0
$\begingroup$

The solution of the polynomial $(x−1)(x−2)⋯(x−n)−1$ is irreducible in $\mathbb{Z}\left [ x \right ]$ for all $n≥1$ is in here.

I think it's no problem that do the same thing on $\mathbb{Q\left [ x \right ] }$ and $\mathbb{R\left [ x \right ]}$ and get the same result that the polynomial $(x−1)(x−2)⋯(x−n)−1$ is irreducible.

But my question is on $\mathbb{R\left [ x \right ]}$, the polynomial is continuous in $\mathbb{R}$, let $$f(x):=(x−1)(x−2)⋯(x−n)−1$$ Obviously,$f(1)=-1<0;\;f(n+1)=n!-1>0$, so there is a solution between $0$ and $(n+1)$ which means the polynomial is reducible. There's a contradiction, so which part is wrong. Thank you!

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The irreducible polynomials in $\mathbb{R}[x]$ are of degree $1$ or $2$. Once you have a real root $r$ there is a factor $x-r$. If there is a complex root $r$, then since the coefficients are real the complex conjugate $\overline{r}$ is also a root. Therefore, the polynomial is divisible by $x^2-(r+\overline{r})x+|r|^2$ $\endgroup$
    – NDB
    Commented Jul 15, 2023 at 3:23
  • $\begingroup$ For the irreducibility in $\mathbb{Q}[x]$ you can deduce it from that in $\mathbb{Z}[x]$ using Gauss' lemma $\endgroup$
    – NDB
    Commented Jul 15, 2023 at 3:26
  • $\begingroup$ @NDB Thank you! I completely understand now :) $\endgroup$
    – Zhiwei
    Commented Jul 15, 2023 at 3:36

1 Answer 1

-1
$\begingroup$

The logic doesn't generalize even to $\mathbb{Q}[x]$.

Then for the integers $1\leq k\leq n$, $h(k)=f(k)g(k)=-1$, so $f(k)$ and $g(k)$ must be one of the values $\pm 1$

What if $f(k) = \frac{1}{g(k)}$? This would be entirely permissible in $\mathbb{Q}$ since $k$ is rational and hence $g(k)$ is too, if $g \in \mathbb{Q}[x]$.

Of course, $1/n$ is a non-integer for integers $n$ (except $\pm 1$). Since $g \in \mathbb{Z}[x] \implies g(k) \in \mathbb{Z}$ (or more broadly, the evaluation of a polynomial over a ring, at an element in that ring, gives an element in that ring) this where they draw their conclusion in the linked post: it is clear the product must evaluate to $-1$, and the factors must be integers since they are polynomials over $\mathbb{Z}$ too.

Of course, then, this need not hold for polynomials over $\mathbb{Q}$.

Some playing around in WolframAlpha does suggest irreducibility over $\mathbb{Q}$ regardless for $n \ge 2$, where nontrivial cases are concerned. My instinct is suggesting perhaps the rational root theorem may help in proving that irreducibility holds (i.e. prove that $n!-1$ is not a root for any $n$).

It does not hold over $\mathbb{R}[x]$, as you have seen.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ See Gauss' lemma $\endgroup$
    – NDB
    Commented Jul 15, 2023 at 3:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think your idea only holds over R[x], because in Gauss's lemma — A non-constant polynomial in Z[X] is irreducible in Z[X] if and only if it is both irreducible in Q[X] and primitive in Z[X]. So the polynomial is irreducible in Q[x] since it is irreducible in Z[x] $\endgroup$
    – Zhiwei
    Commented Jul 15, 2023 at 3:30
  • $\begingroup$ @Zhiwei: Your statement is not quite right; you need the polynomial to be non-constant and primitive (the gcd of the coefficients is $1$); but your polynomial is monic, and therefore it is necessarily primitive. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 15, 2023 at 5:58

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .