Divisor in $mathbb{C}[X]$ $implies$ divisor in $mathbb{R}[X]$?
$begingroup$
let $P in mathbb{R}[X]$ be a real polynomial divisible by a polynomial $Q in mathbb{R}[X]$
in $mathbb{C}[X]$. How can I easily show that $P$ is also divisible by $Q$ in $mathbb{R}[X]$?
A simple argument without using higher algebraic theorems is desirable. If I could use instruments of higher algebra, the exercise I have to do in whole would be done in two lines. But I'm not allowed to use. I think there would be an easy argument which I can't see yet because of my mental fogginess that I have sometimes.
Thank you beforehand.
polynomials divisibility
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
let $P in mathbb{R}[X]$ be a real polynomial divisible by a polynomial $Q in mathbb{R}[X]$
in $mathbb{C}[X]$. How can I easily show that $P$ is also divisible by $Q$ in $mathbb{R}[X]$?
A simple argument without using higher algebraic theorems is desirable. If I could use instruments of higher algebra, the exercise I have to do in whole would be done in two lines. But I'm not allowed to use. I think there would be an easy argument which I can't see yet because of my mental fogginess that I have sometimes.
Thank you beforehand.
polynomials divisibility
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
let $P in mathbb{R}[X]$ be a real polynomial divisible by a polynomial $Q in mathbb{R}[X]$
in $mathbb{C}[X]$. How can I easily show that $P$ is also divisible by $Q$ in $mathbb{R}[X]$?
A simple argument without using higher algebraic theorems is desirable. If I could use instruments of higher algebra, the exercise I have to do in whole would be done in two lines. But I'm not allowed to use. I think there would be an easy argument which I can't see yet because of my mental fogginess that I have sometimes.
Thank you beforehand.
polynomials divisibility
$endgroup$
let $P in mathbb{R}[X]$ be a real polynomial divisible by a polynomial $Q in mathbb{R}[X]$
in $mathbb{C}[X]$. How can I easily show that $P$ is also divisible by $Q$ in $mathbb{R}[X]$?
A simple argument without using higher algebraic theorems is desirable. If I could use instruments of higher algebra, the exercise I have to do in whole would be done in two lines. But I'm not allowed to use. I think there would be an easy argument which I can't see yet because of my mental fogginess that I have sometimes.
Thank you beforehand.
polynomials divisibility
polynomials divisibility
edited Apr 22 '14 at 14:21
Siminore
30.4k33368
30.4k33368
asked Apr 22 '14 at 14:18
user144912user144912
161
161
add a comment |
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The division algorithm uses only the field operations on the coefficients of the polynomials. If $P$ and $Q$ have real coefficients, all the computations take place in $mathbb{R}$; so, if $P=QR$, then $Rinmathbb{R}[X]$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I think this is the best way to see this. This works just the same in more general cases, for example when $mathbb{C}$ and $mathbb{R}$ is replaced by any field extension $E/F$.
$endgroup$
– spin
Apr 22 '14 at 14:40
1
$begingroup$
@spin Yes, and it's quite useful when dealing with algebraic extensions.
$endgroup$
– egreg
Apr 22 '14 at 14:40
1
$begingroup$
Alternatively, using division with remainder in $mathbb R[X]$, we have $P=QR+S$ with $Q,Sinmathbb R[X]$ and $deg S<deg R$. Then if $Rmid P$ in $mathbb C[X]$, we conclude $Rmid S$, hence $S=0$ or $deg Sge deg R$.
$endgroup$
– Hagen von Eitzen
Apr 22 '14 at 14:48
$begingroup$
@HagenvonEitzen It's not “alternative”: the uniqueness of the remainder immediately forces $S=0$, because $P=QR+S$ is also a correct division in $mathbb{C}[X]$.
$endgroup$
– egreg
Apr 22 '14 at 14:52
$begingroup$
@egreg Yes, I only wanted to put this as an alternate formulation, not alternate argument.
$endgroup$
– Hagen von Eitzen
Apr 22 '14 at 15:23
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Say you have $P = QR$ where $R in mathbb{C}[X]$. Then $overline{P} = overline{QR} Rightarrow P = Q bar R$ (this is complex conjugation). If $Q$ is the zero polynomial, then so is $P$ and you are done. Otherwise, there is an infinite number of points $x in mathbb{R}$ where $Q(x)$ is nonzero, and for every such $x$, $bar{R}(x) = frac{bar P(x)}{bar Q(x)} = frac{P(x)}{Q(x)} = R(x)$. The two polynomials $R, bar{R}$ agree on an infinite number of points and are therefore equal. This means that $R$ has real coefficients, and so $Q$ divides $P$ in $mathbb{R}[X]$.
More generally the technique I used works for any Galois extension. Suppose $K subset F$ is a Galois extension, and that $Q neq 0$ divides $P$ in $F[X]$, ie $P = QR$ with $R in F[X]$, $P, Q in K[X]$. Then for every $g in operatorname{Gal}(F/K)$, $P = Q R = g(P) = g(Q) g(R) = Q g(R)$ (where $g(P)$ is the polynomial where you apply $g$ to every coefficient). Since $Q$ is nonzero and $F[X]$ is an integral domain, it follows that $g(R) = R$ for all $g$, and therefore all the coefficients of $R$ are in $K$ (by general Galois theory).
