Unique Factorization


 Shauna Craig
 4 years ago
 Views:
Transcription
1 Unique Factorization Waffle Mathcamp 2010 Throughout these notes, all rings will be assumed to be commutative. 1 Factorization in domains: definitions and examples In this class, we will study the phenomenon of unique factorization in rings, as a generalization of unique factorization of integers into primes. First, we ll define what unique factorization means in general. Definition 1.1. A (commutative) ring R is a domain (or integral domain) if whenever ab = 0 for a, b R, then either a = 0 or b = 0. An element u R is a unit if it has an inverse, i.e. if there exists u 1 R such that uu 1 = 1. If every nonzero element of R is a unit, we say R is a field. Domains will be the basic setting in which it will make sense to ask questions about unique factorization. Units are important because they are the ambiguity in unique factorizations. For example, in Z, the only units are 1 and 1. The fact that 1 is a unit means that factorization of integers into primes isn t really unique. For example, we can factorize 6 = 2 3 or 6 = ( 2) ( 3). However, we still consider these two factorizations to be the same since 2 and 2 (respectively 3 and 3) only differ by multiplication by the unit 1. Definition 1.2. Let R be a domain, and a, b R. We write a b (a divides b, or a is a factor of b) if there exists c such that b = ac. We say a nonzero element p R is irreducible if it is not a unit and if whenever a p, either a is a unit or a = up for some unit u. Alternatively, whenever we can write p = ab, one of a and b must be a unit. a. Note that any factor of a unit is again a unit. Indeed, if u = ab, then abu 1 = 1 so bu 1 is an inverse for We finally define unique factorization itself. Definition 1.3. A domain R has unique factorization (or is a unique factorization domain UFD) if every nonzero a R can be written uniquely as a product a = u p di i where u is a unit and the p i are irreducible. Here uniquely means up to reordering the factors and multiplying the factors by units. Whew! That s a lot of definitions. Let s look at some examples. Example 1.4. The integers Z are a domain but not a field. The only units in Z are 1 and 1. An integer is irreducible iff it is either a prime number or negative a prime number. By the fundamental theorem of arithmetic (which we will prove later), Z is a UFD. Example 1.5. The rationals Q, the reals R, and the complex numbers C are all fields. Any field has no irreducibles, and is automatically a UFD 1
2 Example 1.6. Any subring of a domain is a domain. In particular, any collection of complex numbers closed under addition, subtraction, and multiplication is a domain. For example, for any integer n Z, there is a domain Z[ n] = {a + b n : a, b Z} since it can be checked that such numbers are closed under addition, subtraction, and multiplication. Example 1.7. Let s look more closely at a special case of the example above, namely Z[ 1] = Z[i], also known as the Gaussian integers. The Gaussian integers are a lot like the integers, but some things work a little differently. First of all, besides 1 and 1, i and i are also units since i ( i) = 1. Also, for instance, 2 is irreducible as an integer, but not as a Gaussian integer, since we can factor it as 2 = (1 + i)(1 i). More generally, if p is a prime which can be written as a sum of two squares p = a 2 + b 2, then p is not irreducible as a Gaussian integer because it factors p = (a + bi)(a bi). To say much more about factorization in Z[i], we need to use the norm N(a + bi) = a + bi 2 = a 2 + b 2, a map from Z[i] to the nonnegative integers. The key property of the norm is that N(xy) = N(x)N(y). In particular, if u is a unit, then 1 = N(1) = N(uu 1 ) = N(u)N(u 1 ), which implies N(u) must be 1. It follows that ±1 and ±i are the only units in Z[i]. Similarly, let p be a prime, and suppose that in Z[i], we can factor p = xy in a nontrivial way. Then N(p) = p 2 = N(x)N(y). Since x and y are not units, we must have N(x) = N(y) = p, so p must be a sum of two squares (say if x = a + bi, then p = a 2 + b 2 ). Furthermore, the same argument shows that x and y themselves must be irreducible. On the other hand, if p cannot be written as a sum of two squares, it is irreducible in Z[i]. We have now figured out how to factor any ordinary integer n into irreducible Gaussian integers. Namely, for each ordinary prime factor p, if p is not a sum of two squares, it is irreducible, and if p = a 2 + b 2, then we can replace p in the factorization of n with (a + bi)(a bi), and each of these is irreducible. It turns out that Z[i] is a UFD; we will prove this later. As a consequence, we can show that in fact the above tells us everything about factorization in Z[i]: the irreducibles of Z[i] are exactly the primes p which are not sums of two squares and a ± bi such that a 2 + b 2 is prime. To show this, let x = a + bi Z[i]. Then N(x) = a 2 + b 2 = x x. We know that all the irreducible factors of N(x) are of the form mentioned above, since N(x) is an ordinary integer. By unique factorization, every irreducible factor of x is also one of N(x). Thus every irreducible factor of x must be of the form above, and so every irreducible Gaussian integer is of the form above. Example 1.8. Almost everything in the discussion above also applies to the example Z[ 5] (or of Z[ n] for any n). The only difference is that the norm is given by N(a + b 5) = a 2 + 5b 2, so everywhere we said sum of two squares we should now say of the form a 2 + 5b 2. However, there is one big difference between Z[ 5] and Z[i]: Z[ 5] is not a UFD! To see this, let s factor 9 in Z[ 5]. Well, first of all 9 = 3 3, and 3 is irreducible since it is not of the form a 2 + 5b 2. On the other hand, 9 = , so 9 = (2 + 5)(2 5). Note that 2 ± 5 is irreducible for the same reason 3 is: it has norm 9, and no factor can have norm 3 since 3 is not of the form a 2 + 5b 2. Clearly 3 does not differ from 2 ± 5 by a unit, so we conclude that 9 has two different factorizations in this ring! 1.1 Exercises Exercise 1.1. Factor i into irreducible Gaussian integers. (Hint: Use the norm.) Exercise 1.2. Let R be a UFD and let p R be irreducible. Show that if p ab for some a, b R, then either p a or p b. (Tomorrow, we will show that this property is basically equivalent to R being a UFD). Exercise 1.3. Show that Z[2i] = {a + bi : a, b Z and b is even} is not a UFD. Exercise 1.4. Show that Z[ 6] is not a UFD. (Hint: Find an example similar to the example for Z[ 5].) 2
3 Exercise 1.5. Let k be a field and let R = k[x, y, z, w]/(xy zw), the quotient of the polynomial ring k[x, y, z, w] in four variables by the ideal generated by xy zw. Assuming that R is a domain (which we will prove later), show that it does not have unique factorization. (Hint: xy = zw looks like two different factorizations of the same element. Can you show that it really is?) Exercise 1.6. Let R be a domain and a, b R be nonzero. Then a greatest common divisor (or gcd) of a and b is a d R such that d a, d b, and whenever c a and c b, c d. (a): Show that the gcd of two elements, if it exists, is unique up to multiplication by a unit. (b): Suppose R is a UFD. Show that any two elements have a gcd. 3
4 2 Primes and PIDs We start by looking at a few more examples of the sorts of domains in which we might ask about unique factorization. Example 2.1. Let R be a ring. Then we can form the ring R[x] of polynomials (in one variable) with coefficients in R. A polynomial is a formal expression a n x n + a n 1 x n a 1 x + a 0 where a i R, and polynomials are added and multiplied according to the familiar rules from elementary algebra. If f(x) = a k x k, the largest n such that a n 0 is the degree deg(f) of f, and we call a n the leading coefficient of f. 1 If R is a domain, then deg(fg) = deg(f) + deg(g) since the leading coefficients of f and g multiply to give a nonzero leading coefficient of fg. It follows that if R is a domain, so is R[x]. It also follows that the units of R[x] are just the units of R, since any unit must have degree 0. Example 2.2. Let s specialize the example above to the case that k is a field; in this case we can assume all polynomials are monic (leading coefficient 1) by multiplying by a unit. The simplest irreducible polynomials are linear polynomials x a; these are necessarily irreducible for reasons of degree. It is a consequence of polynomial division that (x a) f(x) iff f(a) = 0; we will say more about this later. This means that if a polynomial of degree > 1 has a root, it is reducible. In particular, the fundamental theorem of algebra says that if k = C, every (nonconstant) polynomial has a root, so the only irreducible polynomials are the linear polynomials. On the other hand, there are other irreducible polynomials over other fields. For example, if k = R or k = Q, x is irreducible: a factor of it would have to be linear and thus give a root, but x has no root. A similar argument shows that if k = Q, then x 3 2 is irreducible. Note, though, that a polynomial can have no roots but still be reducible. For example, x 4 4 = (x 2 2)(x 2 + 2) has no roots for k = Q. We will say more about factorization of polynomials later. It