I am reading Dummit and Foote Section 9.5 Polynomial Rings Over Fields II.

I am trying to understand the proof of Proposition 16 which reads as follows:

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

Proposition 16. Let F be a field. Let g(x) be a nonconstant monic polynomial of F[x] and let

$\displaystyle g(x) = {f_1{(x)}}^{n_1} {f_2{(x)}}^{n_2}..... {f_k{(x)}}^{n_k} $

be its factorization into irreducibles, where all the $\displaystyle f_i(x) $ are distinct.

Then we have the following isomorphism of rings:

$\displaystyle F[x]/(g(x)) \cong F[x]/{f_1{(x)}}^{n_1} \ \times \ F[x]/{f_2{(x)}}^{n_2} \ \times \ ... ... \ \times \ F[x]/{f_k{(x)}}^{n_k} $

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

The proof reads as follows:

Proof: This follows from the Chinese Remainder Theorem (Theorem 7.17), since the ideals $\displaystyle {f_i{(x)}}^{n_i} $ and $\displaystyle {f_j{(x)}}^{n_j} $ are comaximal if $\displaystyle f_i(x) $ and$\displaystyle f_j(x) $ are distinct (they are relatively prime in the Euclidean Domain F[x], hence the ideal generated by them is F[x]).

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

My question: I can follow the reference to the Chinese Remainder Theorem but I cannot follow the argument that establishes the necessary condition that the $\displaystyle {f_i{(x)}}^{n_i} $ and $\displaystyle {f_j{(x)}}^{n_j} $ are comaximal.

That is, why are$\displaystyle {f_i{(x)}}^{n_i} $ and $\displaystyle {f_j{(x)}}^{n_j}$ comaximal - how exactly does it follow from$\displaystyle f_i(x)$ and $\displaystyle f_j(x)$ being relatively prime in the Euclidean Domain F[x]?

Any help would be very much appreciated.

Peter