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.

I've been thinking on this a few days, but I'm stuck.

Let $k$ be a field, $f(x)$ irreducible in $k[x]$. Why is $f(x)$ also irreducible in $k(t)[x]$, for $t$ an indeterminate?


I write $f(x)=c_0+c_1x+\cdots+c_nx^n$ for $c_i\in k$. Suppose that $f(x)$ is reducible in $k(t)[x]$, so $$ f(x)=(a_0(t)+a_1(t)x+\cdots+a_r(t)x^r)(b_0(t)+b_1(t)x+\cdots+b_s(t)x^s) $$ for $r,s>0$. Since $c_0=a_0(t)b_0(t)$, $a_0(t)$ and $b_0(t)\in k$. Same goes for $a_r(t)$ and $b_s(t)$.

I tried something like letting $b_j(t)$ be the least index such that $b_j(t)\in k$. Then $$ c_j=a_0b_j+a_1b_{j-1}+\cdots \text{ and } c_j-a_0b_j=a_1b_{j-1}+\cdots $$ where $c_j-a_ob_j\in k$, and the right hand side is the sum of polynomials in $k(t)$ of degree at least $1$. I don't see if there is a contradiction to be had. What's the right approach? Thanks.

share|improve this question
1  
If it's no trouble, would the downvoter please explain the downvote? –  yunone Jul 30 '12 at 2:58

4 Answers 4

up vote 8 down vote accepted

If $k$ is infinite you do not need Gauss's lemma (in fact you hardly need any tools at all). Let us start the same way as you started: suppose $f$ admitted a nontrivial factorization in $k(t)[x]$: $$f(x) = (a_0(t) + ... + a_n(t) x^n)(b_0(t) + ... + b_m(t) x^m).$$

Pick $c \in k$ such that the denominators of each $a_i(t)$ and $b_i(t)$ are nonzero when $t = c$ and such that the numerators of $a_n(t), b_n(t)$ are also nonzero (this is always possible iff $k$ is infinite). Then

$$f(x) = (a_0(c) + ... + a_n(c) x^n)(b_0(c) + ... + b_m(c) x^m)$$

is a nontrivial factorization of $f$ in $k[x]$.

(The takeaway lesson here is that a polynomial in $k(t)[x]$ really lies in $k[t][x]$ localized away from finitely many elements of $k[t]$.)

If $k$ is finite you can do something similar but sneakier: pass to the algebraic closure $\bar{k}$ to find $c$ as above. By choosing $c$ more carefully you can deduce that either the $a_i$ are all constant multiples of each other (resp. the $b_i$) or $f$ admits a nontrivial factorization in $\bar{k}[x]$ with an irreducible factor having a Galois orbit larger than the degree of $f$, which is a contradiction.

share|improve this answer
    
:) ............. –  paul garrett Jul 30 '12 at 1:05
    
Thanks Qiaochu, I like this approach. –  yunone Jul 30 '12 at 2:56

Another vierpoint: if $f(x)$ were reducible in $k(t)[x]$, by Gauss' lemma it would be reducible in $k[t][x]$. Thinking of $k(x)[t]$, and perhaps invoking Gauss again, a factorization in $k[t][x]$ could only involve elements of degree $0$ in $k(x)[t]$, that is, elements in $k(x)$. (The relevant special case of Gauss' lemma can be reproven directly here, of course.)

share|improve this answer

Note that $k[x]$ is a UFD, and so $f$ irreducible in $k[x] \implies (f)$ is a prime ideal. Thus $k[x]/(f)$ is an integral domain. Adjoining $t$ gives us $(k[x]/(f))[t]\cong k[t][x]/(f)$ and this is still an integral domain. Localizing at the set $k[t]$ gives $k(t)[x]/(f)$, which is still an integral domain. Thus $(f)$ is a prime ideal of $k(t)[x]$, so $f$ is irreducible in $k(t)[x]$.

share|improve this answer
    
Localizing $k[t]$ at $\{1,t,t^2,\dots\}$ does not give $k(t)$... –  Bruno Joyal Jul 29 '12 at 22:06
    
@Bruno Good point. –  Alex Becker Jul 29 '12 at 22:15
1  
Possibly worth thinking how to make the intuition into a genuine proof... If it needed reiterating: physical intuition is often correct, but the translation into "language" is both a non-trivial task, and also may reveal otherwise-tacit assumptions, and so on. That is, in reality, "proof" is iterative, not all-or-nothing, etc. –  paul garrett Jul 30 '12 at 1:08
1  
Dear Alex, I think that you want to localize at $k[t] \setminus \{0\}$. Regards, –  Matt E Jul 30 '12 at 3:06
1  
@paulgarrett: Dear Paul, This seems like a genuine proof as written to me (modulo the minor typo I pointed out). Is there something I'm missing? Best wishes, –  Matt E Jul 30 '12 at 3:07

By Gauss's lemma, $f$ is irreducible in $k(t)[x]$ if and only if it is irreducible in $k[t][x]$. Moreover, you should prove that $$k[x][t]/(f) \cong (k[x]/(f)) [t].$$

The latter is a domain, so $(f)$ is irreducible in $k[x][t]=k[t][x]$, hence also in $k(t)[x]$.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks Bruno. ${}$ –  yunone Jul 30 '12 at 2:55

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.