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Doesn't $QR = Q bar R$ simply imply $R = bar R$ (for $Q neq 0$)?
$endgroup$
– user10676
Apr 22 '14 at 14:50
$begingroup$
It isn't as simple as one might think, because $mathbb{R}[X]$ is just an (euclidean) ring and not a field which means you can't divide. But I see now the uniqueness of the remainder works well.
$endgroup$
– user144912
Apr 22 '14 at 15:01
$begingroup$
@user144912 I think he is right, because $mathbb{C}[X]$ and $mathbb{R}[X]$ are domain (? I'm not sure about the english terminology), but if $ab=ac$ with $a neq 0$ then $b=c$, no ?
$endgroup$
– yago
Apr 22 '14 at 15:07
$begingroup$
@user10676: For some reason I forgot that $K[X]$ is an integral domain for any field...
$endgroup$
– Najib Idrissi
Apr 22 '14 at 15:17
$begingroup$
@Yann Hadaoui: Yes, he ist right. Forget what I said in the comment before. Multiplication with $Q$ is an injective endomorphism in $(mathbb{C}[X],+)$, which allows to reduce.
$endgroup$
– user144912
Apr 22 '14 at 15:33
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Hint $ $ It follows from the uniqueness of the quotient (and remainder) in the division algorithm (which is the same in $,Bbb R[x],$ and $,Bbb C[x],,$ using the polynomial degree as the Euclidean "size").
Therefore, since dividing $,P,$ by $,Q,$ in $,Bbb C[x],$ leaves remainder $,0,,$ by uniqueness, the remainder must also be $,0,$ in $,Bbb R[x].,$ Thus $ Qmid P, $ in $,Bbb C[x] $ $Rightarrow$ $ Q | P $ in $,Bbb R[x].$
This is but one of many examples of the power of uniqueness theorems for proving equalities.
Remark $ $ More generally, $ $ it follows from persistence of Euclidean gcds in extension domains since, by Bezout, the gcd may be specified (up to unit factor) via the solvability of a system of (linear) equations over $D,,$ and such solutions persist in extension domains of $D,,$ i.e. roots in $D,$ persist as roots in $Esupset D.,$ Note $, Qnmid P,$ in $,Bbb R[x],$ iff their gcd $,(Q,P) = AQ+BP:$ has smaller degree than $,Q.,$ If so, the Bezout equation persists as a witness that $,Qnmid P,$ in $,Bbb C[x]$.
Such uniqueness is a characteristic property of polynomial domains over fields. Namely, if $D$ is a Euclidean domain with division algorithm having unique quotient and remainder, then either $D$ is a field or $D = F[x]$ for a field $F.,$ For proofs see e.g.
M. A. Jodeit, Uniqueness in the division algorithm, Amer. Math. Monthly 74 (1967), 835-836.
T. S. Rhai, A characterization of polynomial domains over a field, Amer. Math. Monthly 69 (1962), 984-986.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This can also be done by contradiction as follows:
Suppose that $P=QR$ where $P$ and $Q$ are in $mathbb{R}[x]$ and $R$ is in $mathbb{C}[x]setminusmathbb{R}[x]$. Let us write
$$
R=sum_{i=0}^kr_ix^i.
$$
Since $R$ is not a polynomial with real coefficients, there is some $r_i$ which is not real. Let $j$ be the largest index where $r_i$ is not real. Then,
$$
R=left(sum_{i=0}^{j-1}r_ix^iright)+r_jx^j+left(sum_{i=j+1}^kr_ix^iright).
$$
I claim that, for $x$ sufficiently large, $R(x)$ is not a real number.
For any real number $x$, the third summand is real since all of the coefficients are real.
For all nonzero real numbers $x$, $r_jx^j$ is not a real number since $r_j$ is not real.
For all real numbers $x$ sufficiently large, the first summand is less than the imaginary part of $r_jx^j$. For a sketch, let $r$ be the maximum of the absolute values of the $r_i$'s. Then, using a geometric sum, the absolute value of the first sum is bounded from above by
$$
rleft(frac{x^j-1}{x-1}right).
$$
A short calculation will show that if $x$ is sufficiently large,
$$
rleft(frac{x^j-1}{x-1}right)<Im(r_j)x^j.
$$
Combining all of this results in the conclusion that the imaginary part of $r_jx^j$ cannot fully cancel, so $R(x)$ is not real.
This leads directly to our contradiction. After fixing $x$ sufficiently large from above, note that $P(x)$ and $Q(x)$ are real numbers (and we may choose $x$ sufficiently large so that these are nonzero). We then have $P(x)=Q(x)R(x)$, but it is impossible for this equality to hold while $P(x)$ and $Q(x)$ are real, but $R(x)$ is not.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
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
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f764488%2fdivisor-in-mathbbcx-implies-divisor-in-mathbbrx%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The division algorithm uses only the field operations on the coefficients of the polynomials. If $P$ and $Q$ have real coefficients, all the computations take place in $mathbb{R}$; so, if $P=QR$, then $Rinmathbb{R}[X]$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I think this is the best way to see this. This works just the same in more general cases, for example when $mathbb{C}$ and $mathbb{R}$ is replaced by any field extension $E/F$.
