How to prove that $mathbbZ[X]/gmathbbZ[X]$ is not a field? [duplicate]Nonconstant polynomials do not generate maximal ideals in $mathbb Z[x]$Variation of the universal property for the field of fractionsRing homomorphism inquiry.Proof of Cayley-Hamilton via fieldsProof for maximal ideals in $mathbbZ[x]$Field homomorphism into itselfMapping property of complex fraction fieldLet $phi: R rightarrow S$ be an injective homomorphism between two rings $R$ and $S$. Prove or provide a counterexample:An elementary proof that $k[x,y]/(xy-1)cong k[x]_x$, where $k$ is a fieldRing Homomorphism from $mathbbZ$ to a Field $F$How to how that $mathsfKer(f)=nmathbb Z$ where $n$ is the characteristic of $R$?
What is paid subscription needed for in Mortal Kombat 11?
What is the intuitive meaning of having a linear relationship between the logs of two variables?
Roman Numeral Treatment of Suspensions
How to Reset Passwords on Multiple Websites Easily?
Crossing the line between justified force and brutality
Is it appropriate to ask a job candidate if we can record their interview?
Do the temporary hit points from the Battlerager barbarian's Reckless Abandon stack if I make multiple attacks on my turn?
How did Arya survive the stabbing?
Is there a korbon needed for conversion?
How to pronounce the slash sign
Why escape if the_content isnt?
Flow chart document symbol
Why not increase contact surface when reentering the atmosphere?
Is there a good way to store credentials outside of a password manager?
Would a high gravity rocky planet be guaranteed to have an atmosphere?
What can we do to stop prior company from asking us questions?
Did Dumbledore lie to Harry about how long he had James Potter's invisibility cloak when he was examining it? If so, why?
Hostile work environment after whistle-blowing on coworker and our boss. What do I do?
Why does indent disappear in lists?
Proof of work - lottery approach
Do sorcerers' Subtle Spells require a skill check to be unseen?
How can a function with a hole (removable discontinuity) equal a function with no hole?
Different result between scanning in Epson's "color negative film" mode and scanning in positive -> invert curve in post?
Applicability of Single Responsibility Principle
How to prove that $mathbbZ[X]/gmathbbZ[X]$ is not a field? [duplicate]
Nonconstant polynomials do not generate maximal ideals in $mathbb Z[x]$Variation of the universal property for the field of fractionsRing homomorphism inquiry.Proof of Cayley-Hamilton via fieldsProof for maximal ideals in $mathbbZ[x]$Field homomorphism into itselfMapping property of complex fraction fieldLet $phi: R rightarrow S$ be an injective homomorphism between two rings $R$ and $S$. Prove or provide a counterexample:An elementary proof that $k[x,y]/(xy-1)cong k[x]_x$, where $k$ is a fieldRing Homomorphism from $mathbbZ$ to a Field $F$How to how that $mathsfKer(f)=nmathbb Z$ where $n$ is the characteristic of $R$?
$begingroup$
This question already has an answer here:
Nonconstant polynomials do not generate maximal ideals in $mathbb Z[x]$
4 answers
How to prove that $mathbbZ[X]/gmathbbZ[X]$ is not a field, where $g$ is a non constant polynomial in $mathbbZ[X]$?
(The key is to show that $f : mathbbZ[X]/gmathbbZ[X] to mathbbZ/pmathbbZ$ is not injective.)
edit 1:
Now I'm trying to find the characteristic of the given ring.
Consider the map: $g: mathbbZ to mathbbZ[X]/gmathbbZ[X]$, where $m mapsto 1 + 1 + cdots + 1 $ (m times). Since the $ker f$ is an ideal of $mathbbZ$, it has to be of the form $nmathbbZ$, where $n$ is the characteristic. So I guess the characteristic is $0$...no?
edit 2: Thank you for all the replies below! I looked through the answer but it's a little advanced for me... I figured it out eventually using some more basic ideas and I'll put it here when I get some time...Thanks again!
edit 3:
My solution:
Step 1: Prove there is a $a in mathbbZ$ such that $g(a) neq 0, pm 1$ and let $p$ be a prime number that divides $g(a)$.
Suppose $g(X) = sum_i = 1^na_iX^i$, then $g(X) = 0$ has at most $n$ integer solutions, $p(X) = g(X) -1 = 0$ has at most $n$ integer solutions, and so is $q(X) = g(X)+1 = 0$. There are at most $3n$ integers that satisfy $g(a) = 0,pm1$, but $mathbbZ$ is infinite, so there has to be a $a in mathbbZ$ such that $g(a) neq 0, pm 1$.
Step 2: Prove that there is a unique well-defined surjective morphism of rings $f: mathbbZ[X] to mathbbZ/pmathbbZ$ sending $X$ to $a$ mod $p$ and that it yields a homomorphism of rings $phi: mathbbZ[X]/gmathbbZ[X] to mathbbZ/pmathbbZ$.
Observe that $gmathbbZ[X]$ is in the kernel, so the map factor through $mathbbZ[X]/gmathbbZ[X]$.
Step 3: Show that the resulting map is not injective.
Note that the map $phi$ is injective if and only if $ker f = gmathbbZ[X]$, but actually $gmathbbZ[X] subset ker f$. Alternatively, according to my prof, if the map was injective, $mathbbZ[X]/gmathbbZ[X]$ would identify with a subring of $mathbbZ/pmathbbZ$ so it would have characteristic $p$, contradiction!
Step 4: We use that if $g: K to A$ where $K$ is a field, then $g$ is either injective or the zero map.
Since the above map is not a zero map and we proved that it's not injective, $mathbbZ[X]/gmathbbZ[X]$ can't be a field.
abstract-algebra maximal-and-prime-ideals
$endgroup$
marked as duplicate by user26857
StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
);
);
);
Mar 20 at 10:08
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
This question already has an answer here:
Nonconstant polynomials do not generate maximal ideals in $mathbb Z[x]$
4 answers
How to prove that $mathbbZ[X]/gmathbbZ[X]$ is not a field, where $g$ is a non constant polynomial in $mathbbZ[X]$?
(The key is to show that $f : mathbbZ[X]/gmathbbZ[X] to mathbbZ/pmathbbZ$ is not injective.)
edit 1:
Now I'm trying to find the characteristic of the given ring.
Consider the map: $g: mathbbZ to mathbbZ[X]/gmathbbZ[X]$, where $m mapsto 1 + 1 + cdots + 1 $ (m times). Since the $ker f$ is an ideal of $mathbbZ$, it has to be of the form $nmathbbZ$, where $n$ is the characteristic. So I guess the characteristic is $0$...no?
edit 2: Thank you for all the replies below! I looked through the answer but it's a little advanced for me... I figured it out eventually using some more basic ideas and I'll put it here when I get some time...Thanks again!
edit 3:
My solution:
Step 1: Prove there is a $a in mathbbZ$ such that $g(a) neq 0, pm 1$ and let $p$ be a prime number that divides $g(a)$.
Suppose $g(X) = sum_i = 1^na_iX^i$, then $g(X) = 0$ has at most $n$ integer solutions, $p(X) = g(X) -1 = 0$ has at most $n$ integer solutions, and so is $q(X) = g(X)+1 = 0$. There are at most $3n$ integers that satisfy $g(a) = 0,pm1$, but $mathbbZ$ is infinite, so there has to be a $a in mathbbZ$ such that $g(a) neq 0, pm 1$.
Step 2: Prove that there is a unique well-defined surjective morphism of rings $f: mathbbZ[X] to mathbbZ/pmathbbZ$ sending $X$ to $a$ mod $p$ and that it yields a homomorphism of rings $phi: mathbbZ[X]/gmathbbZ[X] to mathbbZ/pmathbbZ$.
Observe that $gmathbbZ[X]$ is in the kernel, so the map factor through $mathbbZ[X]/gmathbbZ[X]$.
Step 3: Show that the resulting map is not injective.
Note that the map $phi$ is injective if and only if $ker f = gmathbbZ[X]$, but actually $gmathbbZ[X] subset ker f$. Alternatively, according to my prof, if the map was injective, $mathbbZ[X]/gmathbbZ[X]$ would identify with a subring of $mathbbZ/pmathbbZ$ so it would have characteristic $p$, contradiction!
Step 4: We use that if $g: K to A$ where $K$ is a field, then $g$ is either injective or the zero map.