turns out that for any field k, k[x] is a UFD. In fact, more generally, if R is a UFD, so is R[x]. It follows by induction that a polynomial ring k[x, y, z,... ] in any (finite) number of variables is a UFD. We now look at how you might prove that a domain has unique factorization. The one example where we already know this is Z, so let s analyze the proof in that case. Theorem 2.3 (Fundamental theorem of arithmetic). Z is a UFD. Proof. Let n Z be nonzero; by multiplying n by a unit we may assume n > 1. We first show the existence of a factorization of n by induction on n. The base case n = 1 is trivial; we simply have no factors in the product. Now suppose that every positive m < n has a factorization. If n is prime, it clearly has a factorization with itself as the only factor. Otherwise, we can factor n = ab where neither a nor b is a unit, and we may also assume that a, b > 0. It follows that a, b < n, so by induction a and b have factorizations. By combining the factorizations of a and b together, we obtain a factorization of n. Now we show the factorization is unique. For this, we need a lemma we will come back to later. Lemma 2.4. Let p Z be prime and suppose p ab. Then p a or p b. Assuming the Lemma, the proof of uniqueness is not hard. Suppose n = u p di i and n = v q ej j are two factorizations. We can onebyone match up the p i with the q j : since p 1 n = v q ej j, by Lemma 2.4 p 1 must divide either v or one of the q j. Since a factor of a unit is a unit, p 1 cannot divide v, so it must divide some q j. Since q j is irreducible and p 1 is not a unit, p 1 must be the same as q j, up to a unit. Having matched up p 1 and q j, we can remove them from the respective factorizations and then repeat, pairing up another two factors. Repeating this, we see that every factor in the first factorization must also appear in the second (up to a unit), and vice versa. Thus the two factorizations are equivalent. Note that once we had Lemma 2.4, the proof of uniqueness used nothing special about Z: it would hold in any domain that satisfied Lemma 2.4. Let s turn Lemma 2.4 into a definition. 1 We formally write deg(0) =. 4
5 Definition 2.5. A nonzero nonunit element p of a domain is prime if whenever p ab, p a or p b. Note that primes are automatically irreducible: indeed, if p factors as ab, then p ab, so (say) p a and a = pc Then p = ab = pbc, so bc = 1, so b is a unit. Furthermore, in a UFD, irreducibles are prime: if p ab, a factorization of ab is given by combining factorizations of a and b, so p must divide one of them by uniqueness. In fact, this is actually equivalent to unique factorization! Theorem 2.6. Let R be a domain such that every nonzero a R has a factorization into irreducible elements. Then if every irreducible element of R is prime, R is a UFD. Proof. The proof is exactly the same as the proof above in the case Z = R. Thus the hard work is really in showing that irreducibles are prime, i.e. Lemma We now give a proof of this in the case of R = Z that will generalize to many other cases. We first need a definition. Definition 2.7. Recall that an ideal in a ring R is a subset I R closed under addition such that for any a R and i I, ai I. For any a R, we have an ideal (a) = {ar : r R} = {b : a b}; we call such ideals principal. If every ideal in a domain R is principal, we say R is a principal ideal domain (PID). Here is one concrete consequence of being a PID. Let a, b R. Then the ideal (a, b) = {ar + bs : r, s R} must be principal; say (a, b) = (c). Then a, b (c), so c a and c b. Furthermore, we can write c = ar + bs for some r and s, which implies that every other common factor of a and b also divides c. That is, c is a greatest common divisor (gcd) of a and b, and is a combination ar + bs of a and b. Theorem 2.8. In a PID, irreducibles are prime. Proof. Let R be a PID and p R be irreducible. Suppose p ab and p b; we will show p a. Consider the ideal (p, b) = (c), where c is a gcd of p and b. Then c p, so since p is irreducible, either c is a unit or c is the same as p, up to a unit. If c is the same as p, then (p, b) = (c) = (p) so b (p) and p b, contradicting our assumption. Thus c is a unit, and so we may assume c = 1. We can thus write 1 = rp + sb for some r and s. Multiplying this equation by a, we get a = rpa + sba. But p ab, so p divides the righthand side, so p a, as desired. To complete the proof of the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, we thus must only prove: Theorem 2.9. Z is a PID. Proof. Let I Z be an ideal. If I = {0}, then I = (0) is principal. Otherwise, I contains some nonzero n, and by multiplying by ±1, I contains some n > 0. Let n be the smallest positive element of I. Then I (n). For any m I, by division with remainder, we can write m = qn + r where 0 r < n. Since m I and qn I, it follows that r I. But r < n, so by minimality of n we must have r = 0. Thus m = qn is divisible by n, so I = (n). We now have a complete proof that Z is a UFD. More importantly, however, we have a machine set up to show that other domains are also UFDs: we just have to show they are PIDs in which factorizations always exist. Tomorrow, we will use this to prove that other rings are UFDs. 2.1 Exercises Exercise 2.1. Let R be a domain and a R be irreducible. Show that a is also irreducible as an element of the polynomial ring R[x]. Exercise 2.2. Let k[x 2, x 3 ] k[x] be the ring of polynomials with coefficients in a field k with no linear term (which is the subring generated by k, x 2, and x 3 ). Show that k[x 2, x 3 ] is not a UFD. (Hint: Show that x 2 and x 3 are irreducible.) 2 We also need to show that factorizations exist at all, but this is usually easy by some sort of induction argument, as we gave for Z. 5
6 Exercise 2.3. Let k be a field. Show that in k[x], every nonzero element can be factored (maybe not uniquely) as u p di i where u is a unit and the p i are irreducible. (Hint: Use induction on the degree of the polynomial.) Exercise 2.4. Let k be a field. Can you prove that k[x] is a PID by imitating the proof for Z? (We will talk about this in class tomorrow.) Exercise 2.5. Let k be a field. Show that in k[x 1,..., x n ], every nonzero element can be factored (maybe not uniquely) as u p di i where u is a unit and the p i are irreducible. (Hint: Define a notion of degree for a polynomial in multiple variables.) Exercise 2.6. An ideal I R in a ring R is called prime if the quotient ring R/I is a domain. (a): Show that I is prime iff whenever ab I, either a I or b I. (b): Show that an element a R is prime iff the ideal (a) is a prime ideal. Exercise 2.7. An ideal I R in a ring is called maximal if the quotient ring R/I is a field. (a): Show that I is maximal iff any ideal J I containing I is equal to either I or R. (Hint: Show that a ring is a field iff it has no ideals other than {0} and the whole ring.) (b): Show that maximal ideals are prime. (c): Show that in a PID, prime ideals (other than {0}) are maximal. (Hint: Note that (a) (b) iff b a.) Exercise 2.8 (Chinese remainder theorem). Let R be a PID, and let a, b R with gcd(a, b) = 1. Define a map f : R/(ab) R/(a) R/(b) by f(x + (ab)) = (x + (a), x + (b)). Show that f is a ring isomorphism. 3 (For example, for R = Z, this says that if m and n are relatively prime, then Z/mn = Z/m Z/n.) 3 If R and S is a ring, then R S is also a ring by adding and multiplying separately on each coordinate. In particular, R/(a) R/(b) is a ring. 6
7 3 Euclidean domains The argument we made yesterday for Z readily generalizes to some other domains. Theorem 3.1. Let k be a field. Then k[x] is a PID. Proof. We do the same thing as we did for Z, except instead of taking a minimal positive element, we take an element of minimal degree. More precisely, let I k[x] be an ideal, which we can assume to contain some nonzero element. Let f(x) I be nonzero of minimal degree and let g(x) I; we will show that f g and hence I = (f). By polynomial long division, we can divide g = qf + r where the remainder r has degree strictly less than the degree of f. Since g I and qf I, we also have r I. But by minimality of the degree of f, this can only happen if r = 0. Thus g = qf so I = (f). Corollary 3.2. Let k be a field. Then k[x] is a UFD. Proof. We only need the existence of factorizations. This can be proven by induction on degree, or using the fact that we will prove later that in fact PIDs always have factorizations and hence are automatically UFDs. We now make a definition which generalizes the arguments above for Z and k[x]. Definition 3.3. A Euclidean domain is a domain R equipped with a function d : R {0} N such that: For any nonzero a, b R, d(ab) max(d(a), d(b)), and For any nonzero a, b R, we can write a = bq + r where either r = 0 or d(r) < d(b). Example 3.4. Z is a Euclidean domain with d(n) = n. Example 3.5. k[x] is a Euclidean domain with d(f) = deg(f). Theorem 3.6. Euclidean domains are PIDs (and hence UFDs). Proof. Let R be a Euclidean domain. The proof that R is a PID is exactly the same as the proof for R = Z or R = k[x]: given an ideal I, take a I such that d(a) is minimized, and then a will generate I. We can finally give an application of all this machinery: a quick proof that