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.

Consider the ring $\mathbb Z_4[x]$. Clearly the elements of the form $2f(x)$ are zero divisors.

1. Is it true that they are all the zero divisors? I mean is it true that if $p(x)$ is a zero divisor then it is of the form $$ 2f(x) $$ for some $f(x) \in \mathbb Z_4[x]$? In other words, is the set of zero-divisors exactly the ideal $(2)$?

I believe it is true, but I do not know how to prove it.

Secondly, the elements $1+g(x)$, with $g(x)$ zero divisors, are clearly units: $(1+g(x))^2=1$.

2. Is it true that they are all the units? I mean is it true that if $p(x)\in \mathbb Z_4[x]$ is a unit then it is of the form $$ 1+g(x) $$ for some zero divisor $g(x)$?

share|improve this question
    
Can you translate your questions about $\mathbb{Z}_4[x]$ into questions about $\mathbb{Z}[x]$? –  Hurkyl Sep 13 '12 at 11:16
1  
@Hurkyl What do you mean? Sorry, but I don't understand your question. –  Romeo Sep 13 '12 at 12:03
    
@Romeo Why should $(1+g(x))^2=1$? If $g(x)^2=0$ that would be true, but that doesn't always happen for zero divisors. Do you actually mean to ask about nilpotent elements? –  rschwieb Sep 13 '12 at 12:17
    
@rschwieb If the point 1 is true (and I think so) then zero divisors are all of the form $2f(x)$, which means they are nilpotent. Do you agree? Indeed, if $g(x)=2p(x)$ then $(1+g(x))^2=1+g(x)^2+2g(x)=1$. –  Romeo Sep 13 '12 at 12:24
    
@Romeo Ah, so you're banking on all zero divisors being nilpotent. I see then :) –  rschwieb Sep 13 '12 at 12:31

3 Answers 3

up vote 2 down vote accepted

You're right on both accounts.

1. First notice that if $p(x)$ has zero constant coefficient, say $p(x)=x^mq(x)$, then $p(x)$ is a zero divisor if and only if $q(x)$ is.

So suppose $p(x) = \sum_0^n a_ix^i \in \mathbb{Z}_4[x]$ has an odd coefficient and a nonzero constant coefficient, and let $k \le n$ be least such that $a_k$ is odd. Then all the $a_j$ for $j < k$ are even. If $k=0$ then clearly $p$ is not a zero divisor (why?) so we must have $a_0=2$.

If $q(x) = \sum_0^m b_ix^i \in \mathbb{Z}_4[x]$ is another polynomial (with nonzero constant coefficient, for the same reason as above), then the coefficient of $x^k$ in $p(x)q(x)$ is $$\sum_{i+j=k} a_ib_j$$ If $p(x)q(x)=0$ then we must have $b_0=2$. But then $$\sum_{i+j=k} a_ib_j = 2a_k + \cdots \equiv 2 + \cdots \pmod 4$$ and so $b_{\ell}$ is odd for some $\ell<k$; otherwise the other terms would all disappear and we'd be left with $2$.

But $q$ is a zero divisor with nonzero constant coefficient, and so interchanging the roles of $p$ and $q$ in the above, we see that $a_i$ is odd for some $i<\ell<k$, contradicting minimality of $k$.

2. Certainly if $p(x)q(x)=1$ then their constant coefficients are either both $1$ or both $3$. So $p(x)=1+g(x)$ and $q(x)=1+h(x)$ for some $g,h$ with equal even constant coefficients; and then $g(x)+h(x)+g(x)h(x)=0$.

Let $g(x)=\sum_0^n c_ix^i$ and $h(x)=\sum_0^m d_ix^i$, and let $k$ be least such that at least one of $c_k$ or $d_k$ is odd. [We must have $k \ge 1$.] Then $$c_k + d_k + \sum_{i+j=k} c_id_j = 0$$ We must therefore have $c_k$ and $d_k$ both odd. But $c_0=d_0$ is even, and so $$c_k + d_k + \sum_{i+j=k} c_id_j = c_k+d_k+c_0d_k+c_kd_0 = (1+c_0)(c_k+d_k) \equiv 2 \pmod 4$$ since the rest of the terms in the sum are zero.

This is a contradiction, so $g$ and $h$ must both be divisible by $2$, and so indeed $p(x)=1+g(x)$ where $g$ is a zero divisor.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks for your answer. For point 1, I did almost the same things you did, but I wasn't able to finish. I have 2 questions: you say "If $p(x)$ as odd constant term, then it cannot be a zero divisor". Why? Suppose $a_0=1$ and multiply it by a polynomial $q$ with zero constant term... Secondly, I don't understand what you mean with "a_k=2".. Wasn't $k$ the least integer such that $a_k$ is odd? Thanks again. –  Romeo Sep 13 '12 at 12:33
    
If $p$ has odd constant term, $q(x) = x^{\ell}r(x)$ ($\ell \ge 0$) and $r$ has nonzero constant term, then the coefficient of $x^{\ell}$ in $p(x)q(x)$ is necessarily nonzero, so $p(x)q(x) \ne 0$. As for $a_k=2$ I meant $a_0=2$, I'll correct that now :) –  Clive Newstead Sep 13 '12 at 12:36
    
Thanks for your kind explanations: I got it. Now I'm going on reading your proof. Thanks again. –  Romeo Sep 13 '12 at 12:40
    
Point 1 is great! Very very nice proof, it seems to me correct. Thanks! Now I go on with point 2. –  Romeo Sep 13 '12 at 12:43
    
Also point 2 seems correct to me. I thank you for your help. –  Romeo Sep 13 '12 at 13:01

Both results follow from general characterizations of zero-divisors and units in polynomial rings. It's more insightful (and just as simple) to give the general proofs, then specialize them as below.

$\rm(1)\ $ McCoy's theorem states: $ $ if $\rm\:f\in R[x]\:$ is a zero-divisor then $\rm\:r\,f = 0\:$ for some nonzero $\rm\:r\in R.\:$ Thus $\rm\,f\,$ zero-divisor in $\rm\:\Bbb Z_4[x]\:\Rightarrow\:c\,f = 0\:$ for $\rm\:0\ne c\in \Bbb Z_4,\,$ so in $\rm\:\Bbb Z[x],\,\ 4\:|\:cf,\ 4\nmid c,f\:\Rightarrow\:2\:|\:c,f.\ $

$\rm(2)\ $ It is very easy to prove that $\rm\:f(x)\in R[x]\:$ is a unit iff $\rm\:f(0)\:$ is a unit and all other nonzero coefficients are nilpotent. But the only nilpotent in $\rm\,\Bbb Z_4\,$ is $\,2$.

share|improve this answer

Your first conjecture can be easily deduced by translating the problem to that of $\mathbb{Z}[x]$.

The ring $\mathbb{Z}_4[x]$ is (isomorphic to) the quotient ring $\mathbb{Z}[x] / (4)$, so we can write elements of $\mathbb{Z}_4[x]$ as (equivalence classes of) integer polynomials. The condition to be a zero divisor of $\mathbb{Z}_4[x]$ is

u is a zero divisor if and only if there exists nonzero v such that $uv = 0$

(I'm adopting the convention that 0 is a zero divisor)

Lifting this condition to $\mathbb{Z}[x]$ gives

The equivalence class of u is a zero divisor if and only if there exists $v \not\equiv 0 \pmod 4$ such that $uv \equiv 0 \pmod 4$.

Rephrasing in terms of divisibility, this means the prime factorization of $v$ may not have $2$, but the prime factorization of $uv$ must have at least 2 copies of two. Therefore, the prime factorization of $u$ must have a copy of $2$.

Therefore, if the equivalence class of $u$ is a zero divisor, then $u = 2 g$ for some integer polynomial $g$.

share|improve this answer

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.