$endgroup$
– spin
Apr 22 '14 at 14:40
1
$begingroup$
@spin Yes, and it's quite useful when dealing with algebraic extensions.
$endgroup$
– egreg
Apr 22 '14 at 14:40
1
$begingroup$
Alternatively, using division with remainder in $mathbb R[X]$, we have $P=QR+S$ with $Q,Sinmathbb R[X]$ and $deg S<deg R$. Then if $Rmid P$ in $mathbb C[X]$, we conclude $Rmid S$, hence $S=0$ or $deg Sge deg R$.
$endgroup$
– Hagen von Eitzen
Apr 22 '14 at 14:48
$begingroup$
@HagenvonEitzen It's not “alternative”: the uniqueness of the remainder immediately forces $S=0$, because $P=QR+S$ is also a correct division in $mathbb{C}[X]$.
$endgroup$
– egreg
Apr 22 '14 at 14:52
$begingroup$
@egreg Yes, I only wanted to put this as an alternate formulation, not alternate argument.
$endgroup$
– Hagen von Eitzen
Apr 22 '14 at 15:23
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The division algorithm uses only the field operations on the coefficients of the polynomials. If $P$ and $Q$ have real coefficients, all the computations take place in $mathbb{R}$; so, if $P=QR$, then $Rinmathbb{R}[X]$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I think this is the best way to see this. This works just the same in more general cases, for example when $mathbb{C}$ and $mathbb{R}$ is replaced by any field extension $E/F$.
$endgroup$
– spin
Apr 22 '14 at 14:40
1
$begingroup$
@spin Yes, and it's quite useful when dealing with algebraic extensions.
$endgroup$
– egreg
Apr 22 '14 at 14:40
1
$begingroup$
Alternatively, using division with remainder in $mathbb R[X]$, we have $P=QR+S$ with $Q,Sinmathbb R[X]$ and $deg S<deg R$. Then if $Rmid P$ in $mathbb C[X]$, we conclude $Rmid S$, hence $S=0$ or $deg Sge deg R$.
$endgroup$
– Hagen von Eitzen
Apr 22 '14 at 14:48
$begingroup$
@HagenvonEitzen It's not “alternative”: the uniqueness of the remainder immediately forces $S=0$, because $P=QR+S$ is also a correct division in $mathbb{C}[X]$.
$endgroup$
– egreg
Apr 22 '14 at 14:52
$begingroup$
@egreg Yes, I only wanted to put this as an alternate formulation, not alternate argument.
$endgroup$
– Hagen von Eitzen
Apr 22 '14 at 15:23
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The division algorithm uses only the field operations on the coefficients of the polynomials. If $P$ and $Q$ have real coefficients, all the computations take place in $mathbb{R}$; so, if $P=QR$, then $Rinmathbb{R}[X]$.
$endgroup$
The division algorithm uses only the field operations on the coefficients of the polynomials. If $P$ and $Q$ have real coefficients, all the computations take place in $mathbb{R}$; so, if $P=QR$, then $Rinmathbb{R}[X]$.
answered Apr 22 '14 at 14:37
egregegreg
182k1486204
182k1486204
$begingroup$
I think this is the best way to see this. This works just the same in more general cases, for example when $mathbb{C}$ and $mathbb{R}$ is replaced by any field extension $E/F$.
$endgroup$
– spin
Apr 22 '14 at 14:40
1
$begingroup$
@spin Yes, and it's quite useful when dealing with algebraic extensions.
$endgroup$
– egreg
Apr 22 '14 at 14:40
1
$begingroup$
Alternatively, using division with remainder in $mathbb R[X]$, we have $P=QR+S$ with $Q,Sinmathbb R[X]$ and $deg S<deg R$. Then if $Rmid P$ in $mathbb C[X]$, we conclude $Rmid S$, hence $S=0$ or $deg Sge deg R$.
$endgroup$
– Hagen von Eitzen
Apr 22 '14 at 14:48
$begingroup$
@HagenvonEitzen It's not “alternative”: the uniqueness of the remainder immediately forces $S=0$, because $P=QR+S$ is also a correct division in $mathbb{C}[X]$.
$endgroup$
– egreg
Apr 22 '14 at 14:52
$begingroup$
@egreg Yes, I only wanted to put this as an alternate formulation, not alternate argument.
$endgroup$
– Hagen von Eitzen
Apr 22 '14 at 15:23
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think this is the best way to see this. This works just the same in more general cases, for example when $mathbb{C}$ and $mathbb{R}$ is replaced by any field extension $E/F$.
$endgroup$
– spin
Apr 22 '14 at 14:40
1
$begingroup$
@spin Yes, and it's quite useful when dealing with algebraic extensions.