Z[i] is a UFD. Theorem 3.7. Z[i] is a Euclidean domain with d(a + bi) = N(a + bi) = a 2 + b 2. Proof. The first condition on d is easy to check. For the second condition, let x, y Z[i]; we wish to divide y by x with a remainder which has smaller norm than x. That is, we want to find a multiple of x which is closer to y than x is to 0. For this, we use the geometry of Gaussian integers in the complex plane: the multiples of x form a square lattice, and elementary geometry shows that any point in the plane is closer to some vertex of the lattice than the side length of the squares. Corollary 3.8. Z[i] is a UFD. This proof also can be used to see what goes wrong for Z[ 5]. In that case, instead of having a square lattice we have a rectangular lattice, and the geometric fact we used is no longer true. In the previous section, we made a geometric argument that the norm made Z[i] a Euclidean domain, but this argument failed for Z[ 5]. Let s recall that argument: the point is that to get division with a smaller remainder, you need that in a square with side length 1, every point is distance < 1 from some corner. In the case of Z[ 5], instead of a square we had a rectangle, with one side having length 1 and the other side having length 5. More generally, if we had done Z[ d] for any d > 0, the other side would have length d. A little geometry shows that the maximum distance a point can be from a corner is d + 1/2. Thus this argument still works for d = 2 (Exercise 3.2), breaks down for d > 3, and just barely fails for d = 3. We now turn to the general question of the existence of factorizations in PIDs. 7
8 Lemma 3.9. Let R be a PID and a R be a nonunit. Then a has an irreducible factor. Proof. Suppose a = a 0 has no irreducible factor. Then we can pick a nontrivial factor a 1 a 0, and a 1 cannot have an irreducible factor either. Thus we can pick an infinite sequence... a 2 a 1 a 0, where each a n is a nontrivial factor of a n 1. This means exactly that (a 0 ) (a 1 ) (a 2 )... with each inclusion being strict. Now consider the ideal I = (a 0, a 1,... ) generated by all the a i. Since R is a PID, I is generated by some single element c. This c can be written as a finite linear combination of the a i, say c = n b i a i. But then c (a n ) since a n a i for every i n. But then we have (a n ) I = (c) (a n ), which is a contradiction. Hence no such a = a 0 could have existed, so any element has an irreducible factor. Theorem Let R be a PID. Then every nonzero element a R has a factorization into irreducible factors (and a unit). Proof. We may assume a = a 0 is not a unit. Thus by Lemma 3.9, a has some irreducible factor p 1 ; say a = p 1 a 1. If a 1 is a unit we re done, otherwise, we can write a 1 = p 2 a 2 for some irreducible p 2. Continuing by induction, if we never get a unit, we get an infinite sequence... a 2 a 1 a 0 of nontrivial factors, which gives a contradiction as in the proof of Lemma 3.9. Thus some a n is eventually a unit, so we get a factorization a = a n p 1 p n. Corollary Let R be a PID. Then R is a UFD. 3.1 Exercises Exercise 3.1. Let k be a field. For f(x, y) k[x, y], let deg(f) be the largest degree of a term of f, where the degree of a monomial x m y n is defined to be m + n. Show that deg does not make k[x, y] a Euclidean domain. Exercise 3.2. Show that Z[ 2] is a Euclidean domain, and thus a PID and a UFD. (Hint: Imitate the proof for Z[i].) I don t know how to do the following exercise, but I know that it s true. I d love to see a solution if you can find one. The difficulty is that you can t use the geometry of complex numbers, so we can t make exactly the same sort of argument as we did for Z[i]. Exercise 3.3. Show that Z[ 2] is a Euclidean domain. (Hint: I think d(a + b 2) = a 2 + 2b 2 works.) Exercise 3.4. Call a Euclidean domain R strictly Euclidean if whenever neither a nor b is a unit, then d(ab) > max(d(a), d(b)). For example, Z, k[x], and Z[i] are all strictly Euclidean. Show using induction on d(a) (instead of the argument using ideals given in class) that if R is strictly Euclidean, then any nonzero a R can be factored into irreducibles. Exercise 3.5. Let R be a domain. Then the field of fractions K(R) of R is the collection of expressions a/b with a, b R, b 0, where we say a/b = c/d if ad = bc. We make K(R) a ring using the ordinary rules for addition and multiplication of fractions. (a): Show that by mapping a R to a/1, we can think of R as a subring of K. (b): Suppose R is a UFD. Show that any nonzero element of K(R) can be factored as u p di i where u R is a unit, p i R are irreducible, and d i Z are possibly negative, and this factorization is unique up to changing the factors by units in R. 8
9 4 Factorization in polynomial rings In the previous section, we showed that if k is a field, then the ring of polynomials k[x] is a UFD. In this section we will look at polynomials with more general coefficients. Our basic example will be Z[x], the ring of polynomials with integer coefficients. We can start by trying to use the same method we did in the case of a field: we want to show that Z[x] is a Euclidean domain with d(f) = deg(f). The main thing to check is that given any f and g, we can write g = qf + r where the remainder r has lower degree than f. Over a field, we can do this by polynomial long division. However, over Z this breaks down. Consider, for example, g(x) = x 2 +x+2 and f(x) = 2x+1. Performing long division would give quotient 1 2 x with remainder 7/4. However, we re not allowed to do this since the coefficients must remain integers. If the quotient has to have integer coefficients, there s no way we can use a multiple of f to cancel out the x 2 and x terms in g and leave an integer remainder. Indeed, it is impossible to make Z[x] a Euclidean domain since it is not a PID! For example, the ideal (2, x) is not principal: it is the set of polynomials with even constant term, which is not just the multiples of any one polynomial. Alternatively, although clearly the gcd of 2 and x should be 1, there is no way to write 1 as a linear combination of 2 and x. Nevertheless, it turns out that Z[x] is a UFD. To show this, we will need a new argument different from the ones we ve used. The basic idea will be to use the fact that both Z and Q[x] are UFDs, and the fact that Z[x] is kind of halfway between them. Let s look at what irreducibles in Z[x] look like. There are two kinds, namely the primes in Z as constant polynomials, and the irreducible polynomials of degree > 0. In particular, note that if f(x) Z[x] is irreducible as an element of Q[x] and monic, it is also automatically irreducible in Z[x], since there are only fewer possible factorizations in Z[x] (and since it is monic, there is no issue with the fact that Z[x] has fewer units). Thus the first kind of irreducibles are the irreducibles of Z, and the second kind at least include some irreducibles coming from Q[x]. To show Z[x] is a UFD, the main thing we need to show is that all irreducibles are prime, so we will start by showing this for the irreducibles coming from Z. In fact, nothing we will do is special to Z, so we will replace it with an arbitrary UFD. Lemma 4.1 (Gauss s Lemma). Let R be a domain and let p R be prime (e.g., R is a UFD and p is irreducible). Then p is also prime as an element of R[x]. Proof. Let s see what it means for p to be prime in R[x]. Note that p divides a polynomial iff it divides each of its coefficients. Thus the claim is that if p divides all the coefficients of fg, it must divide either all the coefficients of f or all the coefficients of g. This is far from obvious, since the coefficients of fg are complicated expressions in the coefficients of f and g. Let s look at an example: say f(x) = ax + b and g(x) = cx + d. Then f(x)g(x) = acx 2 + (ad + bc)x + bd. Let s suppose all the coefficients of the product are divisible by p. Then in particular, p ac, so p a or p c. Say p a (the other case is similar). Then since p ad + bc, the next coefficient, we must have p bc so p b or p c. If p b, then p ax + b = f and we re done. If p b, then p c, and also since p bd, the next coefficient, p d. Thus p cx + d = g, and we re done again. The proof for general polynomials is similar to this example. Say deg(f) = n and deg(g) = m and write and f(x) = a n x n + + a 0 g(x) = b m x m + + b 0. Let s assume that p f; we will show p g. There is some coefficient of f that p does not divide; let a r be the largest one (i.e. the one with r maximal). We show by descending induction that p divides each coefficient 9
