Proving that this polynomial has no roots in this field
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Problem: Let $k$ be a field, and let $F = k(t)$ be the field of rational functions in $t$ with coefficients in $k$. Then consider $f(x) = x^p - t in F[x]$ where $p$ is prime. Prove that $f$ is irreducible over $F$.
Attempt: I know there exists a Lemma (David Cox, Galois Theory, page 86) that says:
Lemma: Let $F$ be a field and let $p$ be prime. then $f = x^p - a in F[x]$ is irreducible over $F$ if and only if $f$ has no roots in $F$.
Hence, by the above lemma, I wish to show that $f(x) = x^p - t in F[x]$ has no roots in $F$. How can I show this? A 'root' would be a rational function in $t$ with coefficients in $k$. Let this function be denoted by $g(t)$. Then this would have to satisfy $g(t)^p = t$ in order to be a root of $f$.
I'm not sure why this is not possible. Is it because $p > 1$ is prime?
abstract-algebra field-theory galois-theory
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Problem: Let $k$ be a field, and let $F = k(t)$ be the field of rational functions in $t$ with coefficients in $k$. Then consider $f(x) = x^p - t in F[x]$ where $p$ is prime. Prove that $f$ is irreducible over $F$.
Attempt: I know there exists a Lemma (David Cox, Galois Theory, page 86) that says:
Lemma: Let $F$ be a field and let $p$ be prime. then $f = x^p - a in F[x]$ is irreducible over $F$ if and only if $f$ has no roots in $F$.
Hence, by the above lemma, I wish to show that $f(x) = x^p - t in F[x]$ has no roots in $F$. How can I show this? A 'root' would be a rational function in $t$ with coefficients in $k$. Let this function be denoted by $g(t)$. Then this would have to satisfy $g(t)^p = t$ in order to be a root of $f$.
I'm not sure why this is not possible. Is it because $p > 1$ is prime?
abstract-algebra field-theory galois-theory
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Problem: Let $k$ be a field, and let $F = k(t)$ be the field of rational functions in $t$ with coefficients in $k$. Then consider $f(x) = x^p - t in F[x]$ where $p$ is prime. Prove that $f$ is irreducible over $F$.
Attempt: I know there exists a Lemma (David Cox, Galois Theory, page 86) that says:
Lemma: Let $F$ be a field and let $p$ be prime. then $f = x^p - a in F[x]$ is irreducible over $F$ if and only if $f$ has no roots in $F$.
Hence, by the above lemma, I wish to show that $f(x) = x^p - t in F[x]$ has no roots in $F$. How can I show this? A 'root' would be a rational function in $t$ with coefficients in $k$. Let this function be denoted by $g(t)$. Then this would have to satisfy $g(t)^p = t$ in order to be a root of $f$.
I'm not sure why this is not possible. Is it because $p > 1$ is prime?
abstract-algebra field-theory galois-theory
Problem: Let $k$ be a field, and let $F = k(t)$ be the field of rational functions in $t$ with coefficients in $k$. Then consider $f(x) = x^p - t in F[x]$ where $p$ is prime. Prove that $f$ is irreducible over $F$.
Attempt: I know there exists a Lemma (David Cox, Galois Theory, page 86) that says:
Lemma: Let $F$ be a field and let $p$ be prime. then $f = x^p - a in F[x]$ is irreducible over $F$ if and only if $f$ has no roots in $F$.
Hence, by the above lemma, I wish to show that $f(x) = x^p - t in F[x]$ has no roots in $F$. How can I show this? A 'root' would be a rational function in $t$ with coefficients in $k$. Let this function be denoted by $g(t)$. Then this would have to satisfy $g(t)^p = t$ in order to be a root of $f$.
I'm not sure why this is not possible. Is it because $p > 1$ is prime?
abstract-algebra field-theory galois-theory
asked Aug 29 at 10:13
Kamil
1,90921237
1,90921237
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
As you've noticed the supposed root has to be a rational function, so we get that:
$$g(t) = fracf(t)h(t) quad textfor some f,h in k[t]$$
Note that $f,h$ above are polynomials in the ring of polynomials of $k$.
The plugging it in the equation we get:
$$left(fracf(t)h(t)right)^p - t = 0 iff f(t)^p = th(t)^p$$
Now just compare the degrees of the polynomials. If $deg f = n$ and $deg h = m$, then we get that the LHS has degree $pn$, while the RHS has degree $pm + 1$. It's obvious this two can't be equal. Thus we obtain a contradiction.