$endgroup$
– egreg
Apr 22 '14 at 14:40
1
$begingroup$
Alternatively, using division with remainder in $mathbb R[X]$, we have $P=QR+S$ with $Q,Sinmathbb R[X]$ and $deg S<deg R$. Then if $Rmid P$ in $mathbb C[X]$, we conclude $Rmid S$, hence $S=0$ or $deg Sge deg R$.
$endgroup$
– Hagen von Eitzen
Apr 22 '14 at 14:48
$begingroup$
@HagenvonEitzen It's not “alternative”: the uniqueness of the remainder immediately forces $S=0$, because $P=QR+S$ is also a correct division in $mathbb{C}[X]$.
$endgroup$
– egreg
Apr 22 '14 at 14:52
$begingroup$
@egreg Yes, I only wanted to put this as an alternate formulation, not alternate argument.
$endgroup$
– Hagen von Eitzen
Apr 22 '14 at 15:23
$begingroup$
I think this is the best way to see this. This works just the same in more general cases, for example when $mathbb{C}$ and $mathbb{R}$ is replaced by any field extension $E/F$.
$endgroup$
– spin
Apr 22 '14 at 14:40
$begingroup$
I think this is the best way to see this. This works just the same in more general cases, for example when $mathbb{C}$ and $mathbb{R}$ is replaced by any field extension $E/F$.
$endgroup$
– spin
Apr 22 '14 at 14:40
1
1
$begingroup$
@spin Yes, and it's quite useful when dealing with algebraic extensions.
$endgroup$
– egreg
Apr 22 '14 at 14:40
$begingroup$
@spin Yes, and it's quite useful when dealing with algebraic extensions.
$endgroup$
– egreg
Apr 22 '14 at 14:40
1
1
$begingroup$
Alternatively, using division with remainder in $mathbb R[X]$, we have $P=QR+S$ with $Q,Sinmathbb R[X]$ and $deg S<deg R$. Then if $Rmid P$ in $mathbb C[X]$, we conclude $Rmid S$, hence $S=0$ or $deg Sge deg R$.
$endgroup$
– Hagen von Eitzen
Apr 22 '14 at 14:48
$begingroup$
Alternatively, using division with remainder in $mathbb R[X]$, we have $P=QR+S$ with $Q,Sinmathbb R[X]$ and $deg S<deg R$. Then if $Rmid P$ in $mathbb C[X]$, we conclude $Rmid S$, hence $S=0$ or $deg Sge deg R$.
$endgroup$
– Hagen von Eitzen
Apr 22 '14 at 14:48
$begingroup$
@HagenvonEitzen It's not “alternative”: the uniqueness of the remainder immediately forces $S=0$, because $P=QR+S$ is also a correct division in $mathbb{C}[X]$.
$endgroup$
– egreg
Apr 22 '14 at 14:52
$begingroup$
@HagenvonEitzen It's not “alternative”: the uniqueness of the remainder immediately forces $S=0$, because $P=QR+S$ is also a correct division in $mathbb{C}[X]$.
$endgroup$
– egreg
Apr 22 '14 at 14:52
$begingroup$
@egreg Yes, I only wanted to put this as an alternate formulation, not alternate argument.
$endgroup$
– Hagen von Eitzen
Apr 22 '14 at 15:23
$begingroup$
@egreg Yes, I only wanted to put this as an alternate formulation, not alternate argument.
$endgroup$
– Hagen von Eitzen
Apr 22 '14 at 15:23
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Say you have $P = QR$ where $R in mathbb{C}[X]$. Then $overline{P} = overline{QR} Rightarrow P = Q bar R$ (this is complex conjugation). If $Q$ is the zero polynomial, then so is $P$ and you are done. Otherwise, there is an infinite number of points $x in mathbb{R}$ where $Q(x)$ is nonzero, and for every such $x$, $bar{R}(x) = frac{bar P(x)}{bar Q(x)} = frac{P(x)}{Q(x)} = R(x)$. The two polynomials $R, bar{R}$ agree on an infinite number of points and are therefore equal. This means that $R$ has real coefficients, and so $Q$ divides $P$ in $mathbb{R}[X]$.
More generally the technique I used works for any Galois extension. Suppose $K subset F$ is a Galois extension, and that $Q neq 0$ divides $P$ in $F[X]$, ie $P = QR$ with $R in F[X]$, $P, Q in K[X]$. Then for every $g in operatorname{Gal}(F/K)$, $P = Q R = g(P) = g(Q) g(R) = Q g(R)$ (where $g(P)$ is the polynomial where you apply $g$ to every coefficient). Since $Q$ is nonzero and $F[X]$ is an integral domain, it follows that $g(R) = R$ for all $g$, and therefore all the coefficients of $R$ are in $K$ (by general Galois theory).
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Doesn't $QR = Q bar R$ simply imply $R = bar R$ (for $Q neq 0$)?
$endgroup$
– user10676
Apr 22 '14 at 14:50
$begingroup$
It isn't as simple as one might think, because $mathbb{R}[X]$ is just an (euclidean) ring and not a field which means you can't divide. But I see now the uniqueness of the remainder works well.
