Results 1 to 11 of 11
Like Tree7Thanks
  • 1 Post By rushton
  • 1 Post By rushton
  • 1 Post By rushton
  • 1 Post By rushton
  • 1 Post By Gusbob
  • 1 Post By rushton
  • 1 Post By Gusbob

Math Help - Polynomial Rings - Gauss's Lemma

  1. #1
    Super Member Bernhard's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2010
    From
    Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
    Posts
    553
    Thanks
    2

    Polynomial Rings - Gauss's Lemma

    I am trying to understand the proof of Gauss's Lemma as given in Dummit and Foote Section 9.3 pages 303-304 (see attached)

    On page 304, part way through the proof, D&F write:

    "Assume d is not a unit (in R) and write d as a product of irreducibles in R, say  d = p_1p_2 ... p_n . Since  p_1 is irreducible in R, the ideal  (p_1) is prime (cf Proposition 12, Section 8.3 - see attached) so by Proposition 2 above (see attached) the ideal  p_1R[x] is prime in R[x] and  (R/p_1R)[x] is an integral domain. ..."

    My problems with the D&F statement above are as follows:

    (1) I cannot see why the ideal  (p_1) is a prime ideal. Certainly Proposition 12 states that "In a UFD a non-zero element is prime if and only if it is irreducible" so this means  p_1 is prime since we were given that it was irreducible. But does that make the principal ideal  (p_1) a prime ideal? I am not sure! Can anyone show rigorously that  (p_1) a prime ideal?

    (2) Despite reading Proposition 12 in Section 8.3 I cannot see why the ideal  p_1R[x] is prime in R[x] and  (R/p_1R)[x] is an integral domain. ...". (Indeed, I am unsure that  p_1R[x] is an ideal!) Can anyone show explicitly and rigorously why this is true?

    I would really appreciate clarification of the above matters.

    Peter
    Last edited by Bernhard; April 12th 2013 at 10:15 PM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Super Member Bernhard's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2010
    From
    Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
    Posts
    553
    Thanks
    2

    Re: Polynomial Rings - Gauss's Lemma

    In trying to answer my problem (1) above - I cannot see why the ideal  (p_1) is a prime ideal - I was looking at definitions of prime ideals and trying to reason from there.

    I just looked up the definition of a prime element in D&F to find the following on page 284:

    The non-zero element  p \in R is called prime if the ideal (p) generated by p is a prime ideal!

    So the answer to my question seems obvious:

     p_1 irreducible \Longrightarrow  p_1 prime  \Longrightarrow (p_1) prime ideal

    Although this now seems obvious, I would like someone to confirm my reasoning (which as I said now seems blindingly obvious! :-)

    Peter
    Last edited by Bernhard; April 13th 2013 at 12:50 AM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    43
    Thanks
    5

    Re: Polynomial Rings - Gauss's Lemma

    If we have f \in K[x] for some polynomial ring K[x] then the following are equivalent
    1) f is irreducible
    2) (f) is prime
    3) (f) is maximal

     \\ Proof:  (3) \Rightarrow (2) \Rightarrow (1) \Rightarrow (3) \\ \\ (3) \Rightarrow (2) $ is obvious by definition of maximal and prime ideals. $ \\  \\ (2) \Rightarrow (1) \\  $ Suppose f is not irreducible. \\ Then $ f=g \cdotp h $ with $ deg(g),deg(h) < deg(f) $. \\ Now we get g,h are not in (f) but $g \cdotp h $ is in (f). \\ This is a contradiction to (f) being a prime ideal.$ \\ \\ (1) \Rightarrow (3) $ \\ We do this by showing  if $ J \supset (f) $ then J contains a unit. \\ Let J be generated by a single element, say g, so $ J=(g) $. \\ If $ f \in (g) $ then $ f = q \cdotp g $ for some poly q. \\ f is irreducible so either q or g is a unit. \\ Suppose q is a unit. \\ Then $ g = q^{-1} \cdotp f \Rightarrow g \in (f) \Rightarrow (g)=(f) $. \\ This contradicts $ J \supset (f) $. \\ Thus g is a unit.
    Thanks from Bernhard
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    43
    Thanks
    5

    Re: Polynomial Rings - Gauss's Lemma

    You can't say a polynomial itself is prime (at least to my knowledge).
    The idea of a prime ideal as far as I know comes from the ideals of the integers generated by a prime number.
    But a prime number and an irreducible polynomial are somewhat related, neither can be factored in their given ring/field.
    Thanks from Bernhard
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    43
    Thanks
    5

    Re: Polynomial Rings - Gauss's Lemma

    Sorry about the piecewise answers but I am doing one part at a time haha.

     p_{1}R[x] $ is just the ideal $(p_{1}) $ as for an ideal if $ r \in R $ and $ i \in I $ then $ r \cdotp i \in I
    Thanks from Bernhard
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    43
    Thanks
    5

    Re: Polynomial Rings - Gauss's Lemma

     \\ R/I $ is an integral domain $ \Leftrightarrow $ I is prime.$ \\ \\ Proof \\ \\ \Rightarrow \\ $ Given $ a \cdotp b \in I $ we need to show $ a \in I $ or $ b \in I. \\  \bar{a} \cdotp \bar{b} = 0 \ \Rightarrow \ \bar{a} = 0 $ or $ \bar{b} = 0 \ \Rightarrow a \in I $ or $ b \in I. \\ \\ \Leftarrow \\ $Given $ a \cdotp b \in I $ we must have $ \bar{a} \cdotp \bar{b} = 0 $ as I is the kernel of the canonical homomorphism thus $ \bar{a} = 0 $ or $ \bar{b} = 0.
    Thanks from Bernhard
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Super Member
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    588
    Thanks
    87

