Results 1 to 5 of 5

Math Help - Help with Proof.

  1. #1
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    10

    Help with Proof.

    My book on Abstract Algebra (John Fragleigh 7th Ed.) is about to prove that every field has a extension field which has algebraic closure. Before it shows that it proves it for complex numbers. More, famously known as the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra.

    Let f(z)\in C[z] be a non-constant polynomial, in sake of a contradicton assume, that f(z) has no zero. Then \frac{1}{f(z)} is analytic everywhere. Then, \lim_{|z| \rightarrow \infty}\left|\frac{1}{f(z)}\right|=0. Thus, \frac{1}{f(z)} is bounded (this I do not understand). Then by Liouville's Theorem it must be a constant, thus f(z) must be a constant thus a contradiction.
    Q.E.D.

    Note it is possible that I erred because I am writing this by memory. May someone help explain this proof to me, I am dieing to know the proof to this theorem.

    One more question, why is it so fundamental? There are other theorems from algebra which probably have more importance, like that every field has an extension field having algebraic closure, that is more fundamental!
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    TD!
    TD! is offline
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Jan 2006
    From
    Brussels, Belgium
    Posts
    405
    Thanks
    3
    I assume you have basic knowledge of complex analysis? Since you'll need to know what it implies for a function to be analytic and as you can see, you'll be using Liouville's theorem as well.

    Let's state Liouville's theorem first.

    If f:\mathbb{C} \to \mathbb{C}is bounded and analytic for every z \in \mathbb{C}, then f is a constant function.

    This follows rather easy from Cauchy's inequality (one of the many ) if you write f(z) as a power series, which is possible due to its analyticity.

    Now the fundamental theorem of algebra, with a bit more detail in the proof.

    Proof
    Let f(z) be a non-constant polynomial over C and suppose that f\left( z \right) \ne 0\,\,\,\forall \,\,\,z \in \mathbb{C}.
    This makes 1/f(z) analytic everywhere. We then have

    \lim_{|z| \rightarrow \infty}\left|\frac{1}{f(z)}\right|=0

    But this implies that there exists an R > 0 for which we have (take epsilon = 1 in the definition):

    \left| {\frac{1}{{f\left( z \right)}}} \right| < 1

    if |z| > R. Because f(z) is continuous over the disc \left| {z - a} \right| \leqslant R, so is 1/f(z) and thus bounded there (since the disc is a compact set) which then implies that it is bounded on the complex plane.
    But a bounded and analytic function is a constant function, according to Liouville's theorem, hence 1/f(z) is constant and so is f(z) which is a contradiction with our assumption that f(z) was non-constant.

    QED.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    10
    Thanks for your help, what do you think of the fundamental theorem?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    TD!
    TD! is offline
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Jan 2006
    From
    Brussels, Belgium
    Posts
    405
    Thanks
    3
    Well from this theorem it follows that the field of the complex numbers is the algebraic closure of the field of the real numbers which seems very fundamental (and historically important) theorem to me

    Personally, I like this proof since it shows the power of complex analysis. You can proof this theorem without it (e.g. purely algebraically) but I find this very elegant and short for such a powerful theorem.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by TD!
    Well from this theorem it follows that the field of the complex numbers is the algebraic closure of the field of the real numbers which seems very fundamental (and historically important) theorem to me

    Personally, I like this proof since it shows the power of complex analysis. You can proof this theorem without it (e.g. purely algebraically) but I find this very elegant and short for such a powerful theorem.
    There are many ways to prove, the quickest two proofs are this one from complex analysis and another one from topology. The algebraic proof of this I think is very long.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: October 19th 2010, 11:50 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 29th 2010, 09:48 AM
  3. [SOLVED] direct proof and proof by contradiction
    Posted in the Number Theory Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 27th 2010, 11:07 PM
  4. Proof with algebra, and proof by induction (problems)
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: June 8th 2008, 02:20 PM
  5. proof that the proof that .999_ = 1 is not a proof (version)
    Posted in the Advanced Applied Math Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 14th 2008, 05:07 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum