On page 549 in Dummit and Foote is a proposition which states "Every irreducible polynomial over a finite field is separable. A polynomial in $\mathbb{F}_p[x]$ is separable if and only if it is the product of distinct irreducible polynomials in $\mathbb{F}_p[x]$." However, we know that if the derivative of a polynomial $f(x)$ is $0$, then every root is a multiple root, and so $f(x)$ is not separable. Does this mean, then, that any polynomial in $\mathbb{F}_p$ with derivative $0$ is reducible? The reason I ask is because on the next page, the authors state "If $p(x)$ is an irreducible polynomial which is not separable..." But doesn't the proposition above preclude this?

  • $\begingroup$ I don't have Dummit and Foote's book, but I suppose the last sentence either refers to the case where the field is not necessarily finite, or the proposition is not yet proved. $\endgroup$ – Bernard Feb 21 '18 at 16:44
  • $\begingroup$ It says "over a field of characteristic p" $\endgroup$ – ponchan Feb 21 '18 at 16:47
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @ponchan There are infinite fields of characteristic $p$. For instance, $\mathbb{F}_p(t)$, the field of rational functions. $\endgroup$ – Viktor Vaughn Feb 21 '18 at 16:53

Over $K=\Bbb{F}_p$ it does hold that if, for some $f(x)\in K[x]$, we have $f'(x)=0$, then $f$ is reducible. The reason is the following.

If $f'(x)=0$ this means that all the terms in $f(x)$ have degrees that are multiples of $p$. In other words, $$ f(x)=\sum_{i=0}^na_ix^{pi} $$ for some natural number $n$ and some coefficients $a_i\in\Bbb{F}_p$. Two key results then come to the fore:

  • In a commutative ring $R$ of characteristic $p$ we have the formula (also known as Freshman's dream) for all $a,b\in R$: $$(a+b)^p=a^p+b^p.$$
  • For all $a\in\Bbb{F}_p$ we have $a^p=a$ (Little Fermat).

Put together these imply that the above polynomial $f(x)$ $$ f(x)=\sum_{i=0}^na_ix^{pi}=\sum_{i=0}^n(a_ix^{i})^p=\left(\sum_{i=0}^na_ix^i\right)^p $$ is actually the $p$th power of a lower degree polynomial, hence reducible.

The same result holds for other fields $K$ of characteristic $p$ as long as all the elements of $K$ are $p$th powers of some element of $K$ (above it would have been enough to have $a_i=b_i^p$ for some $b_i\in K$). Such fields are called perfect, and whenever $K$ is a perfect field we see that irreducible polynomials over $K$ are necessarily separable.

Therefore we can use as the field $K$ any finite field. This is because the Frobenius automorphism $z\mapsto z^p$ is an injective endomorphism of $K$ (trivial kernel). When $K$ is finite "injectivity $\implies$ surjectivity" and we are done.

It doesn't work as nicely for all fields of characteristic $p$. The textbook counterexample is $K=\Bbb{F}_p(t)$. The polynomial $m(T)=T^p-t$ is irreducible (Eisenstein), but it is not separable. It has a single zero $t^{1/p}$ of multiplicity $p$ in an extension field of $K$.

  • $\begingroup$ I can't understand how the first sentence matches the reasoning that follows. The reasoning basically says that if $f'(x)=0$ then $f$ is reducible, and yet "Over $K=\Bbb{F}_p$ it does hold that if, for some $f(x)\in K[x]$, we have $f'(x)=0$, then $f$ is irreducible."? Did you mean "reducible" maybe? $\endgroup$ – polettix Apr 14 '19 at 17:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @polettix Yes. There was a typo.Thanks. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Apr 14 '19 at 18:40

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.