7
$\begingroup$

Let $A$ be a ring and let $A[x]$ be the ring of polynomials in an indeterminate $x,$ with coefficients in $A.$ Let $f=a_0 + a_1x+\cdots+a_nx^n \in A[x].$ $f$ is said to be primitive if $(a_0,a_1,\ldots,a_n)=(1).$

Prove that if $f,g\in A[x],$ then $f$ and $g$ are primitive $\Rightarrow$ $fg$ is primitive.

I know Gauss lemma holds true for UFDs, but in this case it isn't required $A$ to be UFD: is it possible to drop the assumption, or is some hypothesis missing here?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I am self-studying AM commutative algebra, and I am NOW stuck at the same part of the same exercise. :) $\endgroup$ – Amr Feb 24 '14 at 9:53
  • $\begingroup$ I read on wikipedia that it is possible to do that if we use the defintion of primitive as in AM's book. I did not look at the proof though. They call this property comaximal instead of primitive $\endgroup$ – Amr Feb 24 '14 at 9:54
  • $\begingroup$ As a hint (Which I am still trying to make it work up till now): Prove the theorem in the case deg(f),deg(g)=1 $\endgroup$ – Amr Feb 24 '14 at 9:57
  • $\begingroup$ I believe that main motto of gauss lemma is to prove that $R$ is a U.F.D then so is $R[x]$.. the point of statement product of primitive polynomials is primitive is only intermediate result... So, I suggest you to think of gauss lemma as that and for the matter of primitive polynomial statement you can very well make use of answer given below.... $\endgroup$ – user87543 Feb 24 '14 at 10:41
7
$\begingroup$

Assume that $fg$ is not primitive. Then the ideal of coefficients of $fg$ is contained in a maximal one, say $\mathfrak m$. In $(A/\mathfrak m)[x]$ we have $f\ne 0$ and $g\ne 0$, so $fg\ne 0$, a contradiction.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

There is an argument which provides explicit $A$-linear combinations equalling $1$, given witnesses to the primitivity of $f$ and $g$ (that is, coefficients $A_0, A_1, \ldots, A_n \in A$ satisfying $A_0a_0 + \cdots + A_na_n = 1$ for $f$, and likewise for $g$).

We proceed by induction on $n+m$. Let the ideal of coefficients of $fg$ be denoted $I_{n,m}$. Let $a_0, \cdots,a_n$ denote the coefficients of $f$, and let $b_0,\cdots,b_m$ denote the coefficients of $g$.

Now, $I_{n,m} = (a_0b_0,a_0b_1 + a_1b_0, \cdots) \subseteq (a_0) + (a_1b_0,a_1b_1 + a_2b_0, \cdots) = (a_0) + I_{n-1,m}$, where $I_{n-1,m}$ is the ideal $(a_1b_0,a_1b_1 + a_2b_0, \cdots)$.

Likewise, $I \subseteq (b_0) + (a_0b_1,a_0b_2 + a_1b_1, \cdots) = (b_0) + I_{n,m-1}$.

Note that $((a_0) + I_{n-1,m})((b_0) + I_{n,m-1}) = ((a_0) + I_{n,m})((b_0) + I_{n,m}) \subseteq I_{n,m}$.

But over the ring $A/(a_0)$, the polynomials $a_1 + a_2x + \cdots + a_m x^{m-1}$ and $g$ are primitive. The ideal $I_{n-1,m}$ is generated by the coefficients of the products of these two polynomials. Thus, by the inductive hypothesis, considering $I_{n-1,m}$ over the ring $A/(a_0)$, we get an $A$-linear combination of elements of $I_{n-1,m}$ equal to $1$ up to an element of $(a_0)$. Similarly we get an $A$-linear combination of elements of $I_{n,m-1}$ equal to $1$ up to an element of $(b_0)$.

Putting the $1$ on one side for each expression, then multiplying them together, gives us what we want. The exact element of $(a_0)$ is found by using the witness of $f$ in the form $A_1a_1 + \cdots + A_na_n = 1 - A_0a_0$ for the inductive step.

The base case is trivial. The calculations get tedious very quickly for larger $n,m$. The expressions found by this argument do not have coefficients of lowest-possible degree in the $a_i$.

Hence Zorn's lemma (for a maximal ideal containing $I_{n,m}$) is not necessary, although that gives the 'quickest' proof.

$\endgroup$

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.