Since the above map is not a zero map and we proved that it's not injective, $mathbbZ[X]/gmathbbZ[X]$ can't be a field.
abstract-algebra maximal-and-prime-ideals
$endgroup$
marked as duplicate by user26857
StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
);
);
);
Mar 20 at 10:08
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
2
$begingroup$
Can you prove that 2 has no multiplicative inverse in that quotient ring?
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Mar 17 at 23:43
$begingroup$
No...My prof said we should try to find the characteristic of the ring $Z[X]/gZ[X]$ first but I have no idea what it looks like...I think I should find a map $phi: mathbbZ[X] to mathbbZ$ first and show that the kernel is $gmathbbZ[X]$ but I'm not sure if I'm on the right track...
$endgroup$
– yunadesu
Mar 17 at 23:47
3
$begingroup$
Have you tried to prove that 2 has no multiplicative inverse?
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Mar 17 at 23:50
4
$begingroup$
It may have a multiplicative inverse. Let $g(x)=2x+3$. Then $2$ has a multiplicative inverse ($x+2$) in the quotient ring.
$endgroup$
– Robert Shore
Mar 18 at 0:00
7
$begingroup$
Since $mathbbZ[x]/gmathbbZ[x]$ is a field if and only if the ideal $gmathbbZ[x]$ is maximal, we can just show that the ideal is properly contained in an ideal that isn't the whole ring $mathbbZ[x]$. Probably the simplest such ideal is to pick an appropriate prime $p in mathbbZ$ so that the ideal generated by both $p$ and $g$ is a proper ideal of $mathbbZ[x]$.
$endgroup$
– JonHales
Mar 18 at 1:47
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
This question already has an answer here:
Nonconstant polynomials do not generate maximal ideals in $mathbb Z[x]$
4 answers
How to prove that $mathbbZ[X]/gmathbbZ[X]$ is not a field, where $g$ is a non constant polynomial in $mathbbZ[X]$?
(The key is to show that $f : mathbbZ[X]/gmathbbZ[X] to mathbbZ/pmathbbZ$ is not injective.)
edit 1:
Now I'm trying to find the characteristic of the given ring.
Consider the map: $g: mathbbZ to mathbbZ[X]/gmathbbZ[X]$, where $m mapsto 1 + 1 + cdots + 1 $ (m times). Since the $ker f$ is an ideal of $mathbbZ$, it has to be of the form $nmathbbZ$, where $n$ is the characteristic. So I guess the characteristic is $0$...no?
edit 2: Thank you for all the replies below! I looked through the answer but it's a little advanced for me... I figured it out eventually using some more basic ideas and I'll put it here when I get some time...Thanks again!
edit 3:
My solution:
Step 1: Prove there is a $a in mathbbZ$ such that $g(a) neq 0, pm 1$ and let $p$ be a prime number that divides $g(a)$.
Suppose $g(X) = sum_i = 1^na_iX^i$, then $g(X) = 0$ has at most $n$ integer solutions, $p(X) = g(X) -1 = 0$ has at most $n$ integer solutions, and so is $q(X) = g(X)+1 = 0$. There are at most $3n$ integers that satisfy $g(a) = 0,pm1$, but $mathbbZ$ is infinite, so there has to be a $a in mathbbZ$ such that $g(a) neq 0, pm 1$.
Step 2: Prove that there is a unique well-defined surjective morphism of rings $f: mathbbZ[X] to mathbbZ/pmathbbZ$ sending $X$ to $a$ mod $p$ and that it yields a homomorphism of rings $phi: mathbbZ[X]/gmathbbZ[X] to mathbbZ/pmathbbZ$.
Observe that $gmathbbZ[X]$ is in the kernel, so the map factor through $mathbbZ[X]/gmathbbZ[X]$.
Step 3: Show that the resulting map is not injective.
Note that the map $phi$ is injective if and only if $ker f = gmathbbZ[X]$, but actually $gmathbbZ[X] subset ker f$. Alternatively, according to my prof, if the map was injective, $mathbbZ[X]/gmathbbZ[X]$ would identify with a subring of $mathbbZ/pmathbbZ$ so it would have characteristic $p$, contradiction!
Step 4: We use that if $g: K to A$ where $K$ is a field, then $g$ is either injective or the zero map.