$endgroup$
– user144912
Apr 22 '14 at 15:01
$begingroup$
@user144912 I think he is right, because $mathbb{C}[X]$ and $mathbb{R}[X]$ are domain (? I'm not sure about the english terminology), but if $ab=ac$ with $a neq 0$ then $b=c$, no ?
$endgroup$
– yago
Apr 22 '14 at 15:07
$begingroup$
@user10676: For some reason I forgot that $K[X]$ is an integral domain for any field...
$endgroup$
– Najib Idrissi
Apr 22 '14 at 15:17
$begingroup$
@Yann Hadaoui: Yes, he ist right. Forget what I said in the comment before. Multiplication with $Q$ is an injective endomorphism in $(mathbb{C}[X],+)$, which allows to reduce.
$endgroup$
– user144912
Apr 22 '14 at 15:33
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Say you have $P = QR$ where $R in mathbb{C}[X]$. Then $overline{P} = overline{QR} Rightarrow P = Q bar R$ (this is complex conjugation). If $Q$ is the zero polynomial, then so is $P$ and you are done. Otherwise, there is an infinite number of points $x in mathbb{R}$ where $Q(x)$ is nonzero, and for every such $x$, $bar{R}(x) = frac{bar P(x)}{bar Q(x)} = frac{P(x)}{Q(x)} = R(x)$. The two polynomials $R, bar{R}$ agree on an infinite number of points and are therefore equal. This means that $R$ has real coefficients, and so $Q$ divides $P$ in $mathbb{R}[X]$.
More generally the technique I used works for any Galois extension. Suppose $K subset F$ is a Galois extension, and that $Q neq 0$ divides $P$ in $F[X]$, ie $P = QR$ with $R in F[X]$, $P, Q in K[X]$. Then for every $g in operatorname{Gal}(F/K)$, $P = Q R = g(P) = g(Q) g(R) = Q g(R)$ (where $g(P)$ is the polynomial where you apply $g$ to every coefficient). Since $Q$ is nonzero and $F[X]$ is an integral domain, it follows that $g(R) = R$ for all $g$, and therefore all the coefficients of $R$ are in $K$ (by general Galois theory).
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Doesn't $QR = Q bar R$ simply imply $R = bar R$ (for $Q neq 0$)?
$endgroup$
– user10676
Apr 22 '14 at 14:50
$begingroup$
It isn't as simple as one might think, because $mathbb{R}[X]$ is just an (euclidean) ring and not a field which means you can't divide. But I see now the uniqueness of the remainder works well.
$endgroup$
– user144912
Apr 22 '14 at 15:01
$begingroup$
@user144912 I think he is right, because $mathbb{C}[X]$ and $mathbb{R}[X]$ are domain (? I'm not sure about the english terminology), but if $ab=ac$ with $a neq 0$ then $b=c$, no ?
$endgroup$
– yago
Apr 22 '14 at 15:07
$begingroup$
@user10676: For some reason I forgot that $K[X]$ is an integral domain for any field...
$endgroup$
– Najib Idrissi
Apr 22 '14 at 15:17
$begingroup$
@Yann Hadaoui: Yes, he ist right. Forget what I said in the comment before. Multiplication with $Q$ is an injective endomorphism in $(mathbb{C}[X],+)$, which allows to reduce.
$endgroup$
– user144912
Apr 22 '14 at 15:33
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Say you have $P = QR$ where $R in mathbb{C}[X]$. Then $overline{P} = overline{QR} Rightarrow P = Q bar R$ (this is complex conjugation). If $Q$ is the zero polynomial, then so is $P$ and you are done. Otherwise, there is an infinite number of points $x in mathbb{R}$ where $Q(x)$ is nonzero, and for every such $x$, $bar{R}(x) = frac{bar P(x)}{bar Q(x)} = frac{P(x)}{Q(x)} = R(x)$. The two polynomials $R, bar{R}$ agree on an infinite number of points and are therefore equal. This means that $R$ has real coefficients, and so $Q$ divides $P$ in $mathbb{R}[X]$.
More generally the technique I used works for any Galois extension. Suppose $K subset F$ is a Galois extension, and that $Q neq 0$ divides $P$ in $F[X]$, ie $P = QR$ with $R in F[X]$, $P, Q in K[X]$. Then for every $g in operatorname{Gal}(F/K)$, $P = Q R = g(P) = g(Q) g(R) = Q g(R)$ (where $g(P)$ is the polynomial where you apply $g$ to every coefficient). Since $Q$ is nonzero and $F[X]$ is an integral domain, it follows that $g(R) = R$ for all $g$, and therefore all the coefficients of $R$ are in $K$ (by general Galois theory).
$endgroup$
Say you have $P = QR$ where $R in mathbb{C}[X]$. Then $overline{P} = overline{QR} Rightarrow P = Q bar R$ (this is complex conjugation). If $Q$ is the zero polynomial, then so is $P$ and you are done. Otherwise, there is an infinite number of points $x in mathbb{R}$ where $Q(x)$ is nonzero, and for every such $x$, $bar{R}(x) = frac{bar P(x)}{bar Q(x)} = frac{P(x)}{Q(x)} = R(x)$. The two polynomials $R, bar{R}$ agree on an infinite number of points and are therefore equal. This means that $R$ has real coefficients, and so $Q$ divides $P$ in $mathbb{R}[X]$.
