8

Given a field $K$ and $p(x)\in K[x]$. Then the following conditions are equivalent:

a) $p(x)$ is irreducible over $K$.

b) $J = \langle p(x)\rangle$ is a maximal ideal in $K[x]$.

c) $K[x]/J$ is a field, where $J=\langle p(x)\rangle$.

My book proves $a\implies b$ as follows:

Since the degree of $p(x)$ is greater than or equal to $1$, we have that $J\neq K[x]$ (why the degree?).

If $I=\langle h(x)\rangle$ is an ideal of $K[x]$ such that $I$ contains $J$, let's prove that $J$ contains $I$. For that look at the following:

$$p(x)\in \langle p(x)\rangle \subseteq \langle h(x)\rangle \implies p(x) = g(x)h(x)$$ for some $g\in K[x]$. Since $p(x)$ is irreducible, we must have:

$$g(x) = a\in K - \{0\}$$ or $$h(x) = b\in K - \{0\}.$$

If $g(x)=a\neq 0$ we have $h(x) = a^{-1}\cdot p(x)\in J$ (because $h(x)$ is now $p(x)$ with some constant), and therefore $I$ is contained in $J$, so we have $I=J$, therefore $J$ is maximal ideal of $K[x]$.

Now, an unexpected proof of $a\implies c$ appears in the middle of this proof. If we consider the case $h(x)=b\neq 0$ we have (and this part I didn't understand) $I = \langle h(x)\rangle = K[x]$ and this proves $a\implies c$. I think I didn't understand this part because I'm having trouble visualizing $K[x]/J$ where $J = \langle p(x)\rangle$.

In another example, the book actually computes the quotient $A/I$ where $A = \mathbb{R}[x]$ and $I = \langle x^2+1\rangle$. It uses the theorem above to say that $L = A/I$ is a field since $x^2+1$ is irreducible over $K[x]$ (shouldn't it be $\mathbb{R}[x]$?). Then, it computes $L$ as follows: $$p(x) = q(x)(x^2+1)+r(x)$$

where $r(x) = bx+a$.

It then takes $p(x)\bmod I$ which gives the following:

$p(x) = q(x)(x^2+1)+r(x)=r(x)= bx + a$ (everything above is with that bar at the top but I don't know how to write it in LaTeX). Then, the book simply says that $L = \{bx + a: a,b \in \mathbb{R}\}$. Why is it that $L$ is the $p(x) \bmod I$? What am I missing about quotient rings? Can somebody clarify it for me?

Poperton
  • 6,594

2 Answers2

9

There is a more general and perhaps cleaner approach. Let $A$ be a principal ideal domain, that is, a commutative domain all whose ideals are principal. Since $k[X]$ is Euclidean for $k$ a field, it is manifestly principal. It suffices we show that for $A$ a principal ideal domain, the following are equivalent:

$(1)$ The element $p\in A$ is irreducible.

$(2)$ The ideal $pA=(p)$ is maximal.

$(3)$ The quotient $A/pA$ is a field.

Suppose that $(1)$ holds, and that $(a)$ is an ideal containing $(p)$. This means, in particular, that $p=ab$ for some $b\in A$. Since $p$ is irreducible, this means that either $a$ or $b$ is a unit. In the first case $(a)=A$, and in the second case $(p)=(a)$, which proves $(p)$ is maximal. Suppose now that $(2)$ holds. Then $A/pA$ is a commutative ring with only two ideals, since $pA$ is maximal, so it is a field. The converse is again easy to see from the correspondence of ideals between a ring and its quotient. It suffices then to prove that $(2)$ implies $(1)$. Now recall that principal ideal domains are unique factorization domains, and in such rings, irreducible and prime elements coincide. If $(p)$ is maximal, it is certainly prime, so it suffices to show by the remark above that $(p)$ a prime ideal implies $p$ is a prime element. Indeed, suppose that $p$ divides $ab$, so that $ab$ is in $(p)$, say $ab=pq$. Since $(p)$ is prime, either $a$ or $b$ lies in $(p)$. This means precisely that $p$ divides $a$ or $b$, so indeed $p$ is prime, and thus irreducible.

Pedro
  • 125,149
  • 19
  • 236
  • 403
4

There are several questions in your post.