Since the above map is not a zero map and we proved that it's not injective, $mathbbZ[X]/gmathbbZ[X]$ can't be a field.
abstract-algebra maximal-and-prime-ideals
$endgroup$
This question already has an answer here:
Nonconstant polynomials do not generate maximal ideals in $mathbb Z[x]$
4 answers
How to prove that $mathbbZ[X]/gmathbbZ[X]$ is not a field, where $g$ is a non constant polynomial in $mathbbZ[X]$?
(The key is to show that $f : mathbbZ[X]/gmathbbZ[X] to mathbbZ/pmathbbZ$ is not injective.)
edit 1:
Now I'm trying to find the characteristic of the given ring.
Consider the map: $g: mathbbZ to mathbbZ[X]/gmathbbZ[X]$, where $m mapsto 1 + 1 + cdots + 1 $ (m times). Since the $ker f$ is an ideal of $mathbbZ$, it has to be of the form $nmathbbZ$, where $n$ is the characteristic. So I guess the characteristic is $0$...no?
edit 2: Thank you for all the replies below! I looked through the answer but it's a little advanced for me... I figured it out eventually using some more basic ideas and I'll put it here when I get some time...Thanks again!
edit 3:
My solution:
Step 1: Prove there is a $a in mathbbZ$ such that $g(a) neq 0, pm 1$ and let $p$ be a prime number that divides $g(a)$.
Suppose $g(X) = sum_i = 1^na_iX^i$, then $g(X) = 0$ has at most $n$ integer solutions, $p(X) = g(X) -1 = 0$ has at most $n$ integer solutions, and so is $q(X) = g(X)+1 = 0$. There are at most $3n$ integers that satisfy $g(a) = 0,pm1$, but $mathbbZ$ is infinite, so there has to be a $a in mathbbZ$ such that $g(a) neq 0, pm 1$.
Step 2: Prove that there is a unique well-defined surjective morphism of rings $f: mathbbZ[X] to mathbbZ/pmathbbZ$ sending $X$ to $a$ mod $p$ and that it yields a homomorphism of rings $phi: mathbbZ[X]/gmathbbZ[X] to mathbbZ/pmathbbZ$.
Observe that $gmathbbZ[X]$ is in the kernel, so the map factor through $mathbbZ[X]/gmathbbZ[X]$.
Step 3: Show that the resulting map is not injective.
Note that the map $phi$ is injective if and only if $ker f = gmathbbZ[X]$, but actually $gmathbbZ[X] subset ker f$. Alternatively, according to my prof, if the map was injective, $mathbbZ[X]/gmathbbZ[X]$ would identify with a subring of $mathbbZ/pmathbbZ$ so it would have characteristic $p$, contradiction!
Step 4: We use that if $g: K to A$ where $K$ is a field, then $g$ is either injective or the zero map.
Since the above map is not a zero map and we proved that it's not injective, $mathbbZ[X]/gmathbbZ[X]$ can't be a field.
This question already has an answer here:
Nonconstant polynomials do not generate maximal ideals in $mathbb Z[x]$
4 answers
abstract-algebra maximal-and-prime-ideals
abstract-algebra maximal-and-prime-ideals
edited Mar 21 at 5:34
yunadesu
asked Mar 17 at 23:40
yunadesuyunadesu
293
293
marked as duplicate by user26857
StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
);
);
);
Mar 20 at 10:08
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
marked as duplicate by user26857
StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
);
);
);
Mar 20 at 10:08
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
2
$begingroup$
Can you prove that 2 has no multiplicative inverse in that quotient ring?
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Mar 17 at 23:43
$begingroup$
No...My prof said we should try to find the characteristic of the ring $Z[X]/gZ[X]$ first but I have no idea what it looks like...I think I should find a map $phi: mathbbZ[X] to mathbbZ$ first and show that the kernel is $gmathbbZ[X]$ but I'm not sure if I'm on the right track...
$endgroup$
– yunadesu
Mar 17 at 23:47
3
$begingroup$
Have you tried to prove that 2 has no multiplicative inverse?
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Mar 17 at 23:50
4
$begingroup$
It may have a multiplicative inverse. Let $g(x)=2x+3$. Then $2$ has a multiplicative inverse ($x+2$) in the quotient ring.
