1
$\begingroup$

I'm following this post about the definition of gcd for a polynomial:

My books defines the gcd of a polynomial like this:

Consider the ideal $J = K[x]\cdot p_1(x)+\cdots + K[x]\cdot p_m(x)$ of $K[x]$ generated by the polynomials $p_1, \cdots, p_m(x)$

If $d(x)\in K[x]$ is such that $J=K[x]\cdot d(x)$ then such properties are valid:

a) $\exists r_1(x), \cdots, r_m(x) \in K[x]$ such that $d(x) = r_1(x)\cdot p_1(x)+\cdots+r_m(x)\cdot p_m(x)$

b) $d(x)$ is a common divisor of $p_1(x),p_2(x),\cdots,p_m(x)$

c) if $d'(x)$ is a common divisor of $p_1(x),p_2(x),\cdots,p_m(x)$ then $d'(x)$ is also a divisor of $d(x)$

Then, the book says that a polynomial satisfying $b)$ and $c)$ is called a gcd of $p_1(x),p_2(x),\cdots,p_m(x)$ in $K[x]$

I understand the intuitive definition of the gcd of a polynomial, but could you explain the case $c$ better? Also, by books says that if $d(x)$ is a gdc, then $a\cdot d(x)$ is also a gcd. Can you give me an example with real polynomials?

For the $a)$ affirmation, my book says that it comes directly from the equality:

$$K[x]\cdot d(x) = K[x]\cdot p_1(x) + \cdots +K[x]\cdot p_m(x)$$

Why is it? I think that it's because I could choose the polynomial $1$ in the left, and any other polynomials in the right, to end up with something like this:

$$1\cdot d(x) = r_1(x)\cdot p_1(x)+\cdots r_m(x)\cdot p_m(x)$$

but how can I know that the polynomial $1$ isindeed in $K[x]$?

The latter ($c$) is the definition of gcd: we find a common divisor $d(x)$ of the set we want to take the gcd, and them if this polynomial has the property that every other common divisor $d'(x)$ of the set also divides it, then $d(x)$ is our common divisor.

It then proves that the domain $A=\mathbb{Z}[x]$ is not a principal ideal domain by considering that if it were we'd have:

$$A\cdot d(x) = A\cdot 2 + A\cdot x $$

which would imply that $d(x)$ is the gcd of $2,x$ but we know that it must be $1$ because $2$ is prime and does not divide $x$. It then says that we cannot have $p(x)$ and $q(x)$ with integer coefficients such that $1 = 2p(x) + xq(x)$ because the independent term of the expression $2p(x)+xq(x)$ is always even. (WHY?????).

Later, the exercise asks me to prove that

$$1 = \gcd(3,x)$$

In the first case we had that $J = K[x]\cdot p(x)$ being an ideal and being generated by a $d(x)$ implied $d(x)$ was the gcd. I can't use the converse here, that is, not having $J$ being generated by $d(x)$ will imply that it does not have gcd (or it is $1$). I also can't just say that the only polynomial that divides $3$ and $x$ is $1$ because I'm asked to prove it. In the proof above, it used the fact that $2$ and $x$ have a gcd of $1$. How can I do it?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Note that your book says that the greatest common divisor of two (or more) polynomials only needs to satisfy $(b)$ and $(c)$, without mentioning $(a)$ at all. And since $(b)$ and $(c)$ do not involve anything more than the simple concept of divisibility, you are allowed to prove that $1 = \gcd(3,x)$ just by showing that $1$ and $-1$ are their only common divisors.


As for your other question, note that every element of $(2,x)$ is of the form $2\cdot p(x) + x\cdot q(x)$, with $p(x),q(x)\in\mathbb{Z}[x]$. The independent term of $x\cdot q(x)$ is clearly $0$ (if $q(x)=\sum_{i=0}^na_ix^i$, then $$x\cdot q(x) = x\cdot\sum_{i=0}^na_ix^i = \sum_{i=0}^na_ix^{i+1} = a_nx^{n+1} + a_{n-1}x^n + \dots +a_ox,$$ which makes the statement pretty obvious). Now, given that the independent term of $2\cdot p(x)$ is even as well (it is twice the independent term of $p(x)$), deducing that every element of the ideal has an even independent term should not be difficult.

From here, showing that $(2,x)$ is not principal is easy as well. If it were principal, there would exist $d(x)\in (2,x)$ such that every element of the ideal can be expressed as a product of $d(x)$ with an element of the ring (i.e. $d(x)$ divides every element of the ideal). In particular, this holds for $2$ and $x$ since they are both elements of $(2,x)$. It is not hard to see why this yields a contradiction, if you keep in mind everything we have said so far.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ but how do I show that $1$ and $-1$ are the only ones? $\endgroup$ – Guerlando OCs Jan 10 '16 at 19:11
  • $\begingroup$ You are working in $\mathbb{Z}[x]$, where $\deg(p(x)\cdot q(x)) = \deg(p(x))+\deg(q(x))$. This tells you that the degree of the divisors of a certain polynomial is less or equal to the degree of the polynomial itself. But $\deg(3) = 0$, so any polynomial that divides it must have degree $0$ as well. Does this help you in seeing what the only divisors of $3$ in $\mathbb{Z}[x]$ are? Once you are there, deducing that $3$ and $x$ have no other common divisors but $1$ and $-1$ is immediate. $\endgroup$ – Labba Jan 10 '16 at 19:24

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.