Let $R$ be a commutative ring, $a_1, ..., a_n$ its elements and

$\phi: R[x_1, ..., x_n] \to R$

defined by

$ \phi(f(x_1, ..., x_n)) = f(a_1, ... ,a_n)$

a ring homomorphism.

Prove: $\ker \phi = (x_1-a_1, ..., x_n-a_n)$

It is obvious that $(x_1 - a_1, ..., x_n -a_n) \subseteq \ker \phi$. I'm not sure how to prove the converse.

At this point I don't know any division algorithms for multivariable polynomials, only for the ones in $R[x]$(and the book from where I taken the exercise doesn't assume the reader to know something beyond basics of rings and ideals, and the division algorithm for $R[x]$). Though I know this could be solved for $i = 1$ by dividing by $x-a$:

Let $f(x) \in \ker \phi$, divide by $x-a: f(x) = q(x)(x-a) + r, f(a) = r = 0$, so $f(x) = q(x)(x-a) \in (x-a)$.

  • $\begingroup$ Hint: $f(x_1,\cdots, x_n)+(x_1-a_1, \cdots, x_n-a_n)=f(a_1,\cdots, a_n)+(x_1-a_1, \cdots, x_n-a_n)$. Also since $(x_1-a_1, \cdots, x_n-a_n)\subset \ker\phi$ we have an induced map $R[x_1, \cdots, x_n]/(x_1-a_1, \cdots, x_n-a_n)\to R$, what is this map? Is it surjective? Was $\phi$ surjective? What can you say about $\ker\phi$ now? $\endgroup$
    – Hamed
    Jul 10, 2016 at 1:16
  • $\begingroup$ You say you can do the $n=1$ case, but really every polynomial ring is a polynomial ring in one variable since $R[x_1, \ldots, x_{n-1}, x_n] = (R[x_1, \ldots, x_{n-1}])[x_n]$. I wonder if you can factor your evaluation map into one-variable evaluation maps and extend your proof... $\endgroup$ Jul 10, 2016 at 5:16
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I found math.stackexchange.com/questions/1352606 $\endgroup$
    – Alphonse
    Feb 7, 2017 at 13:42

2 Answers 2


In problems like this, instead of explicitly showing that every element of the kernel is in $I=(x_1-a_1,\dots,x_n-a_n)$, it is easier to think about the quotient ring $S=R[x_1,\dots,x_n]/I$. Since $I\subseteq\ker(\phi)$, $\phi$ induces a surjective homomorphism $\tilde{\phi}:S\to R$ such that $\phi$ is equal to the composition of $\tilde{\phi}$ with the quotient map $\psi:R[x_1,\dots,x_n]\to S$. Let us now show that $\tilde{\phi}$ is injective, so it is actually an isomorphism and $\ker(\phi)=\ker(\psi)=I$.

To prove this, note that in $S$, $\psi(x_i)=\psi(a_i)$ for each $i$. Since $\psi$ is a homomorphism, it follows that given any polynomial $f(x_1,\dots,x_n)$, $\psi(f(x_1,\dots,x_n))=\psi(f(a_1,\dots,a_n))$. This means that every element of $S$ is actually $\psi(r)$ for some $r\in R$. But for $r\in R$, $\tilde{\phi}(\psi(r))=\phi(r)=r$. In particular, $\tilde{\phi}(\psi(r))=0$ iff $r=0$. It follows that the kernel of $\tilde{\phi}$ consists of only $\psi(0)=0$, so $\tilde{\phi}$ is injective.


This proof is pretty notation-heavy for which I apologize, but the idea is not complicated: a polynomial $f$ is usually written as a Taylor series centered at $(0,\ldots, 0)$. We use the Binomial Theorem to re-center it at $(\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_n)$ and show that the constant term of this series is $f(\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_n)$.

Lemma: Let $R$ be a unital commutative ring and $R[x_1, \ldots, x_n]$ be the $n$-variable polynomial ring over $R$. For $\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_n \in R$, let \begin{align*} \varphi = \text{eval}_{\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_n}: R[x_1, \ldots, x_n] &\to R\\ x_1, \ldots, x_n &\mapsto \alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_n \end{align*} be the evaluation homomorphism. Then $\ker(\varphi) = (x_1-\alpha_1, \ldots, x_n-\alpha_n)$ and the induced map $\overline{\varphi}: R[x_1, \ldots, x_n]/(x_1-\alpha_1, \ldots, x_n-\alpha_n) \to R$ is an isomorphism.