More generally the technique I used works for any Galois extension. Suppose $K subset F$ is a Galois extension, and that $Q neq 0$ divides $P$ in $F[X]$, ie $P = QR$ with $R in F[X]$, $P, Q in K[X]$. Then for every $g in operatorname{Gal}(F/K)$, $P = Q R = g(P) = g(Q) g(R) = Q g(R)$ (where $g(P)$ is the polynomial where you apply $g$ to every coefficient). Since $Q$ is nonzero and $F[X]$ is an integral domain, it follows that $g(R) = R$ for all $g$, and therefore all the coefficients of $R$ are in $K$ (by general Galois theory).
edited Apr 22 '14 at 15:15
answered Apr 22 '14 at 14:25
Najib IdrissiNajib Idrissi
41.4k471139
41.4k471139
2
$begingroup$
Doesn't $QR = Q bar R$ simply imply $R = bar R$ (for $Q neq 0$)?
$endgroup$
– user10676
Apr 22 '14 at 14:50
$begingroup$
It isn't as simple as one might think, because $mathbb{R}[X]$ is just an (euclidean) ring and not a field which means you can't divide. But I see now the uniqueness of the remainder works well.
$endgroup$
– user144912
Apr 22 '14 at 15:01
$begingroup$
@user144912 I think he is right, because $mathbb{C}[X]$ and $mathbb{R}[X]$ are domain (? I'm not sure about the english terminology), but if $ab=ac$ with $a neq 0$ then $b=c$, no ?
$endgroup$
– yago
Apr 22 '14 at 15:07
$begingroup$
@user10676: For some reason I forgot that $K[X]$ is an integral domain for any field...
$endgroup$
– Najib Idrissi
Apr 22 '14 at 15:17
$begingroup$
@Yann Hadaoui: Yes, he ist right. Forget what I said in the comment before. Multiplication with $Q$ is an injective endomorphism in $(mathbb{C}[X],+)$, which allows to reduce.
$endgroup$
– user144912
Apr 22 '14 at 15:33
|
show 1 more comment
2
$begingroup$
Doesn't $QR = Q bar R$ simply imply $R = bar R$ (for $Q neq 0$)?
$endgroup$
– user10676
Apr 22 '14 at 14:50
$begingroup$
It isn't as simple as one might think, because $mathbb{R}[X]$ is just an (euclidean) ring and not a field which means you can't divide. But I see now the uniqueness of the remainder works well.
$endgroup$
– user144912
Apr 22 '14 at 15:01
$begingroup$
@user144912 I think he is right, because $mathbb{C}[X]$ and $mathbb{R}[X]$ are domain (? I'm not sure about the english terminology), but if $ab=ac$ with $a neq 0$ then $b=c$, no ?
$endgroup$
– yago
Apr 22 '14 at 15:07
$begingroup$
@user10676: For some reason I forgot that $K[X]$ is an integral domain for any field...
$endgroup$
– Najib Idrissi
Apr 22 '14 at 15:17
$begingroup$
@Yann Hadaoui: Yes, he ist right. Forget what I said in the comment before. Multiplication with $Q$ is an injective endomorphism in $(mathbb{C}[X],+)$, which allows to reduce.
$endgroup$
– user144912
Apr 22 '14 at 15:33
2
2
$begingroup$
Doesn't $QR = Q bar R$ simply imply $R = bar R$ (for $Q neq 0$)?
$endgroup$
– user10676
Apr 22 '14 at 14:50
$begingroup$
Doesn't $QR = Q bar R$ simply imply $R = bar R$ (for $Q neq 0$)?
$endgroup$
– user10676
Apr 22 '14 at 14:50
$begingroup$
It isn't as simple as one might think, because $mathbb{R}[X]$ is just an (euclidean) ring and not a field which means you can't divide. But I see now the uniqueness of the remainder works well.
$endgroup$
– user144912
Apr 22 '14 at 15:01
$begingroup$
It isn't as simple as one might think, because $mathbb{R}[X]$ is just an (euclidean) ring and not a field which means you can't divide. But I see now the uniqueness of the remainder works well.
$endgroup$
– user144912
Apr 22 '14 at 15:01
$begingroup$
@user144912 I think he is right, because $mathbb{C}[X]$ and $mathbb{R}[X]$ are domain (? I'm not sure about the english terminology), but if $ab=ac$ with $a neq 0$ then $b=c$, no ?
$endgroup$
– yago
Apr 22 '14 at 15:07
$begingroup$
@user144912 I think he is right, because $mathbb{C}[X]$ and $mathbb{R}[X]$ are domain (? I'm not sure about the english terminology), but if $ab=ac$ with $a neq 0$ then $b=c$, no ?
$endgroup$
– yago
Apr 22 '14 at 15:07
$begingroup$
@user10676: For some reason I forgot that $K[X]$ is an integral domain for any field...
$endgroup$
– Najib Idrissi
Apr 22 '14 at 15:17
$begingroup$
@user10676: For some reason I forgot that $K[X]$ is an integral domain for any field...
