10
$\begingroup$

I have a problem about a line inside the following proof which is actually from the book Abstract Algebra by Dummit & Foote

Proposition (Eisenstein's Criterion). Let $P$ be a prime ideal in the integral domain $R$ and let $~f(x)=x^n+a_{n-1}x^{n-1}+\dots +a_0$ be a polynomial in $R[x]$ $(n\ge1)$. Suppose $a_{n-1},\dots ,a_0$ are all elements of $P$ and $a_0$ is not an element of $P^2$. Then $f(x)$ is irreducible.

Proof. Suppose $f(x)$ is reducible, say $f(x)=a(x)b(x)$ in $R[x]$, where $a(x),b(x)$ are non-constant polynomials. Reducing this equation modulo $P$ and using the assumptions on the coefficients of $f(x)$ we obtain the equation $x^n=\overline{a(x)b(x)}$ in $(R/P)[x]$, where bar denotes the polynomials with coefficients reduced mod $P$. Since $P$ is prime ideal, $R/P$ is an integral domain, and it follows that both of $\overline{a(x)}$ and $\overline{b(x)}$ have $0$ constant term, i.e, the constant term of both $a(x)$ and $b(x)$ are elements of $P$. But then constant term of $a_0$ of $~f(x)$ as the product of these two would be an element of $P^2$, a contradiction. This completes the proof.

But I cannot understand the line which I have bold in the proof. What I understand is that since $x^n=\overline{a(x)b(x)}$, so comparing the coefficients on both sides we get the product of the constant terms of $~\overline{a(x)}$ and $~\overline{b(x)}$ is zero in $(R/P)[x]$, which is a Integral domain.....then either the constant term of $~\overline{a(x)}=0$ or constant term of $~\overline{b(x)}=0$...But how does both of them is zero?

Please help.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Ahh don't you just "love" Dummit and Foote? They just suffocate you with mind-numbing details and write many trivial things, and then they skip steps like this in proofs which give you a headache and make you wonder if you are missing something as obvious as the other details they provide. $\endgroup$
    – Ovi
    Jul 25, 2018 at 22:49

4 Answers 4

9
$\begingroup$

Suppose $b$ mod $P$ has nonzero constant term. Then $a$ mod $P$ must be identically zero, since otherwise its lowest nonzero coefficient would multiply by the constant term in $b$ mod $P$ to produce a nonzero term of degree less than $n$ in the product $ab$ mod $P$, since $P$ is prime. (It wouldn't be cancelled by anything else since all lower degrees of $a$ mod $P$ are $0$.) But that means $a$ is in $P$, and yet the original polynomial is not in $P$, so this can't happen.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ +1 Thanks, was really struggling with this. $\endgroup$
    – Ovi
    Jul 25, 2018 at 23:01
1
$\begingroup$

Since $R/P$ is a domain, $R/P[x]$ is a domain. In this ring you have $$x^n = \overline{a(x)} \cdot \overline{b(x)}$$ and $\overline{a(x)},\overline{b(x)}$ have degree $<n$.

Call $$\overline{a(x)} = \sum_{k \le i \le K} \overline{a_i} x^i \\ \overline{b(x)}=\sum_{h \le j \le H} \overline{b_j} x^j $$ Then $$x^n = \left( \sum_{k \le i \le K} \overline{a_i} x^i\right) \cdot \left( \sum_{h \le j \le H} \overline{b_j} x^j\right) = \sum_{m=0}^n \left(\sum_{i+j=m} \overline{a_i b_j} \right) x^m$$

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

This can be done by recursion: We now have $a_0b_0\in P$. By the definition of prime ideal, one of $a_0$ and $b_0$ must be in $P$. Suppose $a_0\in P$ but $b_0\notin P.$ Then since $\overline{a(x)}\cdot \overline{b(x)}=\overline{x^n}$. Then $a_1b_0+a_0b_1\in P$. By our assumption, $a_1b_0\in P$ since ideals are closed under subtraction. But $b_0\notin P$. This forces $a_1\in P$. Similarly, $a_0b_2+a_1b_1+a_2b_0\in P$ forces $a_2$ to be in $P$. Proceeding by the same method, then all coefficients of $a(x)$ are in $P$. Finally, we have $b_0+b_1a_{m-1}+\cdots +b_ma_0\in P$ where $m$ is the degree of $a(x)$.Notice that we let $b_i=0$ if $i>\deg b(x)$. Anyway, we know that $a_{m-1},a_{m-2},\cdots,a_0\in P$. Then this forces $b_0\in P$ which contradicts to our assumption.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

One idea could be to use the fraction field of $R/P$ that we can note $F_{R/P}$. We look at $\overline{x}^n=\overline{f(x)}=\overline{a(x)b(x)}= \overline{a(x)} .\overline{b(x)}$ in $F_{R/P}[X]$ and we directly get that : $\overline{a(x)} = \alpha.\overline{x}^m$ and $\overline{b(x)}=\beta. \overline{x}^l$ with $\alpha, \beta \in (F_{R/P})^{\times}$ and $m,l\ge 1$ such that $n=m+l$.

Then write for instance $\alpha = \dfrac{\overline{e}}{\overline{d}}$ with $\overline{d}\neq \overline{0}$. Hence $\overline{d}.\overline{a(x)}=\overline{e}.\overline{x}^m$ with $\overline{d}.\overline{a(x)} \in R/P[X]$.

Now if $b_0$ is the constant term of $a$ we then have identifying and using that $m\ge 1$ that : $\overline{d}.\overline{b_0}= \overline{0}$ and then we deduce that $\overline{b_0}= \overline{0}$. Hence $b_0 \in P$.

We do the same for $c_0$ the constant term of $b$.

We then get that $b_0c_0=a_0 \in P^2$.

$\endgroup$

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.