Hence the proof.
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
I wouldnâÂÂt bother with the Lemma you quoted.
The field $F$ is the fraction field of the Unique Factorization Domain $k[t]$, in which $t$ is an indecomposable element. Your polynomial is $k[t]$-irreducible by Eisenstein. So itâÂÂs $k(t)$-irreducible, by Gauss.
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
As you've noticed the supposed root has to be a rational function, so we get that:
$$g(t) = fracf(t)h(t) quad textfor some f,h in k[t]$$
Note that $f,h$ above are polynomials in the ring of polynomials of $k$.
The plugging it in the equation we get:
$$left(fracf(t)h(t)right)^p - t = 0 iff f(t)^p = th(t)^p$$
Now just compare the degrees of the polynomials. If $deg f = n$ and $deg h = m$, then we get that the LHS has degree $pn$, while the RHS has degree $pm + 1$. It's obvious this two can't be equal. Thus we obtain a contradiction.
Hence the proof.
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
As you've noticed the supposed root has to be a rational function, so we get that:
$$g(t) = fracf(t)h(t) quad textfor some f,h in k[t]$$
Note that $f,h$ above are polynomials in the ring of polynomials of $k$.
The plugging it in the equation we get:
$$left(fracf(t)h(t)right)^p - t = 0 iff f(t)^p = th(t)^p$$
Now just compare the degrees of the polynomials. If $deg f = n$ and $deg h = m$, then we get that the LHS has degree $pn$, while the RHS has degree $pm + 1$. It's obvious this two can't be equal. Thus we obtain a contradiction.
Hence the proof.
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
As you've noticed the supposed root has to be a rational function, so we get that:
$$g(t) = fracf(t)h(t) quad textfor some f,h in k[t]$$
Note that $f,h$ above are polynomials in the ring of polynomials of $k$.
The plugging it in the equation we get:
$$left(fracf(t)h(t)right)^p - t = 0 iff f(t)^p = th(t)^p$$
Now just compare the degrees of the polynomials. If $deg f = n$ and $deg h = m$, then we get that the LHS has degree $pn$, while the RHS has degree $pm + 1$. It's obvious this two can't be equal. Thus we obtain a contradiction.
Hence the proof.
As you've noticed the supposed root has to be a rational function, so we get that:
$$g(t) = fracf(t)h(t) quad textfor some f,h in k[t]$$
Note that $f,h$ above are polynomials in the ring of polynomials of $k$.
The plugging it in the equation we get:
$$left(fracf(t)h(t)right)^p - t = 0 iff f(t)^p = th(t)^p$$
Now just compare the degrees of the polynomials. If $deg f = n$ and $deg h = m$, then we get that the LHS has degree $pn$, while the RHS has degree $pm + 1$. It's obvious this two can't be equal. Thus we obtain a contradiction.
Hence the proof.
answered Aug 29 at 10:52
Stefan4024
29.7k53377
29.7k53377
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
I wouldnâÂÂt bother with the Lemma you quoted.
The field $F$ is the fraction field of the Unique Factorization Domain $k[t]$, in which $t$ is an indecomposable element. Your polynomial is $k[t]$-irreducible by Eisenstein. So itâÂÂs $k(t)$-irreducible, by Gauss.
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
I wouldnâÂÂt bother with the Lemma you quoted.
The field $F$ is the fraction field of the Unique Factorization Domain $k[t]$, in which $t$ is an indecomposable element. Your polynomial is $k[t]$-irreducible by Eisenstein. So itâÂÂs $k(t)$-irreducible, by Gauss.
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
I wouldnâÂÂt bother with the Lemma you quoted.
The field $F$ is the fraction field of the Unique Factorization Domain $k[t]$, in which $t$ is an indecomposable element. Your polynomial is $k[t]$-irreducible by Eisenstein. So itâÂÂs $k(t)$-irreducible, by Gauss.
I wouldnâÂÂt bother with the Lemma you quoted.
The field $F$ is the fraction field of the Unique Factorization Domain $k[t]$, in which $t$ is an indecomposable element. Your polynomial is $k[t]$-irreducible by Eisenstein. So itâÂÂs $k(t)$-irreducible, by Gauss.
answered Aug 29 at 19:12
Lubin
41.5k34284
41.5k34284
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2898195%2fproving-that-this-polynomial-has-no-roots-in-this-field%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password