We have the ring $R$ and the polynomial $a=x^3+x+1$ in $R[x]$. I want to check the following statements:

  1. If $R=\mathbb{R}$ then $a$ is irreducible in $\mathbb{R}[x]$.

    This statement is false, since according to Wolfram the polynomial has a real solution, right? But how can we calculate this root without Wolfram, by hand?

  2. If $R=\mathbb{Z}_5$ then $a$ is irreducible in $R[x]$.

    The possible roots are $0,1,2,3,4$. We substitute these in $a$ and we get the following: \begin{align*}&0^3+0+1=1\neq 0\pmod 5 \\ &1^3+1+1=3\neq 0\pmod 5 \\ &2^3+2+1=11\equiv 1\pmod 5\neq 0\pmod 5 \\ &3^3+3+1=31\equiv 1\pmod 5\neq 0\pmod 5 \\ &4^3+4+1=69\equiv 4\pmod 5\neq 0\pmod 5\end{align*} So since none of these elements is a root of $a$, the statement is correct, right?

  3. If $R=\mathbb{C}$ then $a$ is irreducible in $R[x]$.

    This statement is wrong, because from the first statement we have that $a$ is reducible in $\mathbb{R}[x]$, and so it is also in $\mathbb{C}[x]$. Is this correct?

  4. If $R=\mathbb{Q}$ then $a$ is not irreducible in $R[x]$.

    Since this is a cubic polynomial, it is reducible if and only if it has roots. By the rational root test, the only possible rational roots are $\pm 1$. Since neither of these is a root, it follows that $a$ is irreducible over $\mathbb{Q}$, right?

  5. If $R=\mathbb{C}$ then $a$ has no root in $R$.

    This statement is wrong, since from statemenet 3 we have that $a$ is reducible in $\mathbb{C}[x]$ and so it has roots in $\mathbb{C}$, or not?


2 Answers 2


Let's let aside the five element field, for the moment.

Cardan's formula for the roots of the polynomial $x^3+px+q$ require to compute $$ \Delta=\frac{p^3}{27}+\frac{q^2}{4} $$ In your case $$ \Delta=\frac{1}{27}+\frac{1}{4}>0 $$ so the polynomial has a single real root, precisely $$ r=\sqrt[3]{-\frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{\Delta}}+\sqrt[3]{-\frac{1}{2}-\sqrt{\Delta}} $$ This shows that $a$ is reducible over $\mathbb{R}$. Of course it is reducible over $\mathbb{C}$ and has three complex roots that you can, in principle, compute by factoring out $x-r$.

The polynomial is, however, irreducible over $\mathbb{Q}$, because the only possible rational roots are $1$ and $-1$, which aren't roots by direct substitution.

Let $F$ be a field.

Theorem. A polynomial $f(x)\in F[x]$ of degree $2$ or $3$ is irreducible if and only if it has no roots in $F$.

Proof. If $f(x)$ has a root $r$, then it is divisible by $x-r$, so it is reducible. If $f(x)$ is reducible, then an irreducible factor must have degree $1$ (just count the degrees). QED

This can be applied to the case $\mathbb{Z}_5$: no element is a root, so the polynomial is irreducible.

Important note. The above criterion does not extend to polynomials of degree $>3$.

Over the reals there is a simpler criterion, instead of considering Cardan's formula.

Theorem. A polynomial of odd degree in $\mathbb{R}[x]$ has at least a real root.

This follows from continuity of polynomials as functions and the fact that the limit of a monic polynomial of odd degree at $-\infty$ is $-\infty$ and the limit at $\infty$ is $\infty$. The intermediate value theorem allows us to conclude.

If you know that $\mathbb{C}$ is algebraically closed, you can also classify the irreducible polynomials over $\mathbb{R}$: a polynomial in $\mathbb{R}[x]$ is irreducible if and only if it has degree $1$ or has degree $2$ and negative discriminant.

  1. Notice that the polynomial is of odd degree, thus it must have a zero by the intermediate value theorem.
  2. Yes, you are correct.
  3. Follows from 1.
  4. Indeed you are right.
  5. Follows from 1.
  • $\begingroup$ 1. Why does it hold that a polynomial of odd degree must have a zero? Could you explain it further to me? $\endgroup$
    – Mary Star
    Aug 9, 2018 at 8:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Sure: 1. Any polynomial function is smooth 2. If the degree is odd, then $\lim_{x\to+\infty}p(x)=+\infty$ and $\lim_{x\to-\infty}p(x)=-\infty$. 3. Thus by the intermediate value theorem any value between $-\infty$ and $+\infty$ must be attained (at least once). In particular the value zero. $\endgroup$
    – b00n heT
    Aug 9, 2018 at 8:55
  • $\begingroup$ I understand it now! Thanks for explaining!! Does the statements 3 and 5 follow from 1 as I wrote above? $\endgroup$
    – Mary Star
    Aug 9, 2018 at 9:00
  • $\begingroup$ Yes and yes. Once you have reducibility over a smaller field, reducibility over a larger field is immediate. Same goes for roots. $\endgroup$
    – b00n heT
    Aug 9, 2018 at 9:33
  • $\begingroup$ Ah ok!! Thank you!! So, the correct statement is the second one, right? $\endgroup$
    – Mary Star
    Aug 9, 2018 at 9:40

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.