10 of g. First, the coefficient of x m+r in f(x)g(x) will be b m a r + b m 1 a r+1 + b m 2 a r By maximality of r, p divides a r+1, a r+2, and so on, so p divides every term but the first. But p fg so p must divide the entire coefficient, so p b m a r. Since p a r, p b m. Now let k < m and suppose p b l for all l > k. Then the coefficient of x k+r in f(x)g(x) is + b k+1 a r 1 + b k a r + b k 1 a r Since p b l for l > k and p a s for s > r, we know that p divides every term of this except b k a r. Thus p b k a r and so p b k. Gauss s lemma not only tells us that the irreducibles from Z are still prime in Z[x]; it also tells us something about the nonconstant irreducibles. For this, we first need a definition. Definition 4.2. Let R be a UFD and f R[x]. Then the content cont(f) of f (defined up to a unit) is the gcd of all the coefficients of f (gcd makes sense because R is a UFD). If cont(f) = 1, we say f is primitive. Note that for any f, we can factor f = cont(f)f 1 where f 1 is primitive. Corollary 4.3. Let R be a UFD and f, g R[x]. Then cont(fg) = cont(f) cont(g). Proof. By factoring f = cont(f)f 1 and g = cont(g)g 1, we get fg = cont(f) cont(g)f 1 g 1. It thus suffices to show that f 1 g 1 is primitive. If it were not primitive, some irreducible p R would divide it. But by Gauss s Lemma, this would imply p f 1 or p g 1, which is impossible since they are primitive. Corollary 4.4. A nonconstant element of Z[x] is irreducible iff it is primitive and is irreducible as an element of Q[x]. Proof. First, suppose f Z[x] is irreducible and nonconstant. It clearly must be primitive. Suppose we can factor f = gh for g, h Q[x]. Note that content also makese sense for elements of Q[x]: it is the unique rational cont(g) (up to a unit in Z such that g = cont(g)g 1 for some primitive g 1 Z[x] (explicitly, write all the coefficients of g in lowest terms, and take the gcd of the numerators divided by the lcm of the denominators). We can thus write f = cont(g) cont(h)g 1 h 1, where now g 1, h 1 Z[x] are primitive and cont(g), cont(h) Q. By Corollary 4.3, g 1 h 1 is primitive as well. But f is primitive, so this implies cont(g) cont(h) must be a unit in Z. But then, up to a unit, we can factor f = g 1 h 1 in Z[x]. Since f is irreducible in Z[x], this implies g 1 or h 1 is a unit, so then g or h is a unit in Q[x]. Thus f is irreducible in Q[x]. Conversely, suppose f is primitive and is irreducible as an element of Q[x], and suppose we can factor f = gh in Z[x]. Since f is irreducible in Q[x], g or h must be a unit in Q[x], i.e. an element of Q (or actually Z since it is also in Z[x]). But since f is primitive, f has no nontrivial factors in Z, so g or h must be a unit in Z. Thus f is irreducible in Z[x]. Using this, we can finally prove: Theorem 4.5. Z[x] is a UFD. Proof. First, we show the existence of factorizations. Let f Z[x] and factor f = q i where the q i are irreducible elements of Q[x] (this is possible since Q[x] is a UFD). By factoring out the contents of the q i, we can rewrite this as f = c q i, where q i Z[x] is primitive and irreducible in Q[x] and c Q is the product of the contents of the q i. By Corollary 4.4, the q i are irreducible in Z[x], and by Corollary 4.3, c is equal to the content of f and is thus actually in Z. Factoring c into primes p j in Z then gives a factorization f = p j q i of f into irreducibles of Z[x]. We now show that every irreducible in Z[x] is prime. By Gauss s lemma, it suffices to show this for nonconstant irreducibles f. Suppose f gh. By Corollary 4.4, f is irreducible in Q[x] and hence prime in Q[x] 10
11 since Q[x] is a UFD. Thus in Q[x], f g or f h; say f g. We can then write g = qf, where q Q[x]. Now we can write q = cont(q)q 1 where cont(q) Q and q 1 Z[x] is primitive. Since f is primitive, it follows that cont(q) = cont(g) is actually an integer, so in fact q = cont(q)q 1 is actually in Z[x]. Thus f g in Z[x]. and f is prime. Finally, we observe that in all of this, there was nothing special about Z: we could have replaced Z by any UFD R, as long as we also replace Q by the field of fractions of R. Recall that the field of fractions of a domain R is the set of formal fractions a/b with a, b R, b 0; this is a field with the usual multiplication and addition of fractions and R embeds in it by sending a to a/1. Theorem 4.6. Let R be a UFD. Then R[x] is a UFD. Proof. Exactly the same as the proof of Corollary 4.4 and Theorem 4.5, with Z replaced by R and Q replaced by its field of fractions. In particular, by induction we get that a polynomial ring k[x, y, z,... ] or Z[x, y, z,... ] in any (finite) number of variables is a UFD. Furthermore, we can use Corollary 4.4 to get an inductive criterion for detecting irreducibility of elements of these polynomial rings. However, this criterion is hard to use since the fields of fractions that come up in the induction steps, such as the field of fractions of k[x, y], are not particularly easy to work with. One useful application of unique factorization is showing the quotients are domains. By Exercise 2.6, if R is a domain and p R is prime, then the quotient R/(p) is a domain. In general, it can be quite difficult to show that a particular ring defined as a quotient is a domain. However, for UFDs, we get that R/(p) is a domain for any irreducible p. In particular, whenever you have an irreducible polynomial f k[x, y, z,... ], the quotient k[x, y, z,... ]/(f) is a domain. 4.1 Exercises Exercise 4.1 (Eisenstein s criterion). Let R be a UFD, p R be prime, and let f(x) = a n x n + a n 1 x n 1 + +a 0 R[x] be a polynomial. Suppose that p a i for all i < n, p a n and p 2 a 0. Show that f is irreducible. Exercise 4.2. Let k be a field. Show that k[x, y, z, w]/(xy zw) is a domain but not a UFD. (Hint: See Exercises 1.5 and 2.6.) Exercise 4.3. Let R be a ring that is not a field. Show that R[x] is not a PID. Exercise 4.4. Let R be a UFD and suppose d R is not a square (i.e., d a 2 for any a R). (a): Show that x 2 d R[x] is irreducible. (b): Suppose R = Z. Show that Z[x]/(x 2 d) is isomorphic to Z[ d]. (This gives a new proof that Z[ d] is a domain, which we originally showed by saying it is a subring of C.) 11
12 5 Dedekind domains Let s look more closely at the case Z[ 3]. By trial and error, we can find that unique factorization fails: for example, 2 2 = (1 + 3)(1 3). However, it turns out that in this case there is a more general reason why unique factorization must fail. To see this, we first need some definitions. Definition 5.1. Let S be a ring and let R S be a subring, and let a S. We say a is integral over R if there is a monic polynomial f(x) = x n + c n 1 x n c 0 R[x] such that f(a) = 0. We say a domain R is integrally closed if whenever a K(R), the field of fractions of R, is integral over R, then in fact a R. Note that, for example, any a R is integral over R, by letting f(x) = x a. On the other hand, we drop the requirement that f be monic, then all of K(R) is integral over R, since a fraction a/b is a root of f(x) = bx a. In fact, we already know some examples of integrally closed domains. Proposition 5.2. UFDs are integrally closed. Proof. Let R be a UFD and let a/b K(R) be integral over R; say (a/b) n + c n 1 (a/b) n c 0 = 0. We assume a and b have no common factor (so a/b is in lowest terms ). We can then multiply the equation above by b n to obtain a n + bc n 1 a n b n c 0 = 0, or a n = bc n 1 a n 1 b n c 0. But the righthand side is divisible by b, and a and b had no common factor and hence since R is a UFD, a n and b have no common factor. The only way this is possible is if b is a unit. But in that case, a/b is actually in R, so R is integrally closed. On the other hand, we also have a nonexample: Proposition 5.3. Z[ 3] is not integrally closed. Proof. Let ω = (1 + 3)/2. Then ω is certainly in the field of fractions of Z[ 3], and it is not in Z[ 3]. Thus if we show ω is integral, Z[ 3] will not be integrally closed. To show this, we can simply note that ω is a root of f(x) = x 2 + x + 1, by the quadratic formula. Remark 5.4. Note that more generally, (1 + d/2 is a root of x 2 + x + (d + 1)/4, so whenever d 3 mod 4 this shows that Z[ d] is not integrally closed. Thus Z[ 3] in some sense lacks unique factorization for a stupid reason that is easily remedied: it s just missing some elements it should have. More precisely, we have the following fact, whose proof is beyond the scope of this class. Theorem 5.5. Let R be a domain. Then the set R of elements of K(R) integral over R is a ring and is integrally closed, called the integral closure of R. That is, if we just take R and throw in all the elements that are integral over it, we can complete R to an integrally closed domain, which now has some hope of being a UFD. Indeed, this works in our 3 example. Theorem 5.6. Let ω = (1 + 3)/2 as above. Then Z[ω] is the integral closure of Z[ 3], and is a UFD. 12
