Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Let $f = a_0 + a_1 t + \dotsc + a_n t^n$ be a polynomial over some nontrivial, possibly noncommutative ring $R$. When is $f$ invertible in $R[t]$?

When $R$ is commutative, the answer is well-known: $a_0$ is a unit and $a_1,\dotsc,a_n$ are nilpotent. There are direct element proofs for this, but there is also very nice proof which reduces the claim to integral domains $R$ by using that the radical of $R$ is the intersection of all prime ideals of $R$.

What is known about the noncommutative case? Clearly $a_0$ has to be a unit (apply the homomorphism $t \mapsto 0$). Since $a_0^{-1} f$ is invertible iff $f$ is invertible, we may therefore assume that $a_0 = 1$. If $f = 1 + a_i t^i$ for some $i$, it is still true that $f$ is a unit iff $a_i$ is nilpotent.

share|improve this question
1  
I am not enthusiastic about the possibility of a simple answer. Consider the case $R = \mathcal{M}_n(F)$ for $F$ a field; we need the determinant of $f$ to be invertible (as a matrix of elements of $F[t]$) and this doesn't seem like an easy condition to generalize. –  Qiaochu Yuan May 21 '12 at 19:15
    
Alright. I agree that this somehow shows that there is no simple answer. But perhaps at least some sufficient conditions can be found. –  Martin Brandenburg May 21 '12 at 20:19
    
It might be true that $a_n$ needs to be nilpotent. –  Qiaochu Yuan May 21 '12 at 20:54
    
Martin, @Qiaochu Yuan: Is the claim still true when $f\in R[x_i; i\!\in\!I]$ (i.e. $f$ has several variables) and $R$ is commutative unital? –  Leon Lampret Apr 5 '13 at 18:16
    
@Leon: which claim? Perhaps you should ask this as a separate question. –  Qiaochu Yuan Apr 5 '13 at 20:47
show 1 more comment

1 Answer

up vote 2 down vote accepted

An expansion of my comment. No condition exists which can be stated only in terms of the $a_i$ separately and which is invariant under conjugation. To see this, take $R = \mathcal{M}_2(\mathbb{Q})$ and $$a_0 = I, a_1 = \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 1 \\\ 1 & -1 \end{array} \right], a_2 = I, a_3 = \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0 \\\ 1 & 0 \end{array} \right].$$

Then $$a_0 + a_1 t + a_2 t^2 + a_3 t^3 = \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 1 + t + t^2 & t \\\ t + t^3 & 1 - t + t^2 \end{array} \right]$$

has determinant $1$ and so is invertible in $R[t]$. (And $a_1, a_2$ are not nilpotent!) However, letting $$b_3 = \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0 \\\ -1 & 0 \end{array} \right]$$

which is conjugate to $a_3$ we have $$a_0 + a_1 t + a_2 t^2 + b_3 t^3 = \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 1 + t + t^2 & t \\\ t - t^3 & 1 - t + t^2 \end{array} \right]$$

which has non-invertible determinant.

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you. This convinces me that there won't be any nice criterion. –  Martin Brandenburg Oct 25 '12 at 8:26
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.