coefficients may actually stop earlier, we may have $d_j = 0$ for all $j > k$ for some $0 \leq k \leq m-1$).

Let $d_j(x) = d'_{j-1}(x)$, and $d_0(x) = r(x)$.

Then $f(x) = g(x)b(x) + r(x) = (d'_{m-1}(x)b(x)^{m-1} + \cdots + d'_1(x)b(x) + d'_0)b(x) + r(x)$

$= d'_{m-1}b(x)^m + \cdots + d'_1(x)b(x)^2 + d'_0b(x) + r(x)$

$= d_m(x)b(x)^m + \cdots + d_2(x)b(x)^2 + d_1(x)b(x) + d_0(x)$.

So if the theorem holds for any polynomial of degree less than $f$, it holds for $f$ as well, and thus for ALL $f$.
Hi Deveno,

Thanks for a really clear post ... extremely helpful!

Another example of induction for me as well ... a case of complete or strong induction, I think ...

Thanks again for your support ...

Peter
 
  • #4
Yes, it would be strong induction, because unless $b$ is of degree $1$, we go more than "one notch down".
 

Related to Polynomials Over a Field - Rotman, Lemma 3.87

1. What is a polynomial over a field?

A polynomial over a field is an expression consisting of variables and coefficients, combined using addition, subtraction, and multiplication, where the coefficients are elements of a field. Examples of fields include the real numbers, complex numbers, and finite fields.

2. What is Rotman's Lemma 3.87 about polynomials over a field?

Lemma 3.87 in Rotman's "Advanced Modern Algebra" book states that if a polynomial over a field has a root, then it can be factored into linear factors over that field. In other words, if a polynomial P(x) has a root r, then it can be written as P(x) = (x-r)Q(x), where Q(x) is another polynomial over the same field.

3. How is the concept of polynomials over a field useful in mathematics?

Polynomials over a field are useful in many areas of mathematics, including algebra, analysis, and number theory. They allow us to study and manipulate functions in a general and abstract way, and are essential in understanding topics such as polynomial equations, algebraic geometry, and Galois theory.

4. Can all polynomials over a field be factored into linear factors?

No, not all polynomials over a field can be factored into linear factors. This is because some polynomials have roots in other fields, which means they cannot be factored using only elements from the original field. For example, the polynomial x^2 + 1 cannot be factored into linear factors over the real numbers, but it can be factored over the complex numbers.

5. What is the difference between polynomials over a field and polynomials over a ring?

A polynomial over a field is a special case of a polynomial over a ring. The main difference is that a polynomial over a field can only have coefficients from that field, while a polynomial over a ring can have coefficients from any ring. Additionally, polynomials over a field have unique factorization into irreducible polynomials, while this is not always true for polynomials over a ring.

Similar threads

  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
3
Views
4K
Back
Top