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.

So, this is Hungerford problem 9 on page 166. Here's the problem in full:

Let $f(x) = \sum_{i=o}^n a_i x^i \in \mathbb{Z}[x]$. Suppose that for some $k$, $0 < k < n$, and some prime $p$ such that $p \nmid a_n$, $p \nmid a_k$, and $p \mid a_i$ for all $i = 0, \dots, k-1$, but $p^2 \nmid a_0$. Show that $f$ has a factor of degree at least $k$ that is irreducible in $\mathbb{Z}[x]$.

Here's my progress:

If we construct a new polynomial $g$ where $g$ is $\sum_{i=0}^k a_i x^i$ , we know by Eisenstein's criterion that $g$ is irreducible in $\mathbb{Q}[x]$. If we somehow knew that $g$ was irreducible in $\mathbb{Z}[x]$ too (that would follow if $g$ were primitive), then we could say that the smallest thing we could possibly factor out of $f$ that isn't a unit has to be of degree $k$ and that $g$ must be a factor of it. I tried writing $f$ as $C(f) \cdot f_1$ where $C(f)$ is the content of $f$, so that we'd be dealing with a primitive $f_1$ (and of course, the nice things about $g$ don't go away since $p$ doesn't divide every term), but this doesn't necessarily result in $g$ being primitive (right?)!

So, here's where I'm stuck: how can I show I can even factor $f$? How can I show that $g$ is irreducible in $\mathbb{Z}[x]$, whether by showing it's primitive or by some other means?

Thanks so much, everyone!

share|improve this question
1  
"Here's the problem in full:" You seem to have left quite a bit of it out. –  Brandon Carter Dec 7 '11 at 6:17
1  
Is $g$ supposed to be the sum from $0$ to $k$, rather than from $0$ to $n$? –  Arturo Magidin Dec 7 '11 at 6:24
2  
@GottfriedLeibniz: The problem was the use of <. It messes up the parser. –  Arturo Magidin Dec 7 '11 at 6:28
1  
@Arturo: You are correct; I edited quickly without reading. –  Brandon Carter Dec 7 '11 at 6:31
1  
I don't think your approach will work. For one thing, it seems like it would be extremely hard for $g(x)$ to be a factor of $f(x)$! For another, if $f(x)$ is irreducible, then your $g(x)$ will be useless. I don't see how, even if you did know that $g(x)$ is irreducible over $\mathbb{Z}$, you could argue that $g(x)$ is a factor of an irreducible divisor of $f$. For that matter, if that argument held, then why not just factor out the content of $g(x)$ and use the primitive part? No, I don't think this works. –  Arturo Magidin Dec 7 '11 at 6:37
show 10 more comments

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

By induction on $n$.

Write $f(x) = C(f) \cdot f_1(x)$ as you have above. Then $f_1(x)$ is primitive. If $f_1$ is irreducible, then we are done. Otherwise, factor $f_1(x) = g(x)h(x)$. If we write $$g(x) = b_0 + b_1x + \dots + b_s x^s$$ $$h(x) = c_0 + c_1 x + \dots + c_t x^t$$ then $b_0 c_0 = a_0$. Since $p \mid a_0$, $p^2 \nmid a_0$, $p$ must divide exactly one of $b_0, c_0$. WLOG, say $p \mid b_0$. We know $p \mid a_1$, but $a_1 = b_0 c_1 + b_1 c_0$. Since $p \mid b_0$ and $p \nmid c_0$, we must have $p \mid b_1$. Continuing inductively, we get $p \mid b_i$ for all $i < k$. If $s < k$, then we get $p \mid g(x)$, which implies that $p \mid f_1(x)$, contradicting that $f_1$ is primitive. Thus $s \geq k$. Hence $g(x)$ is a (primitive) polynomial of degree less than $n$ satisfying the hypothesis, and so has an irreducible factor of degree $\geq k$. But any irreducible factor of $g(x)$ must be an irreducible factor of $f(x)$, so we are done.

share|improve this answer
    
That makes perfect sense. Great answer! Thank you so much! –  Reeve Dec 7 '11 at 7:23
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.