$endgroup$
– Najib Idrissi
Apr 22 '14 at 15:17
$begingroup$
@Yann Hadaoui: Yes, he ist right. Forget what I said in the comment before. Multiplication with $Q$ is an injective endomorphism in $(mathbb{C}[X],+)$, which allows to reduce.
$endgroup$
– user144912
Apr 22 '14 at 15:33
$begingroup$
@Yann Hadaoui: Yes, he ist right. Forget what I said in the comment before. Multiplication with $Q$ is an injective endomorphism in $(mathbb{C}[X],+)$, which allows to reduce.
$endgroup$
– user144912
Apr 22 '14 at 15:33
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Hint $ $ It follows from the uniqueness of the quotient (and remainder) in the division algorithm (which is the same in $,Bbb R[x],$ and $,Bbb C[x],,$ using the polynomial degree as the Euclidean "size").
Therefore, since dividing $,P,$ by $,Q,$ in $,Bbb C[x],$ leaves remainder $,0,,$ by uniqueness, the remainder must also be $,0,$ in $,Bbb R[x].,$ Thus $ Qmid P, $ in $,Bbb C[x] $ $Rightarrow$ $ Q | P $ in $,Bbb R[x].$
This is but one of many examples of the power of uniqueness theorems for proving equalities.
Remark $ $ More generally, $ $ it follows from persistence of Euclidean gcds in extension domains since, by Bezout, the gcd may be specified (up to unit factor) via the solvability of a system of (linear) equations over $D,,$ and such solutions persist in extension domains of $D,,$ i.e. roots in $D,$ persist as roots in $Esupset D.,$ Note $, Qnmid P,$ in $,Bbb R[x],$ iff their gcd $,(Q,P) = AQ+BP:$ has smaller degree than $,Q.,$ If so, the Bezout equation persists as a witness that $,Qnmid P,$ in $,Bbb C[x]$.
Such uniqueness is a characteristic property of polynomial domains over fields. Namely, if $D$ is a Euclidean domain with division algorithm having unique quotient and remainder, then either $D$ is a field or $D = F[x]$ for a field $F.,$ For proofs see e.g.
M. A. Jodeit, Uniqueness in the division algorithm, Amer. Math. Monthly 74 (1967), 835-836.
T. S. Rhai, A characterization of polynomial domains over a field, Amer. Math. Monthly 69 (1962), 984-986.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Hint $ $ It follows from the uniqueness of the quotient (and remainder) in the division algorithm (which is the same in $,Bbb R[x],$ and $,Bbb C[x],,$ using the polynomial degree as the Euclidean "size").
Therefore, since dividing $,P,$ by $,Q,$ in $,Bbb C[x],$ leaves remainder $,0,,$ by uniqueness, the remainder must also be $,0,$ in $,Bbb R[x].,$ Thus $ Qmid P, $ in $,Bbb C[x] $ $Rightarrow$ $ Q | P $ in $,Bbb R[x].$
This is but one of many examples of the power of uniqueness theorems for proving equalities.
Remark $ $ More generally, $ $ it follows from persistence of Euclidean gcds in extension domains since, by Bezout, the gcd may be specified (up to unit factor) via the solvability of a system of (linear) equations over $D,,$ and such solutions persist in extension domains of $D,,$ i.e. roots in $D,$ persist as roots in $Esupset D.,$ Note $, Qnmid P,$ in $,Bbb R[x],$ iff their gcd $,(Q,P) = AQ+BP:$ has smaller degree than $,Q.,$ If so, the Bezout equation persists as a witness that $,Qnmid P,$ in $,Bbb C[x]$.
Such uniqueness is a characteristic property of polynomial domains over fields. Namely, if $D$ is a Euclidean domain with division algorithm having unique quotient and remainder, then either $D$ is a field or $D = F[x]$ for a field $F.,$ For proofs see e.g.
M. A. Jodeit, Uniqueness in the division algorithm, Amer. Math. Monthly 74 (1967), 835-836.
T. S. Rhai, A characterization of polynomial domains over a field, Amer. Math. Monthly 69 (1962), 984-986.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Hint $ $ It follows from the uniqueness of the quotient (and remainder) in the division algorithm (which is the same in $,Bbb R[x],$ and $,Bbb C[x],,$ using the polynomial degree as the Euclidean "size").
Therefore, since dividing $,P,$ by $,Q,$ in $,Bbb C[x],$ leaves remainder $,0,,$ by uniqueness, the remainder must also be $,0,$ in $,Bbb R[x].,$ Thus $ Qmid P, $ in $,Bbb C[x] $ $Rightarrow$ $ Q | P $ in $,Bbb R[x].$
This is but one of many examples of the power of uniqueness theorems for proving equalities.
Remark $ $ More generally, $ $ it follows from persistence of Euclidean gcds in extension domains since, by Bezout, the gcd may be specified (up to unit factor) via the solvability of a system of (linear) equations over $D,,$ and such solutions persist in extension domains of $D,,$ i.e. roots in $D,$ persist as roots in $Esupset D.,$ Note $, Qnmid P,$ in $,Bbb R[x],$ iff their gcd $,(Q,P) = AQ+BP:$ has smaller degree than $,Q.,$ If so, the Bezout equation persists as a witness that $,Qnmid P,$ in $,Bbb C[x]$.
