7
$\begingroup$

Let $u=\frac{x^3}{x+1}\in F(x)$, where $F(x)$ is the field of quotients of $F[x]$ ($F$ some field, $x$ an indeterminate over it). Show that $u$ is transcendental over $F$.

This is an exercise in Hungerford.

I'm having some trouble even grasping the concepts involved. For instance, I know that if $v$ is transc. over $F$, then $F[v]\cong F[x]$. Or that if $v$ is transc. over $F$, then $F[v]\subsetneq F(v)$. But I have no idea how to use this to my advantage.

I'm also confused about what it even means for $u$ as above to be transc. over $F$. Am I going to have to consider "polynomials of polynomials"?

$\endgroup$
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ What you are being asked to show is that $u$ does not satisfy a polynomial with coefficients in $F$. Is this clearer? $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Jan 19 '12 at 8:57
  • $\begingroup$ Sort of? Would long division help? I'm not sure what I'm headed towards, though... That $u$ cannot be written as $\sum c_ix^i$, for some $c_i\in F$? $\endgroup$ – FPP Jan 19 '12 at 9:15
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ No. That there does not exist a relation of the form $\sum c_i u^i = 0$. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Jan 19 '12 at 9:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "... there does not exist a relation of the form $\sum c_iu^i=0$" in which a finite positive number of the $c_i$ are nonzero (to relate back to Qiaochu Yuan's previous comment that $u$ does not satisfy a polynomial with coefficients in $F$.) $\endgroup$ – Dilip Sarwate Jan 19 '12 at 21:00
  • $\begingroup$ @DilipSarwate: I think this is implicit, absent a notion of convergence since addition and multiplication are defined for finite sequences of terms (or equivalently, by induction, as binary operations). $\endgroup$ – Vandermonde Feb 6 '16 at 1:22
7
$\begingroup$

Since this is an important basic issue, I'll add a complementary answer to Bill Dubuque's, and the good comments above: the definition of $u$ shows that $x$ satisfies a cubic equation over $F(u)$, so is algebraic over $F(u)$. If $u$ were algebraic over $F$, then, by transitivity of "algebraic extension", $x$ itself would be algebraic over $F$.

This less-explicit but more-qualitative kind of argument can succeed when explicit computations become burdensome.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

The following way of saying it is a bit more concrete, in case anyone prefers it that way.

If the coefficients $c_k$ in the sum $$ \sum_{k=0}^n c_k u^k $$ are in $F$, then the point is to show that that sum cannot be $0$ unless all of the coefficients are $0$. The sum is $$ \sum_{k=0}^n c_k \left( \frac{x^3}{x+1} \right)^k. $$ If that $=0$ then multiplying both sides by $(x+1)^n$, one concludes $$ \sum_{k=0}^n c_k x^{3k} (x+1)^{n-k} = 0. $$ So a polynomial in $x$ evaluates to $0$. Since $x$ is transcendental, that can't happen unless all of the coefficients are $0$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, I actually do like it better this way. Can you also comment on how one would prove that x is transcendental? $\endgroup$ – Maryam Feb 5 '16 at 22:47
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Maryam : It's transcendental since it's an "indeterminate". Indeterminates are things from which one builds up polynomials by writing $$\sum_{k=0}^n a_k x^k. \tag 1$$ The polynomial $(1)$ is the zero polynomial only if all the coefficients $a_0,\ldots, a_n$ are $0$. If $(1)$ could be the zero polynomial for some nonzero coefficients $a_0,\ldots,a_n$, then $x$ would be algebraic since it would be a zero of that polynomial. But only if there is such a polynomial is $x$ algebraic. Since there is none, $x$ is not algebraic, but transcendental. $\qquad$ $\endgroup$ – Michael Hardy Feb 6 '16 at 0:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MichaelHardy How do we prove that there won't be any positive and negative nonzero terms that cancel? E.g. something like $x+x^2-x-x^2$. $\endgroup$ – yoyostein Jun 10 '16 at 13:50

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.