$endgroup$
– Robert Shore
Mar 18 at 0:00
7
$begingroup$
Since $mathbbZ[x]/gmathbbZ[x]$ is a field if and only if the ideal $gmathbbZ[x]$ is maximal, we can just show that the ideal is properly contained in an ideal that isn't the whole ring $mathbbZ[x]$. Probably the simplest such ideal is to pick an appropriate prime $p in mathbbZ$ so that the ideal generated by both $p$ and $g$ is a proper ideal of $mathbbZ[x]$.
$endgroup$
– JonHales
Mar 18 at 1:47
|
show 1 more comment
2
$begingroup$
Can you prove that 2 has no multiplicative inverse in that quotient ring?
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Mar 17 at 23:43
$begingroup$
No...My prof said we should try to find the characteristic of the ring $Z[X]/gZ[X]$ first but I have no idea what it looks like...I think I should find a map $phi: mathbbZ[X] to mathbbZ$ first and show that the kernel is $gmathbbZ[X]$ but I'm not sure if I'm on the right track...
$endgroup$
– yunadesu
Mar 17 at 23:47
3
$begingroup$
Have you tried to prove that 2 has no multiplicative inverse?
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Mar 17 at 23:50
4
$begingroup$
It may have a multiplicative inverse. Let $g(x)=2x+3$. Then $2$ has a multiplicative inverse ($x+2$) in the quotient ring.
$endgroup$
– Robert Shore
Mar 18 at 0:00
7
$begingroup$
Since $mathbbZ[x]/gmathbbZ[x]$ is a field if and only if the ideal $gmathbbZ[x]$ is maximal, we can just show that the ideal is properly contained in an ideal that isn't the whole ring $mathbbZ[x]$. Probably the simplest such ideal is to pick an appropriate prime $p in mathbbZ$ so that the ideal generated by both $p$ and $g$ is a proper ideal of $mathbbZ[x]$.
$endgroup$
– JonHales
Mar 18 at 1:47
2
2
$begingroup$
Can you prove that 2 has no multiplicative inverse in that quotient ring?
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Mar 17 at 23:43
$begingroup$
Can you prove that 2 has no multiplicative inverse in that quotient ring?
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Mar 17 at 23:43
$begingroup$
No...My prof said we should try to find the characteristic of the ring $Z[X]/gZ[X]$ first but I have no idea what it looks like...I think I should find a map $phi: mathbbZ[X] to mathbbZ$ first and show that the kernel is $gmathbbZ[X]$ but I'm not sure if I'm on the right track...
$endgroup$
– yunadesu
Mar 17 at 23:47
$begingroup$
No...My prof said we should try to find the characteristic of the ring $Z[X]/gZ[X]$ first but I have no idea what it looks like...I think I should find a map $phi: mathbbZ[X] to mathbbZ$ first and show that the kernel is $gmathbbZ[X]$ but I'm not sure if I'm on the right track...
$endgroup$
– yunadesu
Mar 17 at 23:47
3
3
$begingroup$
Have you tried to prove that 2 has no multiplicative inverse?
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Mar 17 at 23:50
$begingroup$
Have you tried to prove that 2 has no multiplicative inverse?
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Mar 17 at 23:50
4
4
$begingroup$
It may have a multiplicative inverse. Let $g(x)=2x+3$. Then $2$ has a multiplicative inverse ($x+2$) in the quotient ring.
$endgroup$
– Robert Shore
Mar 18 at 0:00
$begingroup$
It may have a multiplicative inverse. Let $g(x)=2x+3$. Then $2$ has a multiplicative inverse ($x+2$) in the quotient ring.
$endgroup$
– Robert Shore
Mar 18 at 0:00
7
7
$begingroup$
Since $mathbbZ[x]/gmathbbZ[x]$ is a field if and only if the ideal $gmathbbZ[x]$ is maximal, we can just show that the ideal is properly contained in an ideal that isn't the whole ring $mathbbZ[x]$. Probably the simplest such ideal is to pick an appropriate prime $p in mathbbZ$ so that the ideal generated by both $p$ and $g$ is a proper ideal of $mathbbZ[x]$.
$endgroup$
– JonHales
Mar 18 at 1:47
$begingroup$
Since $mathbbZ[x]/gmathbbZ[x]$ is a field if and only if the ideal $gmathbbZ[x]$ is maximal, we can just show that the ideal is properly contained in an ideal that isn't the whole ring $mathbbZ[x]$. Probably the simplest such ideal is to pick an appropriate prime $p in mathbbZ$ so that the ideal generated by both $p$ and $g$ is a proper ideal of $mathbbZ[x]$.