13 Proof. If Z[ω] is a UFD, it is automatically the integral closure of Z[ 3]: indeed, it is integrally closed, and therefore contains the integral closure of Z[ 3]. But ω is integral over Z[ 3], so it is also contained in the integral closure of Z[ 3]. We thus show that Z[ω] is a UFD. We use the same argument as we always have: we show that it is a Euclidean domain under the norm function given by the square of the complex absolute value, by a geometric argument. Now instead of a rectangle we have a parallelogram given by 1 and ω in the complex plane, but the geometric computation still works out. A similar argument shows that Z[(1 + 7)/2] is a UFD and the integral closure of Z[ 7]. More generally, it is always true that for d 3 mod 4 (and squarefree), Z[(1 + d)/2] is the integral closure of Z[ d]. However, the geometric arguments quickly break down as d gets large, and in fact we have the following theorem. Theorem 5.7. Let d > 0 be squarefree. Then the integral closure of Z[ d] is a UFD iff d is 1, 2, 3, 7, 11, 19, 43, 67, or 163. This result is far beyond the scope of this class, and was proven only in Nevertheless, it turns out that there is a generalization of unique factorization that often works in domains that are not UFDs. The idea is to not attempt to factorize elements of the ring, but ideals. This is a natural thing to do because the ideal (a) generated by an element a depends on a only up to multiplication by units (and in fact determines a, up to a unit), and in a PID ideals are exactly the same as elements, up to units. Indeed, this was historically the original reasons that ideals were defined: they are ideal elements that can be substitutes for elements (up to units) for purposes of factorization, but are betterbehaved in domains that are not PIDs. To make sense of this, we should first define multiplication of ideals. Definition 5.8. Let I, J R be ideals. Then IJ is the ideal of elements { c n d n : c n I, d n J}. Note that in the case of principal ideals, we have (a)(b) = (ab), since every term of the sum c n d n is divisible by ab, so the whole sum is. More generally, if I is generated by {a i } and J is generated by {b j }, then IJ will be generated by {a i b j }. We also have a definition of a prime ideal, which we have already seen in Exercise 2.6. Definition 5.9. An ideal I R is prime if whenever ab I, then either a I or b I. Note that a principal ideal (p) is prime iff the element p is prime. Let s see an example how using prime ideals instead of irreducible elements might be able to save unique factorization. Example Recall that in Z[ 5], 9 has two different irreducible factorizations, 3 3 and (2+ 5)(2 5). However, these do not give two different factorizations of the ideal (9), since the ideals (3) and (2 ± 5) are not prime! Indeed, since 3 9 but 3 2 ± 5, (3) cannot be prime, and similarly for (2 ± 5. However, it turns out that the nonprincipal ideals I = (3, 2 + 5) and J = (3, 2 5) are prime. Furthermore, we have IJ = (3, 2 + 5) (3, 2 5) = (9, 6 3 5, , 9). Note that everything on the righthand side is divisible by 3, so IJ (3). On the other hand, since and are both in IJ, so is their difference 12, so IJ (9, 12) = (3). Thus IJ = (3). A similar computation shows that I 2 = (2 + 5) and J 2 = (2 5). Thus if we think in terms of ideals, the failed uniqueness of factorization 3 3 = (2 + 5)(2 5) becomes just IJ IJ = I 2 J 2, both giving the same factorization of (9) into prime ideals. However, using prime ideals will not always save us. As an example, consider the ring k[t 2, t 3 ], which we earlier saw was not a UFD because t 2 and t 3 are both irreducible but (t 2 ) 3 = (t 3 ) 2. In this case, the only 13
14 prime ideal containing either (t 2 ) or (t 3 ) is the ideal I = (t 2, t 3 ). However, I 2 = (t 4, t 5, t 6 ) = (t 4 ) is already smaller than both (t 2 ) and (t 3 ). This means that (t 2 ) and (t 3 ) cannot even be written as a product of prime ideals at all, let alone uniquely. It turns out the problem is that t 3 /t 2 = t should be an element of this ring, so that instead of I = (t 2, t 3 ) we could have I = (t), and then everything would work. More precisely, this ring is not integrally closed, since t is a root of f(x) = x 2 t 2 and hence integral. It turns out that being integrally closed is almost all you need to be able to use ideals to get unique factorization. Theorem Let R be an integrally closed domain which is Noetherian and in which every prime ideal except {0} is maximal (a ring satisfying these hypotheses is called a Dedekind domain. Then every ideal I R factors uniquely as a product P di i where the P i are prime ideals. Again, it would take more time (or more chilies) than we have to prove this theorem. Here Noetherian is a technical condition that says that R is not too large and pathological (more precisely, a ring is Noetherian if every ideal can be generated by a finite set of elements). The other condition, that every prime ideal is maximal, is satisfied by any PID and by the integral closure of Z[ d] for any d, and it turns out that this condition together with being a UFD actually implies that your ring is a PID. However, we have already seen that there are UFDs that are not PIDs and hence do not satisfy this property, namely polynomial rings over UFDs that are not fields. 5.1 Exercises For the exercises, you need the following result, which you can try to prove if you re interested (though it is hard without using tools we have not introduced in this class). Theorem Let R S be domains a S be integral over ar, and let f(x) R[x] be of minimal degree such that f(a) = 0. Then the leading coefficient of f is a unit in R. (The definition of integral we gave before only stipulates that there is some monic polynomial f such that f(a) = 0.) Exercise 5.1. Show that if d is squarefree and d 3 mod 4, then Z[(1+ d)/2] is integrally closed. (Hint: The field of fractions is Q[ d]. Given an element z = a + b d with a, b Q, find a quadratic polynomial that z is a root of, and show this polynomial can be made a monic polynomial in Z[x] iff z Z[(1+ d)/2]. Conclude that Z[(1 + d)/2] is the integral closure of Z in Q[ d], and hence is integrally closed by Theorem 5.5.) Exercise 5.2. Show that if d is squarefree and d 1 mod 4, then Z[ d] is integrally closed. (Hint: This is similar to the previous exercise.) Exercise 5.3. Show that Z[(1 + 7)/2] is a Euclidean domain, and hence a PID and UFD. 14
POLYNOMIAL RINGS AND UNIQUE FACTORIZATION DOMAINS
POLYNOMIAL RINGS AND UNIQUE FACTORIZATION DOMAINS RUSS WOODROOFE 1. Unique Factorization Domains Throughout the following, we think of R as sitting inside R[x] as the constant polynomials (of degree 0).
More informationChapter 4, Arithmetic in F [x] Polynomial arithmetic and the division algorithm.
Chapter 4, Arithmetic in F [x] Polynomial arithmetic and the division algorithm. We begin by defining the ring of polynomials with coefficients in a ring R. After some preliminary results, we specialize
More informationQuotient Rings and Field Extensions
Chapter 5 Quotient Rings and Field Extensions In this chapter we describe a method for producing field extension of a given field. If F is a field, then a field extension is a field K that contains F.
More information11 Ideals. 11.1 Revisiting Z
11 Ideals The presentation here is somewhat different than the text. In particular, the sections do not match up. We have seen issues with the failure of unique factorization already, e.g., Z[ 5] = O Q(
More informationit is easy to see that α = a
21. Polynomial rings Let us now turn out attention to determining the prime elements of a polynomial ring, where the coefficient ring is a field. We already know that such a polynomial ring is a UF. Therefore
More information3 1. Note that all cubes solve it; therefore, there are no more
Math 13 Problem set 5 Artin 11.4.7 Factor the following polynomials into irreducible factors in Q[x]: (a) x 3 3x (b) x 3 3x + (c) x 9 6x 6 + 9x 3 3 Solution: The first two polynomials are cubics, so if
More informationFactorization in Polynomial Rings
Factorization in Polynomial Rings These notes are a summary of some of the important points on divisibility in polynomial rings from 17 and 18 of Gallian s Contemporary Abstract Algebra. Most of the important
More information3 Factorisation into irreducibles
3 Factorisation into irreducibles Consider the factorisation of a nonzero, noninvertible integer n as a product of primes: n = p 1 p t. If you insist that primes should be positive then, since n could
More informationFactoring Polynomials
Factoring Polynomials Sue Geller June 19, 2006 Factoring polynomials over the rational numbers, real numbers, and complex numbers has long been a standard topic of high school algebra. With the advent
More informationModern Algebra Lecture Notes: Rings and fields set 4 (Revision 2)
Modern Algebra Lecture Notes: Rings and fields set 4 (Revision 2) Kevin Broughan University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand May 13, 2010 Remainder and Factor Theorem 15 Definition of factor If f (x)
More informationPROBLEM SET 6: POLYNOMIALS
PROBLEM SET 6: POLYNOMIALS 1. introduction In this problem set we will consider polynomials with coefficients in K, where K is the real numbers R, the complex numbers C, the rational numbers Q or any other
More information7. Some irreducible polynomials
7. Some irreducible polynomials 7.1 Irreducibles over a finite field 7.2 Worked examples Linear factors x α of a polynomial P (x) with coefficients in a field k correspond precisely to roots α k [1] of
More information1 Homework 1. [p 0 q i+j +... + p i 1 q j+1 ] + [p i q j ] + [p i+1 q j 1 +... + p i+j q 0 ]
1 Homework 1 (1) Prove the ideal (3,x) is a maximal ideal in Z[x]. SOLUTION: Suppose we expand this ideal by including another generator polynomial, P / (3, x). Write P = n + x Q with n an integer not
More informationCHAPTER SIX IRREDUCIBILITY AND FACTORIZATION 1. BASIC DIVISIBILITY THEORY
January 10, 2010 CHAPTER SIX IRREDUCIBILITY AND FACTORIZATION 1. BASIC DIVISIBILITY THEORY The set of polynomials over a field F is a ring, whose structure shares with the ring of integers many characteristics.