Proof: Certainly $(x_1-\alpha_1, \ldots, x_n-\alpha_n) \subseteq \ker(\varphi)$ so it remains to show the reverse inclusion. Given $f \in \ker(\varphi)$, we may write $f(x_1, \ldots, x_n) = \sum_{\gamma} a_\gamma {x_1}^{\gamma_1} \cdots {x_n}^{\gamma_n}$ where $a_\gamma = 0$ for all but finitely many multi-indices $\gamma$. Writing $x_i = (x_i - \alpha_i) + \alpha_i$ and expanding by the binomial theorem, we have \begin{align*} f(x_1, \ldots, x_n) &= \sum_{\gamma} a_\gamma {x_1}^{\gamma_1} \cdots {x_n}^{\gamma_n} = \sum_{\gamma} a_\gamma ((x_1 -\alpha_1) +\alpha_1)^{\gamma_1} \cdots ((x_n -\alpha_n) +\alpha_n)^{\gamma_n}\\ &= \sum_{\gamma} a_\gamma \left(\sum_{\kappa_1=0}^{\gamma_1} \binom{\gamma_1}{\kappa_1} (x_1 -\alpha_1)^{\kappa_1}\alpha_1^{\gamma_1 - \kappa_1}\right) \cdots \left(\sum_{\kappa_n=0}^{\gamma_n} \binom{\gamma_n}{\kappa_n} (x_n -\alpha_n)^{\kappa_n}\alpha_n^{\gamma_n - \kappa_n}\right)\\ &= \sum_{\gamma} a_\gamma \sum_{\kappa_1=0}^{\gamma_1} \cdots \sum_{\kappa_n=0}^{\gamma_n} \binom{\gamma_1}{\kappa_1} \cdots \binom{\gamma_n}{\kappa_n}\alpha_1^{\gamma_1 - \kappa_1} \cdots\alpha_n^{\gamma_n - \kappa_n} (x_1 -\alpha_1)^{\kappa_1} \cdots (x_n -\alpha_n)^{\kappa_n}\\ &= \sum_{\gamma} a_\gamma \sum_{\kappa} \binom{\gamma_1}{\kappa_1} \cdots \binom{\gamma_n}{\kappa_n}\alpha_1^{\gamma_1 - \kappa_1} \cdots\alpha_n^{\gamma_n - \kappa_n} (x_1 -\alpha_1)^{\kappa_1} \cdots (x_n -\alpha_n)^{\kappa_n}\\ &=\sum_{\kappa} \underbrace{\left(\sum_{\gamma}a_\gamma\binom{\gamma_1}{\kappa_1} \cdots \binom{\gamma_n}{\kappa_n}\alpha_1^{\gamma_1 - \kappa_1} \cdots\alpha_n^{\gamma_n - \kappa_n}\right)}_{b_\kappa} (x_1 -\alpha_1)^{\kappa_1} \cdots (x_n -\alpha_n)^{\kappa_n}\\ &=\sum_{\kappa} b_\kappa (x_1 -\alpha_1)^{\kappa_1} \cdots (x_n -\alpha_n)^{\kappa_n}. \end{align*} Note that the constant term $b_{(0,\ldots, 0)}$ is \begin{align*} b_{(0,\ldots, 0)} = \sum_{\gamma} a_\gamma\binom{\gamma_1}{0} \cdots \binom{\gamma_n}{0}\alpha_1^{\gamma_1} \cdots\alpha_n^{\gamma_n} = f(\alpha_1, \ldots,\alpha_n) = \varphi(f) = 0 \end{align*} since $f \in \ker(\varphi)$. Now all other terms in the sum $\sum_{\kappa} b_\kappa (x_1 -\alpha_1)^{\kappa_1} \cdots (x_n -\alpha_n)^{\kappa_n}$ have a factor of $(x_i - \alpha_i)^{\kappa_i}$ for some $i$ with $\kappa_i \geq 1$, hence belong to $(x_1 - \alpha_1, \ldots, x_n - \alpha_n)$. Thus $f(x_1, \ldots, x_n) = \sum_{\kappa} b_\kappa (x_1 -\alpha_1)^{\kappa_1} \cdots (x_n -\alpha_n)^{\kappa_n} \in (x_1 - \alpha_1, \ldots, x_n - \alpha_n)$.

  • $\begingroup$ Would the downvoter care to comment? $\endgroup$ Jul 28, 2020 at 4:34

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.