$endgroup$
– JonHales
Mar 18 at 1:47
|
show 1 more comment
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
My answer expands on JonHales comment. Suppose your polynomial is $g(x)=a_nx^n + cdots + a_0$, with $a_iinBbbZ$, $a_nne 0$, and $n > 0$. Choose a prime $p$ with $pnmid a_n$. Then mod $p$, $g(x)$ still has degree $n$.
Thus $BbbZ[x]/(g,p)simeq BbbF_p[x]/(g)ne 0$, so $(g,p)$ is a proper ideal of $BbbZ[x]$. Moreover, it properly contains $(g)$, since $(g)cap BbbZ=(0)$. Thus $(g)$ is not maximal, and $BbbZ[x]/(g)$ is not a field.
Edit
In response to the OP's edit, saying that they found this solution a bit advanced, I thought I'd translate the solution into more basic ideas for future readers.
Again, if our polynomial is $g(x)=a_nx^n+cdots + a_0$, then if $p$ is a prime integer with $pnmid a_n$, $p$ is nonzero, but not a unit in $BbbZ[x]/(g)$. Therefore $BbbZ[x]/(g)$ is not a field.
Proof.
By contradiction. Assume $p cdot c(x) equiv 1 pmodg(x)$ for some polynomial $c(x)$. Then $pc(x)-1 = g(x)h(x)$ for some polynomial $h(x)$, so $pc(x) = g(x)h(x)-1$. Write $h(x)=pq(x)+r(x)$, where the coefficients of $r$ are either between $0$ and $p-1$ (inclusive).
Then $$pc(x)=g(x)(pq(x)+r(x))-1=pg(x)q(x) + g(x)r(x)-1,$$
and
$$p(c(x)-g(x)q(x))=g(x)r(x)-1.$$
Now if $r(x)=0$, we have that the left hand side is divisible by $p$, and the right hand side is $-1$, so this is impossible.
On the other hand, if $r(x)ne 0$, $g(x)r(x)$ has positive degree, and it's leading term is $a_nb_m$, where $b_m$ is the leading term of $r(x)$. However $p$ must divide $g(x)r(x)-1$, so it must divide the leading term, so $pmid a_nb_m$. However $pnmid a_n$, and $1le b_mle p-1$, so $pnmid b_m$ either. Thus $pnmid a_nb_m$. Contradiction.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
My answer expands on JonHales comment. Suppose your polynomial is $g(x)=a_nx^n + cdots + a_0$, with $a_iinBbbZ$, $a_nne 0$, and $n > 0$. Choose a prime $p$ with $pnmid a_n$. Then mod $p$, $g(x)$ still has degree $n$.
Thus $BbbZ[x]/(g,p)simeq BbbF_p[x]/(g)ne 0$, so $(g,p)$ is a proper ideal of $BbbZ[x]$. Moreover, it properly contains $(g)$, since $(g)cap BbbZ=(0)$. Thus $(g)$ is not maximal, and $BbbZ[x]/(g)$ is not a field.
Edit
In response to the OP's edit, saying that they found this solution a bit advanced, I thought I'd translate the solution into more basic ideas for future readers.
Again, if our polynomial is $g(x)=a_nx^n+cdots + a_0$, then if $p$ is a prime integer with $pnmid a_n$, $p$ is nonzero, but not a unit in $BbbZ[x]/(g)$. Therefore $BbbZ[x]/(g)$ is not a field.
Proof.
By contradiction. Assume $p cdot c(x) equiv 1 pmodg(x)$ for some polynomial $c(x)$. Then $pc(x)-1 = g(x)h(x)$ for some polynomial $h(x)$, so $pc(x) = g(x)h(x)-1$. Write $h(x)=pq(x)+r(x)$, where the coefficients of $r$ are either between $0$ and $p-1$ (inclusive).
Then $$pc(x)=g(x)(pq(x)+r(x))-1=pg(x)q(x) + g(x)r(x)-1,$$
and
$$p(c(x)-g(x)q(x))=g(x)r(x)-1.$$
Now if $r(x)=0$, we have that the left hand side is divisible by $p$, and the right hand side is $-1$, so this is impossible.