More informationMOP 2007 Black Group Integer Polynomials Yufei Zhao. Integer Polynomials. June 29, 2007 Yufei Zhao yufeiz@mit.edu
Integer Polynomials June 9, 007 Yufei Zhao yufeiz@mit.edu We will use Z[x] to denote the ring of polynomials with integer coefficients. We begin by summarizing some of the common approaches used in dealing
More informationA number field is a field of finite degree over Q. By the Primitive Element Theorem, any number
Number Fields Introduction A number field is a field of finite degree over Q. By the Primitive Element Theorem, any number field K = Q(α) for some α K. The minimal polynomial Let K be a number field and
More information(a) Write each of p and q as a polynomial in x with coefficients in Z[y, z]. deg(p) = 7 deg(q) = 9
Homework #01, due 1/20/10 = 9.1.2, 9.1.4, 9.1.6, 9.1.8, 9.2.3 Additional problems for study: 9.1.1, 9.1.3, 9.1.5, 9.1.13, 9.2.1, 9.2.2, 9.2.4, 9.2.5, 9.2.6, 9.3.2, 9.3.3 9.1.1 (This problem was not assigned
More informationFACTORING IN QUADRATIC FIELDS. 1. Introduction. This is called a quadratic field and it has degree 2 over Q. Similarly, set
FACTORING IN QUADRATIC FIELDS KEITH CONRAD For a squarefree integer d other than 1, let 1. Introduction K = Q[ d] = {x + y d : x, y Q}. This is called a quadratic field and it has degree 2 over Q. Similarly,
More information1 = (a 0 + b 0 α) 2 + + (a m 1 + b m 1 α) 2. for certain elements a 0,..., a m 1, b 0,..., b m 1 of F. Multiplying out, we obtain
Notes on realclosed fields These notes develop the algebraic background needed to understand the model theory of realclosed fields. To understand these notes, a standard graduate course in algebra is
More informationThe Division Algorithm for Polynomials Handout Monday March 5, 2012
The Division Algorithm for Polynomials Handout Monday March 5, 0 Let F be a field (such as R, Q, C, or F p for some prime p. This will allow us to divide by any nonzero scalar. (For some of the following,
More informationCopy in your notebook: Add an example of each term with the symbols used in algebra 2 if there are any.
Algebra 2  Chapter Prerequisites Vocabulary Copy in your notebook: Add an example of each term with the symbols used in algebra 2 if there are any. P1 p. 1 1. counting(natural) numbers  {1,2,3,4,...}
More informationFOUNDATIONS OF ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY CLASS 22
FOUNDATIONS OF ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY CLASS 22 RAVI VAKIL CONTENTS 1. Discrete valuation rings: Dimension 1 Noetherian regular local rings 1 Last day, we discussed the Zariski tangent space, and saw that it
More informationPUTNAM TRAINING POLYNOMIALS. Exercises 1. Find a polynomial with integral coefficients whose zeros include 2 + 5.
PUTNAM TRAINING POLYNOMIALS (Last updated: November 17, 2015) Remark. This is a list of exercises on polynomials. Miguel A. Lerma Exercises 1. Find a polynomial with integral coefficients whose zeros include
More informationH/wk 13, Solutions to selected problems
H/wk 13, Solutions to selected problems Ch. 4.1, Problem 5 (a) Find the number of roots of x x in Z 4, Z Z, any integral domain, Z 6. (b) Find a commutative ring in which x x has infinitely many roots.
More informationALGEBRAIC NUMBER THEORY AND QUADRATIC RECIPROCITY
ALGEBRAIC NUMBER THEORY AND QUADRATIC RECIPROCITY HENRY COHN, JOSHUA GREENE, JONATHAN HANKE 1. Introduction These notes are from a series of lectures given by Henry Cohn during MIT s Independent Activities
More informationFactoring of Prime Ideals in Extensions
Chapter 4 Factoring of Prime Ideals in Extensions 4. Lifting of Prime Ideals Recall the basic AKLB setup: A is a Dedekind domain with fraction field K, L is a finite, separable extension of K of degree
More informationMath 34560 Abstract Algebra I Questions for Section 23: Factoring Polynomials over a Field
Math 34560 Abstract Algebra I Questions for Section 23: Factoring Polynomials over a Field 1. Throughout this section, F is a field and F [x] is the ring of polynomials with coefficients in F. We will
More informationFACTORING POLYNOMIALS IN THE RING OF FORMAL POWER SERIES OVER Z
FACTORING POLYNOMIALS IN THE RING OF FORMAL POWER SERIES OVER Z DANIEL BIRMAJER, JUAN B GIL, AND MICHAEL WEINER Abstract We consider polynomials with integer coefficients and discuss their factorization
More informationModule MA3411: Abstract Algebra Galois Theory Appendix Michaelmas Term 2013
Module MA3411: Abstract Algebra Galois Theory Appendix Michaelmas Term 2013 D. R. Wilkins Copyright c David R. Wilkins 1997 2013 Contents A Cyclotomic Polynomials 79 A.1 Minimum Polynomials of Roots of
More informationWinter Camp 2011 Polynomials Alexander Remorov. Polynomials. Alexander Remorov alexanderrem@gmail.com
Polynomials Alexander Remorov alexanderrem@gmail.com Warmup Problem 1: Let f(x) be a quadratic polynomial. Prove that there exist quadratic polynomials g(x) and h(x) such that f(x)f(x + 1) = g(h(x)).
More informationThe Dirichlet Unit Theorem
Chapter 6 The Dirichlet Unit Theorem As usual, we will be working in the ring B of algebraic integers of a number field L. Two factorizations of an element of B are regarded as essentially the same if
More informationcalculating the result modulo 3, as follows: p(0) = 0 3 + 0 + 1 = 1 0,
Homework #02, due 1/27/10 = 9.4.1, 9.4.2, 9.4.5, 9.4.6, 9.4.7. Additional problems recommended for study: (9.4.3), 9.4.4, 9.4.9, 9.4.11, 9.4.13, (9.4.14), 9.4.17 9.4.1 Determine whether the following polynomials
More informationChapter 13: Basic ring theory
Chapter 3: Basic ring theory Matthew Macauley Department of Mathematical Sciences Clemson University http://www.math.clemson.edu/~macaule/ Math 42, Spring 24 M. Macauley (Clemson) Chapter 3: Basic ring
More information9. POLYNOMIALS. Example 1: The expression a(x) = x 3 4x 2 + 7x 11 is a polynomial in x. The coefficients of a(x) are the numbers 1, 4, 7, 11.
9. POLYNOMIALS 9.1. Definition of a Polynomial A polynomial is an expression of the form: a(x) = a n x n + a n1 x n1 +... + a 1 x + a 0. The symbol x is called an indeterminate and simply plays the role
More informationOSTROWSKI FOR NUMBER FIELDS
OSTROWSKI FOR NUMBER FIELDS KEITH CONRAD Ostrowski classified the nontrivial absolute values on Q: up to equivalence, they are the usual (archimedean) absolute value and the padic absolute values for
More informationIntroduction to Algebraic Geometry. Bézout s Theorem and Inflection Points
Introduction to Algebraic Geometry Bézout s Theorem and Inflection Points 1. The resultant. Let K be a field. Then the polynomial ring K[x] is a unique factorisation domain (UFD). Another example of a
More informationz 0 and y even had the form
Gaussian Integers The concepts of divisibility, primality and factoring are actually more general than the discussion so far. For the moment, we have been working in the integers, which we denote by Z
More informationIntroduction to Finite Fields (cont.)
Chapter 6 Introduction to Finite Fields (cont.) 6.1 Recall Theorem. Z m is a field m is a prime number. Theorem (Subfield Isomorphic to Z p ). Every finite field has the order of a power of a prime number
More informationRESULTANT AND DISCRIMINANT OF POLYNOMIALS
RESULTANT AND DISCRIMINANT OF POLYNOMIALS SVANTE JANSON Abstract. This is a collection of classical results about resultants and discriminants for polynomials, compiled mainly for my own use. All results
More informationFACTORIZATION IN INTEGRAL DOMAINS
FACTORIZATION IN INTEGRAL DOMAINS PETE L. CLARK Contents Introduction 2 1. Norm functions 3 1.1. Weak multiplicative norms and multiplicative norms 3 1.2. Abstract number rings 3 1.3. Dirichlet rings 5
More informationU.C. Berkeley CS276: Cryptography Handout 0.1 Luca Trevisan January, 2009. Notes on Algebra
U.C. Berkeley CS276: Cryptography Handout 0.1 Luca Trevisan January, 2009 Notes on Algebra These notes contain as little theory as possible, and most results are stated without proof. Any introductory
More informationDie ganzen zahlen hat Gott gemacht
Die ganzen zahlen hat Gott gemacht Polynomials with integer values B.Sury A quote attributed to the famous mathematician L.Kronecker is Die Ganzen Zahlen hat Gott gemacht, alles andere ist Menschenwerk.
More informationPYTHAGOREAN TRIPLES KEITH CONRAD
PYTHAGOREAN TRIPLES KEITH CONRAD 1. Introduction A Pythagorean triple is a triple of positive integers (a, b, c) where a + b = c. Examples include (3, 4, 5), (5, 1, 13), and (8, 15, 17). Below is an ancient
More informationEXERCISES FOR THE COURSE MATH 570, FALL 2010
EXERCISES FOR THE COURSE MATH 570, FALL 2010 EYAL Z. GOREN (1) Let G be a group and H Z(G) a subgroup such that G/H is cyclic. Prove that G is abelian. Conclude that every group of order p 2 (p a prime
More informationSubsets of Euclidean domains possessing a unique division algorithm
Subsets of Euclidean domains possessing a unique division algorithm Andrew D. Lewis 2009/03/16 Abstract Subsets of a Euclidean domain are characterised with the following objectives: (1) ensuring uniqueness
More informationElementary Number Theory and Methods of Proof. CSE 215, Foundations of Computer Science Stony Brook University http://www.cs.stonybrook.
Elementary Number Theory and Methods of Proof CSE 215, Foundations of Computer Science Stony Brook University http://www.cs.stonybrook.edu/~cse215 1 Number theory Properties: 2 Properties of integers (whole
More informationminimal polyonomial Example
Minimal Polynomials Definition Let α be an element in GF(p e ). We call the monic polynomial of smallest degree which has coefficients in GF(p) and α as a root, the minimal polyonomial of α. Example: We
More informationSOLVING POLYNOMIAL EQUATIONS
C SOLVING POLYNOMIAL EQUATIONS We will assume in this appendix that you know how to divide polynomials using long division and synthetic division. If you need to review those techniques, refer to an algebra
More informationSUBGROUPS OF CYCLIC GROUPS. 1. Introduction In a group G, we denote the (cyclic) group of powers of some g G by
SUBGROUPS OF CYCLIC GROUPS KEITH CONRAD 1. Introduction In a group G, we denote the (cyclic) group of powers of some g G by g = {g k : k Z}. If G = g, then G itself is cyclic, with g as a generator. Examples
More informationLagrange Interpolation is a method of fitting an equation to a set of points that functions well when there are few points given.
Polynomials (Ch.1) Study Guide by BS, JL, AZ, CC, SH, HL Lagrange Interpolation is a method of fitting an equation to a set of points that functions well when there are few points given. Sasha s method
More informationMATH10040 Chapter 2: Prime and relatively prime numbers
MATH10040 Chapter 2: Prime and relatively prime numbers Recall the basic definition: 1. Prime numbers Definition 1.1. Recall that a positive integer is said to be prime if it has precisely two positive
More informationIntroduction to Modern Algebra
Introduction to Modern Algebra David Joyce Clark University Version 0.0.6, 3 Oct 2008 1 1 Copyright (C) 2008. ii I dedicate this book to my friend and colleague Arthur Chou. Arthur encouraged me to write
More informationAlgebra Unpacked Content For the new Common Core standards that will be effective in all North Carolina schools in the 201213 school year.
This document is designed to help North Carolina educators teach the Common Core (Standard Course of Study). NCDPI staff are continually updating and improving these tools to better serve teachers. Algebra
More information3. Prime and maximal ideals. 3.1. Definitions and Examples.
COMMUTATIVE ALGEBRA 5 3.1. Definitions and Examples. 3. Prime and maximal ideals Definition. An ideal P in a ring A is called prime if P A and if for every pair x, y of elements in A\P we have xy P. Equivalently,
More informationSome Polynomial Theorems. John Kennedy Mathematics Department Santa Monica College 1900 Pico Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90405 rkennedy@ix.netcom.
Some Polynomial Theorems by John Kennedy Mathematics Department Santa Monica College 1900 Pico Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90405 rkennedy@ix.netcom.com This paper contains a collection of 31 theorems, lemmas,
More informationFACTORING AFTER DEDEKIND
FACTORING AFTER DEDEKIND KEITH CONRAD Let K be a number field and p be a prime number. When we factor (p) = po K into prime ideals, say (p) = p e 1 1 peg g, we refer to the data of the e i s, the exponents
More informationTHE FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF ALGEBRA VIA PROPER MAPS
THE FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF ALGEBRA VIA PROPER MAPS KEITH CONRAD 1. Introduction The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra says every nonconstant polynomial with complex coefficients can be factored into linear
More informationCyclotomic Extensions
Chapter 7 Cyclotomic Extensions A cyclotomic extension Q(ζ n ) of the rationals is formed by adjoining a primitive n th root of unity ζ n. In this chapter, we will find an integral basis and calculate
More informationThe Ideal Class Group
Chapter 5 The Ideal Class Group We will use Minkowski theory, which belongs to the general area of geometry of numbers, to gain insight into the ideal class group of a number field. We have already mentioned
More informationAlgebra 3: algorithms in algebra
Algebra 3: algorithms in algebra Hans Sterk 20032004 ii Contents 1 Polynomials, Gröbner bases and Buchberger s algorithm 1 1.1 Introduction............................ 1 1.2 Polynomial rings and systems
More informationPutnam Notes Polynomials and palindromes
Putnam Notes Polynomials and palindromes Polynomials show up one way or another in just about every area of math. You will hardly ever see any math competition without at least one problem explicitly concerning
More informationa 1 x + a 0 =0. (3) ax 2 + bx + c =0. (4)
ROOTS OF POLYNOMIAL EQUATIONS In this unit we discuss polynomial equations. A polynomial in x of degree n, where n 0 is an integer, is an expression of the form P n (x) =a n x n + a n 1 x n 1 + + a 1 x
More information8 Divisibility and prime numbers
8 Divisibility and prime numbers 8.1 Divisibility In this short section we extend the concept of a multiple from the natural numbers to the integers. We also summarize several other terms that express
More information1 Lecture: Integration of rational functions by decomposition
Lecture: Integration of rational functions by decomposition into partial fractions Recognize and integrate basic rational functions, except when the denominator is a power of an irreducible quadratic.
More informationNumber Theory Hungarian Style. Cameron Byerley s interpretation of Csaba Szabó s lectures
Number Theory Hungarian Style Cameron Byerley s interpretation of Csaba Szabó s lectures August 20, 2005 2 0.1 introduction Number theory is a beautiful subject and even cooler when you learn about it
More informationNotes on Factoring. MA 206 Kurt Bryan
The General Approach Notes on Factoring MA 26 Kurt Bryan Suppose I hand you n, a 2 digit integer and tell you that n is composite, with smallest prime factor around 5 digits. Finding a nontrivial factor
More informationFactoring Polynomials
UNIT 11 Factoring Polynomials You can use polynomials to describe framing for art. 396 Unit 11 factoring polynomials A polynomial is an expression that has variables that represent numbers. A number can
More informationAlgebraic Structures II
MAS 305 Algebraic Structures II Notes 12 Autumn 2006 Factorization in integral domains Lemma If a, b, c are elements of an integral domain R and ab = ac then either a = 0 R or b = c. Proof ab = ac a(b
More informationInteger roots of quadratic and cubic polynomials with integer coefficients
Integer roots of quadratic and cubic polynomials with integer coefficients Konstantine Zelator Mathematics, Computer Science and Statistics 212 Ben Franklin Hall Bloomsburg University 400 East Second Street
More information15. Symmetric polynomials
15. Symmetric polynomials 15.1 The theorem 15.2 First examples 15.3 A variant: discriminants 1. The theorem Let S n be the group of permutations of {1,, n}, also called the symmetric group on n things.
