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.

How would I have to go about proving that the minimal polynomial $p_\beta$ of a field extension $F\subseteq G$ coincides (modulo the sign) with the characteristic polynomial of the linear mapping $f:F(\beta)\rightarrow F(\beta), \ v \mapsto \beta v$ between the $F$-spaces $F(\beta)$ ?

My attempt was trying to express $f$ in a basis; and since $B:=(1,\beta,\ldots,\beta^{d-1})$, where $d$ is the degree of $p_\beta$, is a basis, this seemed natural; if we assume that $$p_\beta=X^d-a_{d-1}X^{d-1}-\cdots-a_1 X-a_0, $$ for some $a_i\in K$, and compute the characteristic polynomials $c_\beta $ of $f$ with the help of the above basis, we get $$ (-1)^{2d}(-X)^d + (-1)^{2d}a_{d-1}(-X)^{d-1}+(-1)^{2d-1}\beta^{d-1}a_{d-2}(-X)^{d-2}+\cdots+(-1)^{d+2}\beta^2\cdots\beta^{d-1}a_1(-X)+(-1)^{d+1}\beta^1 \beta^2\cdots\beta^{d-1}a_0.$$ Now this doesn't really look like the above $p_\beta$, so either I think I made a mistake (but I double checked) or somehow the $\beta$'s would have to vanish - but I don't know how/why they would do that. Any ideas please ?

share|improve this question
    
Have you heard of the companion matrix? –  wj32 Nov 6 '12 at 19:35
    
@wj32 see my comment below your answer –  user47574 Nov 6 '12 at 22:02

1 Answer 1

up vote 0 down vote accepted

What does the linear map $p_\beta(f)$ look like? You will use the (obvious) fact that if $p_\beta(x)=x^d+a_{d-1}x^{d-1}+\cdots+a_1x+a_0$, then $p_\beta(\beta)=0$.

Edit: Denote the minimal and characteristic polynomials of $f$ by $m_f(x)$ and $c_f(x)$ respectively. $p_\beta(f)$ refers to the linear operator $f^d+a_{d-1}f^{d-1}+\cdots+a_1f+a_0\iota$ where $\iota$ is the identity on $F(\beta)$. Since $f(v)=\beta v$ we have $f^k(v)=\beta^k v$ and therefore $$p_\beta(f)(v)=(\beta^d+a_{d-1}\beta^{d-1}+\cdots+a_1\beta+a_0)v=0.$$ This shows that $m_f(x)$ divides $p_\beta(x)$. But $p_\beta(x)$ is irreducible, so $m_f(x)=p_\beta(x)$. Furthermore, $\deg(m_f(x))=d=\deg(c_f(x))$ and $m_f(x)$ divides $c_f(x)$, so $c_f(x)=m_f(x)=p_\beta(x)$.

My other comment is this: If you write down the matrix of $f$ with respect to your basis $B$, you will get the companion matrix of $p_\beta(x)$. It is well-known that the characteristic polynomial of the companion matrix of some $p(x)$ is just $p(x)$, so that's another way of doing the question. Your result is even clearer/"obvious" if you look at the $F[x]$-module associated with $f$.

share|improve this answer
    
Well, I don't know what $p_\beta(f)$ is - if it were the characteristic polynomial (which is what I have to prove) it were $0$ by Cayley-Hamilton, if that's what you are insinuating. But how does that help me ? I can also see, that there is some connection between $p_\beta$ and the companion matrix, but what does the companion matrix has to do with my $f$ ? To use that matrix I would have to find a suitable basis - but I have only one basis, namely $B$, at my disposition. –  user47574 Nov 6 '12 at 21:06
    
@user47574: I've updated my answer. –  wj32 Nov 7 '12 at 1:53

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.