  1. If the degree of $p(x)$ is greater than 1, then every nonzero element in $K[x]p(x)$ has degree bigger than 1 and therefore it cannot be the whole ring (doesn't contain polynomials of degree < $\deg(p(x))$).
  2. If $h(x)\equiv c\neq 0$ is a constant polynomial, then it is invertible, so that the ideal $I=\langle h\rangle$ is everything. This is ok, because by maximality of the ideal you want to show that every ideal that contains $J$ is either $J$ or everything. I'm not sure how this proves $a\Rightarrow c$. There is another step there which states that if $J$ is maximal, then in $K[x]/J$ there are no nontrivial ideals, which means that it is a field.
  3. $K[x]$ should be $\mathbb{R}[x]$, but maybe he just wanted to keep the notations from the theorem.
  4. Finally, the set of representatives to the cosets of $p(x)K[x]$ in $K[x]$ can be chosen to be all the polynomials of degree $<\deg(p(x))$. For example, in $\mathbb{C}$ we have elements of the form $a+bi$ where $i$ is just the image of $x$ from $\mathbb{R}[x]/x^2+1$, so these are exactly polynomials of degree <2. EDIT: In general, if our ideal is $\langle p(x)\rangle$ then every polynomial $h(x)$ can be divided by $p(x)$ (with residue) and we get the equation $h(x)=p(x)q(x)+r(x)$ where $r(x)\equiv 0$ or $\deg(r)<\deg(p)$. This means that either $h(x)$ is divisible by $p$ (so it belong to the coset $0+\langle p(x)\rangle$), or it has in its coset a polynomial $r(x)$ with a degree smaller than the degree of $p(x)$. Therefore, the set of all cosets is exactly $\{r(x)+\langle p(x)\rangle \mid \deg(r)<\deg(p) \}$ (where we think of $\deg(0)=-\infty <\deg(p)$ for convenience).

One more thing, bar in LaTeX is just \bar{} or \overline{} which I think is better for longer expressions $\bar{x}, \overline{x+1}$.

user26857
  • 53,190
Ofir
  • 8,145
  • what do you mean, in $3$ with "can be chosen to be"? I'm following the original definition of a quotient group. Why can't I just calculate like I learned? What's a set of representatives? – Poperton Dec 30 '15 at 06:42
  • @GuerlandoOCs The quotient ring\group is just a set of cosets, which are sets in themselves. Usually we choose one element from each coset to represent this coset, and we call these elements the set of representative. For example, in the quotient $\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$ the standard representatives are ${0,1,...,n-1}$ where $k$ is the representative of the coset $k+n\mathbb{Z}$. – Ofir Dec 30 '15 at 08:52
  • Nice, I think I understood. But why they "can be chosen to be all the polynomials of $degree <deg(p(x))<deg(p(x))$."? I think I must visualize the cosets first to have an idea of how they'll look. Isn't it the set $p(x)h(x)+q(x)$ for $p,q\in K[x]$? – Poperton Dec 30 '15 at 14:14
  • @GuerlandoOCs I edited part (4) – Ofir Dec 30 '15 at 19:44
  • what do you mean by $<p(x)>$? – Poperton Dec 31 '15 at 12:23
  • also, is ${r(x)+<p(x)>∣deg(r)<deg(p)} = K[x]$? sorry I can't understand – Poperton Dec 31 '15 at 12:28
  • @GuerlandoOCs The expression $<p(x)>$ means the ideal generated by $p(x)$, or in other words $<p(x)>=p(x)K[x]$. The expressions $r(x)+<p(x)>$ is the coset of $p(x)K[x]$ which contains $r(x)$, and ${r(x)+<p(x)> \mid \deg(r)<\deg(p)} $ is the set of cosets, i.e. the quotient ring. – Ofir Dec 31 '15 at 17:10
  • but the book says that $I = K[x]\cdot h(x) = K[x]$, so it is basically saying that $I$ is a field, rigth? How does this proves that $K[x]/J$ is a field? The only way I see is to consider ${r(x)+<p(x)>∣deg(r)<deg(p)} = K[x]$. Am I rigth? – Poperton Jan 01 '16 at 17:10