    Re: Polynomial Rings - Gauss's Lemma

    Quote Originally Posted by rushton View Post
    The idea of a prime ideal as far as I know comes from the ideals of the integers generated by a prime number.
    Not quite. For example, (2) and (3) are not actually prime in the ring of integers \mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-5}]

    The idea of a prime ideal comes from attempts to extend the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. In the same way we have unique (up to sign) prime factorisations of integers in rationals, we want to have to have some sort of phenomena in the ring of integers in other fields, particularly imaginary quadratic fields. However, in the ring of integers \mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-5}] of \mathbb{Q}[\sqrt{-5}], we have 2\cdot 3 =6= (1+\sqrt{-5})(1-\sqrt{-5}), so factorisation is certainly not unique. However, setting A=(2,1+\sqrt{-5}), \overline{A}=(2,1-\sqrt{-5}),B=(3,1+\sqrt{-5}),\overline{B}=(3,1-\sqrt{-5}), we have

    (6)=(2)(3)=(\overline{A}A)(\overline{B}B)=( \overline{A} \overline{B})(AB)=(1-\sqrt{-5})(1+\sqrt{-5}).

    So in this case, (2) and (3) are not actually prime. It can be shown that the prime 'factors' of the ideal generated by 6 are A,\overline{A},B,\overline{B}

    It turns out that there is unique factorisation of prime ideals in the ring of integers in any imaginary quadratic field.
    Thanks from Bernhard
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    43
    Thanks
    5

    Re: Polynomial Rings - Gauss's Lemma

    Yeah but technically isn't  \mathbb{Z} [ \sqrt{-5}] the ring of polynomials with coefficients in  \mathbb{Z} adjoining  \sqrt{-5} ? So it wouldnt actually be the field of integers?
    Thanks from Bernhard
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    Super Member
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    588
    Thanks
    87

    Re: Polynomial Rings - Gauss's Lemma

    Quote Originally Posted by rushton View Post
    Yeah but technically isn't  \mathbb{Z} [ \sqrt{-5}] the ring of polynomials with coefficients in  \mathbb{Z} adjoining  \sqrt{-5} ? So it wouldnt actually be the field of integers?
     \mathbb{Z} [ \sqrt{-5}] is the ring of algebraic integers in the field  \mathbb{Q} [ \sqrt{-5}] .
    Thanks from Bernhard
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #10
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    43
    Thanks
    5

    Re: Polynomial Rings - Gauss's Lemma

    Ah I get what you mean now, yeah your totally right.

    field of integers .......lol
    Last edited by rushton; April 13th 2013 at 04:47 AM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  11. #11
    Super Member Bernhard's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2010
    From
    Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
    Posts
    553
    Thanks
    2

    Re: Polynomial Rings - Gauss's Lemma

    Thanks Rushton

    You write:

    "You can't say a polynomial itself is prime (at least to my knowledge).
    The idea of a prime ideal as far as I know comes from the ideals of the integers generated by a prime number.
    But a prime number and an irreducible polynomial are somewhat related, neither can be factored in their given ring/field. "

    Dummit and Foote on page 284 give the following definitions of irreducible and prime for integral domains.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "Definition Let R be an integral domain.

    (1) Suppose  r \in R is non-zero and not a unit. Then r is called irreducible in R if whenever r = ab with  a, b \in R at least one of a or b must be a unit in R. Otherwise r is said to be reducible.

    (2) The non-zero element  p \in R is called prime in R if the ideal (p) generated by p is a prime ideal. In other words, a non-zero element p is a prime if it is not a unit and whenever p|ab for any  a,b \in R , then either p|a or p|b."

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    So where a ring of polynomials is an integral domain we have a definition of prime and irreducible elements (polynomials). Do you agree? What do you think?

    Mind you most algebra books I have referenced just talk about irreducible polynomials - so maybe for polynomials (for some reason) irreducible and prime are the same thing? Can someone clarify this point?

    Another point is that I am unsure why D&F restrict these definitions to an integral domain thus leaving the terms undefined for general rings that are not integral domains. Can someone clarify?

    Yet another problem I have with the above definitions by D&F is the following: D&F write: "In other words, a non-zero element p is a prime if it is not a unit and whenever p|ab for any  a,b \in R , then either p|a or p|b." - How does this follow from (p) being a prime ideal.

    Peter


    Note: D&F's definition of prime ideal is on page 255 and is as follows:

    Definition: Assume R is commutative. An ideal P is called a prime ideal if  P \ne R and whenever the product of two elements  a,b \in R is an element of P, then at least on of a and b is an element of P.
    Last edited by Bernhard; April 13th 2013 at 05:22 PM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Factorization of Polynomials - Gauss's Lemma
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: November 6th 2012, 07:23 AM
  2. Factorization of Polynomials - Gauss's Lemma
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 5th 2012, 12:35 AM
  3. Gauss' Lemma and algebraic integers
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: May 25th 2010, 08:23 PM
  4. primitive, Gauss Lemma
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 23rd 2009, 12:58 AM
  5. Gauss Lemma (Number Theory)
    Posted in the Number Theory Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 3rd 2008, 08:05 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum