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 $R$ be an infinite domain and $p(x), q(x) \in R[x]$ such that $q(x) \neq 0$. If for all but a finitely many $s \in R, q(s)|p(s)$, then is is true that $q(x)|p(x)$ in $R[x]$? This seems a little silly, but I cannot figure out why it should be true or false. What about the case where $q(x)$ is not a constant and $q(x)$ is monic?

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 2 down vote accepted

Let $R=\mathbb{Z}$, let $q(x)=2$ (identically), and let $p(x)=x(x-1)$. Then $q(a)$ divides $p(a)$ for every integer $a$, but $q(x)$ does not divide $p(x)$.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks. Is there a way to close down this post? I feel silly. –  Rankeya Oct 6 '11 at 5:58
1  
@Rankeya: This is not a silly question, no need to feel bad! And we should leave this up in case anyone else comes along with the same question. –  Zev Chonoles Oct 6 '11 at 6:00
    
I was actually trying to show that if $R$ is an integrally closed domain, then so is $R[x]$, and at some point I came across a statement of this nature. Oh well. –  Rankeya Oct 6 '11 at 6:01
3  
More substantial editing will be needed. Let $q(x)=2(x^2+1)$ and $p(x)=x(x-1)(x^2+1)$. –  André Nicolas Oct 6 '11 at 6:26
2  
If $R$ is a field, then $q(s)|p(s)$ for all $s$ such that $q(s) \ne 0$, no matter what $p$ and $q$ are. –  Ted Oct 6 '11 at 6:52

Since $q(x)$ is monic, we can divide $p(x)$ by $q(x)$ in $R[x]$: $$p(x) = q(x) f(x) + r(x)$$ where $f(x), r(x) \in R[x]$ and either $r(x)=0$ or $\deg r < \deg q$. If $r(x)=0$, then $q(x)|p(x)$. Otherwise, since $q(s)|p(s)$ for all but finitely many $s$, then $q(s)|r(s)$ for all but finitely many $s$. In other words, $(q,r)$ satisfy the same hypotheses as the initial $(q,p)$, except now we have the extra condition that $\deg r < \deg q$. So to prove the original statement, we must show that $\deg r < \deg q$ cannot happen if $q(s)|r(s)$ for all but finitely many $s$.

In the case $R=\mathbb{Z}$, this is easy: If $\deg r < \deg q$ then $|r(s)|<|q(s)|$ for sufficiently large $|s|$, so that we cannot have $q(s)|r(s)$ for such $s$.

More generally, if $R$ is a subring of the ring of integers of $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{d})$ where $d<0$, then $R$ is an unbounded, discrete subset of $\mathbb{C}$, so a similar argument works.

On the other hand, as in my comment, if $R$ is a field, then the original statement is false because any polynomials $p$ and $q$ satisfy the hypotheses.

share|improve this answer
    
I think this is quite a satisfactory answer, considering my question stemmed from a problem I was stuck on in Algebraic Number Theory. It would, however, be an interesting question, if my domain $R$ did not have a natural order. –  Rankeya Oct 6 '11 at 17:56
    
It's also true for the ring of integers of any number field, since any counterexample would yield a counterexample in $\mathbb{Z}$ by taking the product of all conjugates of $p$ and and all conjugates of $q$. In fact, so far I can't think of any counterexamples other than fields; if $\deg r < \deg q$ and $q(s)|r(s)$ for most $s$, somehow it looks like the ring would have to have "a lot" of units so it's pretty close to being a field. –  Ted Oct 7 '11 at 4:12

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.