More information5. Factoring by the QF method
5. Factoring by the QF method 5.0 Preliminaries 5.1 The QF view of factorability 5.2 Illustration of the QF view of factorability 5.3 The QF approach to factorization 5.4 Alternative factorization by the
More informationMath Review. for the Quantitative Reasoning Measure of the GRE revised General Test
Math Review for the Quantitative Reasoning Measure of the GRE revised General Test www.ets.org Overview This Math Review will familiarize you with the mathematical skills and concepts that are important
More informationContinued Fractions and the Euclidean Algorithm
Continued Fractions and the Euclidean Algorithm Lecture notes prepared for MATH 326, Spring 997 Department of Mathematics and Statistics University at Albany William F Hammond Table of Contents Introduction
More informationMathematics Course 111: Algebra I Part IV: Vector Spaces
Mathematics Course 111: Algebra I Part IV: Vector Spaces D. R. Wilkins Academic Year 19967 9 Vector Spaces A vector space over some field K is an algebraic structure consisting of a set V on which are
More informationRevised Version of Chapter 23. We learned long ago how to solve linear congruences. ax c (mod m)
Chapter 23 Squares Modulo p Revised Version of Chapter 23 We learned long ago how to solve linear congruences ax c (mod m) (see Chapter 8). It s now time to take the plunge and move on to quadratic equations.
More informationa 11 x 1 + a 12 x 2 + + a 1n x n = b 1 a 21 x 1 + a 22 x 2 + + a 2n x n = b 2.
Chapter 1 LINEAR EQUATIONS 1.1 Introduction to linear equations A linear equation in n unknowns x 1, x,, x n is an equation of the form a 1 x 1 + a x + + a n x n = b, where a 1, a,..., a n, b are given
More informationKevin James. MTHSC 412 Section 2.4 Prime Factors and Greatest Comm
MTHSC 412 Section 2.4 Prime Factors and Greatest Common Divisor Greatest Common Divisor Definition Suppose that a, b Z. Then we say that d Z is a greatest common divisor (gcd) of a and b if the following
More informationfg = f g. 3.1.1. Ideals. An ideal of R is a nonempty ksubspace I R closed under multiplication by elements of R:
30 3. RINGS, IDEALS, AND GRÖBNER BASES 3.1. Polynomial rings and ideals The main object of study in this section is a polynomial ring in a finite number of variables R = k[x 1,..., x n ], where k is an
More informationThe cyclotomic polynomials
The cyclotomic polynomials Notes by G.J.O. Jameson 1. The definition and general results We use the notation e(t) = e 2πit. Note that e(n) = 1 for integers n, e(s + t) = e(s)e(t) for all s, t. e( 1 ) =
More informationPrime Numbers and Irreducible Polynomials
Prime Numbers and Irreducible Polynomials M. Ram Murty The similarity between prime numbers and irreducible polynomials has been a dominant theme in the development of number theory and algebraic geometry.
More informationCS 103X: Discrete Structures Homework Assignment 3 Solutions
CS 103X: Discrete Structures Homework Assignment 3 s Exercise 1 (20 points). On wellordering and induction: (a) Prove the induction principle from the wellordering principle. (b) Prove the wellordering
More informationGalois Theory III. 3.1. Splitting fields.
Galois Theory III. 3.1. Splitting fields. We know how to construct a field extension L of a given field K where a given irreducible polynomial P (X) K[X] has a root. We need a field extension of K where
More informationThe van Hoeij Algorithm for Factoring Polynomials
The van Hoeij Algorithm for Factoring Polynomials Jürgen Klüners Abstract In this survey we report about a new algorithm for factoring polynomials due to Mark van Hoeij. The main idea is that the combinatorial
More informationCHAPTER 5. Number Theory. 1. Integers and Division. Discussion
CHAPTER 5 Number Theory 1. Integers and Division 1.1. Divisibility. Definition 1.1.1. Given two integers a and b we say a divides b if there is an integer c such that b = ac. If a divides b, we write a
More informationBasics of Polynomial Theory
3 Basics of Polynomial Theory 3.1 Polynomial Equations In geodesy and geoinformatics, most observations are related to unknowns parameters through equations of algebraic (polynomial) type. In cases where
More informationZeros of a Polynomial Function
Zeros of a Polynomial Function An important consequence of the Factor Theorem is that finding the zeros of a polynomial is really the same thing as factoring it into linear factors. In this section we
More informationCONTINUED FRACTIONS AND FACTORING. Niels Lauritzen
CONTINUED FRACTIONS AND FACTORING Niels Lauritzen ii NIELS LAURITZEN DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY OF AARHUS, DENMARK EMAIL: niels@imf.au.dk URL: http://home.imf.au.dk/niels/ Contents
More information4. CLASSES OF RINGS 4.1. Classes of Rings class operator Aclosed Example 1: product Example 2:
4. CLASSES OF RINGS 4.1. Classes of Rings Normally we associate, with any property, a set of objects that satisfy that property. But problems can arise when we allow sets to be elements of larger sets
More informationINTRODUCTION TO ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY, CLASS 16
INTRODUCTION TO ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY, CLASS 16 RAVI VAKIL Contents 1. Valuation rings (and nonsingular points of curves) 1 1.1. Completions 2 1.2. A big result from commutative algebra 3 Problem sets back.
More information6 EXTENDING ALGEBRA. 6.0 Introduction. 6.1 The cubic equation. Objectives
6 EXTENDING ALGEBRA Chapter 6 Extending Algebra Objectives After studying this chapter you should understand techniques whereby equations of cubic degree and higher can be solved; be able to factorise
More information1 Sets and Set Notation.
LINEAR ALGEBRA MATH 27.6 SPRING 23 (COHEN) LECTURE NOTES Sets and Set Notation. Definition (Naive Definition of a Set). A set is any collection of objects, called the elements of that set. We will most
More informationGröbner Bases and their Applications
Gröbner Bases and their Applications Kaitlyn Moran July 30, 2008 1 Introduction We know from the Hilbert Basis Theorem that any ideal in a polynomial ring over a field is finitely generated [3]. However,
More informationFactorization Algorithms for Polynomials over Finite Fields
Degree Project Factorization Algorithms for Polynomials over Finite Fields Sajid Hanif, Muhammad Imran 20110503 Subject: Mathematics Level: Master Course code: 4MA11E Abstract Integer factorization is
More information1.3 Algebraic Expressions
1.3 Algebraic Expressions A polynomial is an expression of the form: a n x n + a n 1 x n 1 +... + a 2 x 2 + a 1 x + a 0 The numbers a 1, a 2,..., a n are called coefficients. Each of the separate parts,
More informationUnderstanding Basic Calculus
Understanding Basic Calculus S.K. Chung Dedicated to all the people who have helped me in my life. i Preface This book is a revised and expanded version of the lecture notes for Basic Calculus and other
More informationThe Factor Theorem and a corollary of the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra
Math 421 Fall 2010 The Factor Theorem and a corollary of the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra 27 August 2010 Copyright 2006 2010 by Murray Eisenberg. All rights reserved. Prerequisites Mathematica Aside
More information1 if 1 x 0 1 if 0 x 1
Chapter 3 Continuity In this chapter we begin by defining the fundamental notion of continuity for real valued functions of a single real variable. When trying to decide whether a given function is or
More informationWHAT ARE MATHEMATICAL PROOFS AND WHY THEY ARE IMPORTANT?
WHAT ARE MATHEMATICAL PROOFS AND WHY THEY ARE IMPORTANT? introduction Many students seem to have trouble with the notion of a mathematical proof. People that come to a course like Math 216, who certainly
More informationI. GROUPS: BASIC DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES
I GROUPS: BASIC DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES Definition 1: An operation on a set G is a function : G G G Definition 2: A group is a set G which is equipped with an operation and a special element e G, called
More informationLinear Algebra I. Ronald van Luijk, 2012
Linear Algebra I Ronald van Luijk, 2012 With many parts from Linear Algebra I by Michael Stoll, 2007 Contents 1. Vector spaces 3 1.1. Examples 3 1.2. Fields 4 1.3. The field of complex numbers. 6 1.4.
More information