On the other hand, if $r(x)ne 0$, $g(x)r(x)$ has positive degree, and it's leading term is $a_nb_m$, where $b_m$ is the leading term of $r(x)$. However $p$ must divide $g(x)r(x)-1$, so it must divide the leading term, so $pmid a_nb_m$. However $pnmid a_n$, and $1le b_mle p-1$, so $pnmid b_m$ either. Thus $pnmid a_nb_m$. Contradiction.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
My answer expands on JonHales comment. Suppose your polynomial is $g(x)=a_nx^n + cdots + a_0$, with $a_iinBbbZ$, $a_nne 0$, and $n > 0$. Choose a prime $p$ with $pnmid a_n$. Then mod $p$, $g(x)$ still has degree $n$.
Thus $BbbZ[x]/(g,p)simeq BbbF_p[x]/(g)ne 0$, so $(g,p)$ is a proper ideal of $BbbZ[x]$. Moreover, it properly contains $(g)$, since $(g)cap BbbZ=(0)$. Thus $(g)$ is not maximal, and $BbbZ[x]/(g)$ is not a field.
Edit
In response to the OP's edit, saying that they found this solution a bit advanced, I thought I'd translate the solution into more basic ideas for future readers.
Again, if our polynomial is $g(x)=a_nx^n+cdots + a_0$, then if $p$ is a prime integer with $pnmid a_n$, $p$ is nonzero, but not a unit in $BbbZ[x]/(g)$. Therefore $BbbZ[x]/(g)$ is not a field.
Proof.
By contradiction. Assume $p cdot c(x) equiv 1 pmodg(x)$ for some polynomial $c(x)$. Then $pc(x)-1 = g(x)h(x)$ for some polynomial $h(x)$, so $pc(x) = g(x)h(x)-1$. Write $h(x)=pq(x)+r(x)$, where the coefficients of $r$ are either between $0$ and $p-1$ (inclusive).
Then $$pc(x)=g(x)(pq(x)+r(x))-1=pg(x)q(x) + g(x)r(x)-1,$$
and
$$p(c(x)-g(x)q(x))=g(x)r(x)-1.$$
Now if $r(x)=0$, we have that the left hand side is divisible by $p$, and the right hand side is $-1$, so this is impossible.
On the other hand, if $r(x)ne 0$, $g(x)r(x)$ has positive degree, and it's leading term is $a_nb_m$, where $b_m$ is the leading term of $r(x)$. However $p$ must divide $g(x)r(x)-1$, so it must divide the leading term, so $pmid a_nb_m$. However $pnmid a_n$, and $1le b_mle p-1$, so $pnmid b_m$ either. Thus $pnmid a_nb_m$. Contradiction.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
My answer expands on JonHales comment. Suppose your polynomial is $g(x)=a_nx^n + cdots + a_0$, with $a_iinBbbZ$, $a_nne 0$, and $n > 0$. Choose a prime $p$ with $pnmid a_n$. Then mod $p$, $g(x)$ still has degree $n$.
Thus $BbbZ[x]/(g,p)simeq BbbF_p[x]/(g)ne 0$, so $(g,p)$ is a proper ideal of $BbbZ[x]$. Moreover, it properly contains $(g)$, since $(g)cap BbbZ=(0)$. Thus $(g)$ is not maximal, and $BbbZ[x]/(g)$ is not a field.
Edit
In response to the OP's edit, saying that they found this solution a bit advanced, I thought I'd translate the solution into more basic ideas for future readers.
Again, if our polynomial is $g(x)=a_nx^n+cdots + a_0$, then if $p$ is a prime integer with $pnmid a_n$, $p$ is nonzero, but not a unit in $BbbZ[x]/(g)$. Therefore $BbbZ[x]/(g)$ is not a field.
Proof.
By contradiction. Assume $p cdot c(x) equiv 1 pmodg(x)$ for some polynomial $c(x)$. Then $pc(x)-1 = g(x)h(x)$ for some polynomial $h(x)$, so $pc(x) = g(x)h(x)-1$. Write $h(x)=pq(x)+r(x)$, where the coefficients of $r$ are either between $0$ and $p-1$ (inclusive).
Then $$pc(x)=g(x)(pq(x)+r(x))-1=pg(x)q(x) + g(x)r(x)-1,$$
and
$$p(c(x)-g(x)q(x))=g(x)r(x)-1.$$
Now if $r(x)=0$, we have that the left hand side is divisible by $p$, and the right hand side is $-1$, so this is impossible.
