If $f \in \mathbb{Z}[x]$ is such that $p \mid f(p)$ for all primes $p$, then $x \mid f(x)$ in $\mathbb{Z}[x]$. This follows by writing $f(x) = \sum \limits_{i=0}^d c_i x^i$ and noting that $c_0 \equiv 0$ modulo $p$ for every prime $p$ implies that $c_0 = 0$.

There are perhaps several ways to generalize this to several variables; I am particularly interested in the following. (See the re-reformulation below.)

Let $f \in \mathbb{Z}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ be such that for every set of distinct primes $p_1,\ldots,p_n$, there exists an $i \in \{1,\ldots,n\}$ such that $f(p_1,\ldots,p_n) \equiv 0$ modulo $p_i$. Is it true that $x_1 \cdots x_n$ divides $f(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ in $\mathbb{Z}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$?

Edit: It was pointed out to me that $f(x_1,\ldots,x_n) = x_1$ answers the question above in the negative. I wish to add that $f \in \mathbb{Z}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ should be strictly contained in $\mathbb{Z}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ in the sense that all of the variables are present. Note that $f(x_1,\ldots,x_n) = x_1$ lies in $\mathbb{Z}[x_1]$ for which the answer is proved affirmative above.

Edit$^2$: Apparently $f(x_1,\ldots,x_n) = x_1 (x_1 + \cdots + x_n)$ answers the reformulated question in the negative. For my purposes, the following would suffice.

Let $f \in \mathbb{Z}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ be such that for every set of distinct primes $p_1,\ldots,p_n$, there exists an $i \in \{1,\ldots,n\}$ such that $f(p_1,\ldots,p_n) \equiv 0$ modulo $p_i$. Is it true that there exists an $i \in \{1, \ldots, n\}$ such that $x_i \mid f(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ in $\mathbb{Z}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Is this really what you mean? It seems that the polynomial $f(x_1,\dots,x_n) = x_1$ has this property. $\endgroup$ Nov 18 '11 at 2:49
  • $\begingroup$ @GregMartin This is some sort of degenerate case I missed but that I don't wish to consider. I'll edit the post. Perhaps there are easy examples I've missed in the new formulation, too. Thanks! $\endgroup$ Nov 18 '11 at 3:04
  • $\begingroup$ Don't you still have the example $x_1(x_1+\cdots+x_n)$? $\endgroup$ Nov 18 '11 at 3:28
  • $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson I clearly need to rethink and reformulate this... Thanks for the comments! $\endgroup$ Nov 18 '11 at 3:49
  • $\begingroup$ Hopefully the problem is non-trivial now. $\endgroup$ Nov 18 '11 at 4:51

I think it may be true, and indeed follow from an observation on the one-variable case. If $p$ divides $f(p)$ for infinitely many $p$, then infinitely many $p$ divide $c_0$, so $c_0=0$, so $x$ is a factor of $f(x)$.

Now in the multi-variable case, it folows from the hypothesis that there is some $i$ such that $p_i$ divides $f(p_1,\dots,p_n)$ for infinitely many sets of distinct primes. Write $f$ as a polynomial $g(x_i)$, with coefficients polynomials in the other indeterminates. Then $p$ divides $g(p)$ for infinitely many primes $p$, so $x_i$ is a factor of $g$, hence of $f$.

Incidentally, I don't think there has been any actual use of the primeness of these primes; it looks like it may be good enough to have $k$ dividing $f(k)$ for infinitely many distinct integers $k$.

I hope someone will take a good look at this argument and say whether it holds or whether it has a hole big enough to drive a truck through it.

  • $\begingroup$ Gerry, I agree that there is some $i$ (WLOG $i=1$) such that for infinitely many prime tuples $(p_1,\ldots,p_n)$, $p_i$ divides $f(p_1,\ldots,p_n)$. If we write $f$ as a polynomial in $x_i$ as you suggest, however, this is not the condition that $p$ divides $g(p)$ for infinitely many primes $p$. In what you wrote, $g(p) \in \mathbb{Z}[x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1},x_{i+1},\ldots,x_n]$, and so $p$ divides $g(p)$ would mean division in this polynomial ring. Perhaps you can refine what you said; otherwise I don't think it works. $\endgroup$ Nov 18 '11 at 23:42

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.