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 am very new to field theory and I am trying to prove that if $F$ is a field and $R \in F(x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n):=\{ PQ^{-1} : P,Q \in F[x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n] \}$ is nonconstant, then $R$ is transcendental over $F$.

Suppose not. Then we choose a polynomial $A=a_0+a_1x+\ldots+a_kx^k$ such that $A(R)= 0$. I want to say something along the lines of $A(R)\in F(x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n)$ and has finite degree, so it can't have too many roots. But then $A(R)=0$ for all $(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ so it does have too many roots.

If $F$ were infinite I can imagine that this works, though I don't know how to formulate it. But I have no idea what to do if $F$ is finite, so perhaps there is just a better way of doing it?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Suppose $R$ is non-constant and write $R=P/Q$ with $P, Q\in F[x_1,x_2,...,x_n]$, $Q\ne 0$ and $P, Q$ coprime (we have to know that $F[x_1,x_2,...,x_n]$ is a UFD). Then $A(R)=0$ implies
$$ a_kP^k+a_{k-1}P^{k-1}Q+\cdots + a_0Q^k=0$$ or $$(a_kP^{k-1}+a_{k-1}P^{k-2}Q+...+a_1Q^{k-1})P=-a_0Q^k.$$ Can you conclude now ?

share|improve this answer
    
I've stared at this for 20 mins now and I think I am on the right track. Is this correct? This is a UFD, so because the right side contains a multiple of $Q$, the left side must contain a multiple of $Q$. But $P,Q$ are coprime so this means that $a_kP^{k-1} + \ldots a_1Q^{k-1}$ is a multiple of $Q$. So $$mQ = a_kP^{k-1}+a_{k-1}P^{k-2}Q+\ldots+a_1Q^{k-1}$$ for some $m$ which tells me that $$Q(m-(a_{k-1}P^{k-2}+\ldots+a_1Q^{k-2})) = a_kP^{k-1}$$ which says that $P$ must be a multiple of $Q$, contradiction. –  nullUser Nov 14 '11 at 22:57
    
Yes. But $Q$ is allowed to be a constant. So you also need the divisibility $P|Q$ which is true because $P$ divides the lhs of the my second displayed formula. –  user18119 Nov 14 '11 at 23:12
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.