0
$\begingroup$

I have the following situation and ask myself whether an argument is available to prove the equality of the $2$ following polynomials.

Both polynomials are of degree $n$ and are monic.

The polynomial $p(x)\in\mathbb Z[x]$ is irreducible over $\mathbb Q$.

The other polynomial is $q(x)\in\mathbb R[x]$ according to the information I have. Both have a real number $\alpha\in\mathbb R$ as a common root. So $\alpha$ is algebraic over $\mathbb Q$ of degree $n$. What I know additionally is that $q(x)$ has $n$ different real roots.

If one could prove that $q(x)\in\mathbb Q[x]$ the equality of the polynomials would from my point of view follow as the $p(x)$ is the minimal polynomial of $\alpha$ and so $p(x)$ would divide in $\mathbb Q[x]$ the $q(x)$. The equal degree would then assure the equality of both.

But now I am confused whether one can talk about a splitting field $L=\mathbb Q(\text{list of the $n$ real roots})$ of $q(x)$ over $\mathbb Q$ as I dont know whether the polynomial coefficients are in $\mathbb Q$ or e.g. in some subfield of $L$ defined by irrational radical expressions.

I dont see now whether one could somehow argue hopefully by using pure field theory and its Tower Theorem that the subfield of $L$ containing the coefficients of $q(x)$ must indeed be $\mathbb Q$.

This way I could avoid further search for application of the Galois Theory.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ counterexample: $p(x)=x^2-2$ and $q(x)=(x-\sqrt{2})(x-\sqrt{3})$ $\endgroup$ – Sfarla Jan 29 '16 at 17:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ thats a fine and obvious counterexample. $\endgroup$ – Wolfgang Tintemann Jan 29 '16 at 19:30
1
$\begingroup$

(Edit) To risk error by simplifying: pick $n-1$ distinct random irrationals and use them and $\alpha$ as the roots of $q$. Then $q$ is in $\Bbb{R}[x]$, but it is overwhelmingly unlikely that the random roots are in $\Bbb{Q}[\alpha]$, much less that they are the conjugates of $\alpha$. (/Edit)

Let $t_1, \dots, t_{n-1}$ be $n-1$ $\Bbb{Q}[\alpha]$-independent real transcendentals. ("$\Bbb{Q}[\alpha]$-independent" means none of them are in the extension made by the others, e.g., $t_1 \not \in \Bbb{Q}[\alpha]$ and $t_j \not \in \Bbb{Q}[\alpha, t_1, ,t_2, \dots, t_{j-1}]$ for $j \in [2,n-1]$. There are infinite sequences of these, so no problem getting $n-1$ of them.) Then set $q(x) = (x-\alpha) \prod_{i=1}^{n-1} (x-t_i)$. It's hopeless that any of $q \in \Bbb{Z}[x]$, $q \in \Bbb{Q}[x]$, or $q \in \Bbb{Q}[\alpha,x]$.

(Edit) For $n=2$, try $q(x) = (x - \pi)(x - \alpha) = x^2 -(\pi + \alpha)x + \pi\alpha$. Since $\pi$ is transcendental, it is not in any algebraic extension of $\Bbb{Q}$. The existence of Hamel bases (via AC) allows us to conclude that there are large enough collections of transcendentals to satisfy our needs for any $n$.(/Edit)

All you can actually promise is that $(x-\alpha)$ divides $\gcd(p(x), q(x))$, not that $p(x)$ divides $q(x)$.

$\endgroup$

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.