On the other hand, if $r(x)ne 0$, $g(x)r(x)$ has positive degree, and it's leading term is $a_nb_m$, where $b_m$ is the leading term of $r(x)$. However $p$ must divide $g(x)r(x)-1$, so it must divide the leading term, so $pmid a_nb_m$. However $pnmid a_n$, and $1le b_mle p-1$, so $pnmid b_m$ either. Thus $pnmid a_nb_m$. Contradiction.
$endgroup$
My answer expands on JonHales comment. Suppose your polynomial is $g(x)=a_nx^n + cdots + a_0$, with $a_iinBbbZ$, $a_nne 0$, and $n > 0$. Choose a prime $p$ with $pnmid a_n$. Then mod $p$, $g(x)$ still has degree $n$.
Thus $BbbZ[x]/(g,p)simeq BbbF_p[x]/(g)ne 0$, so $(g,p)$ is a proper ideal of $BbbZ[x]$. Moreover, it properly contains $(g)$, since $(g)cap BbbZ=(0)$. Thus $(g)$ is not maximal, and $BbbZ[x]/(g)$ is not a field.
Edit
In response to the OP's edit, saying that they found this solution a bit advanced, I thought I'd translate the solution into more basic ideas for future readers.
Again, if our polynomial is $g(x)=a_nx^n+cdots + a_0$, then if $p$ is a prime integer with $pnmid a_n$, $p$ is nonzero, but not a unit in $BbbZ[x]/(g)$. Therefore $BbbZ[x]/(g)$ is not a field.
Proof.
By contradiction. Assume $p cdot c(x) equiv 1 pmodg(x)$ for some polynomial $c(x)$. Then $pc(x)-1 = g(x)h(x)$ for some polynomial $h(x)$, so $pc(x) = g(x)h(x)-1$. Write $h(x)=pq(x)+r(x)$, where the coefficients of $r$ are either between $0$ and $p-1$ (inclusive).
Then $$pc(x)=g(x)(pq(x)+r(x))-1=pg(x)q(x) + g(x)r(x)-1,$$
and
$$p(c(x)-g(x)q(x))=g(x)r(x)-1.$$
Now if $r(x)=0$, we have that the left hand side is divisible by $p$, and the right hand side is $-1$, so this is impossible.
On the other hand, if $r(x)ne 0$, $g(x)r(x)$ has positive degree, and it's leading term is $a_nb_m$, where $b_m$ is the leading term of $r(x)$. However $p$ must divide $g(x)r(x)-1$, so it must divide the leading term, so $pmid a_nb_m$. However $pnmid a_n$, and $1le b_mle p-1$, so $pnmid b_m$ either. Thus $pnmid a_nb_m$. Contradiction.
edited Mar 19 at 0:16
answered Mar 18 at 2:59
jgonjgon
16.1k32143
16.1k32143
add a comment |
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
Can you prove that 2 has no multiplicative inverse in that quotient ring?
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Mar 17 at 23:43
$begingroup$
No...My prof said we should try to find the characteristic of the ring $Z[X]/gZ[X]$ first but I have no idea what it looks like...I think I should find a map $phi: mathbbZ[X] to mathbbZ$ first and show that the kernel is $gmathbbZ[X]$ but I'm not sure if I'm on the right track...
$endgroup$
– yunadesu
Mar 17 at 23:47
3
$begingroup$
Have you tried to prove that 2 has no multiplicative inverse?
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Mar 17 at 23:50
4
$begingroup$
It may have a multiplicative inverse. Let $g(x)=2x+3$. Then $2$ has a multiplicative inverse ($x+2$) in the quotient ring.
$endgroup$
– Robert Shore
Mar 18 at 0:00
7
$begingroup$
Since $mathbbZ[x]/gmathbbZ[x]$ is a field if and only if the ideal $gmathbbZ[x]$ is maximal, we can just show that the ideal is properly contained in an ideal that isn't the whole ring $mathbbZ[x]$. Probably the simplest such ideal is to pick an appropriate prime $p in mathbbZ$ so that the ideal generated by both $p$ and $g$ is a proper ideal of $mathbbZ[x]$.
$endgroup$
– JonHales
Mar 18 at 1:47