Such uniqueness is a characteristic property of polynomial domains over fields. Namely, if $D$ is a Euclidean domain with division algorithm having unique quotient and remainder, then either $D$ is a field or $D = F[x]$ for a field $F.,$ For proofs see e.g.
M. A. Jodeit, Uniqueness in the division algorithm, Amer. Math. Monthly 74 (1967), 835-836.
T. S. Rhai, A characterization of polynomial domains over a field, Amer. Math. Monthly 69 (1962), 984-986.
$endgroup$
Hint $ $ It follows from the uniqueness of the quotient (and remainder) in the division algorithm (which is the same in $,Bbb R[x],$ and $,Bbb C[x],,$ using the polynomial degree as the Euclidean "size").
Therefore, since dividing $,P,$ by $,Q,$ in $,Bbb C[x],$ leaves remainder $,0,,$ by uniqueness, the remainder must also be $,0,$ in $,Bbb R[x].,$ Thus $ Qmid P, $ in $,Bbb C[x] $ $Rightarrow$ $ Q | P $ in $,Bbb R[x].$
This is but one of many examples of the power of uniqueness theorems for proving equalities.
Remark $ $ More generally, $ $ it follows from persistence of Euclidean gcds in extension domains since, by Bezout, the gcd may be specified (up to unit factor) via the solvability of a system of (linear) equations over $D,,$ and such solutions persist in extension domains of $D,,$ i.e. roots in $D,$ persist as roots in $Esupset D.,$ Note $, Qnmid P,$ in $,Bbb R[x],$ iff their gcd $,(Q,P) = AQ+BP:$ has smaller degree than $,Q.,$ If so, the Bezout equation persists as a witness that $,Qnmid P,$ in $,Bbb C[x]$.
Such uniqueness is a characteristic property of polynomial domains over fields. Namely, if $D$ is a Euclidean domain with division algorithm having unique quotient and remainder, then either $D$ is a field or $D = F[x]$ for a field $F.,$ For proofs see e.g.
M. A. Jodeit, Uniqueness in the division algorithm, Amer. Math. Monthly 74 (1967), 835-836.
T. S. Rhai, A characterization of polynomial domains over a field, Amer. Math. Monthly 69 (1962), 984-986.
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:21
Community♦
1
1
answered Apr 22 '14 at 14:51
Bill DubuqueBill Dubuque
211k29193646
211k29193646
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This can also be done by contradiction as follows:
Suppose that $P=QR$ where $P$ and $Q$ are in $mathbb{R}[x]$ and $R$ is in $mathbb{C}[x]setminusmathbb{R}[x]$. Let us write
$$
R=sum_{i=0}^kr_ix^i.
$$
Since $R$ is not a polynomial with real coefficients, there is some $r_i$ which is not real. Let $j$ be the largest index where $r_i$ is not real. Then,
$$
R=left(sum_{i=0}^{j-1}r_ix^iright)+r_jx^j+left(sum_{i=j+1}^kr_ix^iright).
$$
I claim that, for $x$ sufficiently large, $R(x)$ is not a real number.
For any real number $x$, the third summand is real since all of the coefficients are real.
For all nonzero real numbers $x$, $r_jx^j$ is not a real number since $r_j$ is not real.
For all real numbers $x$ sufficiently large, the first summand is less than the imaginary part of $r_jx^j$. For a sketch, let $r$ be the maximum of the absolute values of the $r_i$'s. Then, using a geometric sum, the absolute value of the first sum is bounded from above by
$$
rleft(frac{x^j-1}{x-1}right).
$$
A short calculation will show that if $x$ is sufficiently large,
$$
rleft(frac{x^j-1}{x-1}right)<Im(r_j)x^j.
$$
Combining all of this results in the conclusion that the imaginary part of $r_jx^j$ cannot fully cancel, so $R(x)$ is not real.
This leads directly to our contradiction. After fixing $x$ sufficiently large from above, note that $P(x)$ and $Q(x)$ are real numbers (and we may choose $x$ sufficiently large so that these are nonzero). We then have $P(x)=Q(x)R(x)$, but it is impossible for this equality to hold while $P(x)$ and $Q(x)$ are real, but $R(x)$ is not.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This can also be done by contradiction as follows:
Suppose that $P=QR$ where $P$ and $Q$ are in $mathbb{R}[x]$ and $R$ is in $mathbb{C}[x]setminusmathbb{R}[x]$. Let us write
$$
R=sum_{i=0}^kr_ix^i.
$$
Since $R$ is not a polynomial with real coefficients, there is some $r_i$ which is not real. Let $j$ be the largest index where $r_i$ is not real. Then,
$$
R=left(sum_{i=0}^{j-1}r_ix^iright)+r_jx^j+left(sum_{i=j+1}^kr_ix^iright).
$$
I claim that, for $x$ sufficiently large, $R(x)$ is not a real number.
For any real number $x$, the third summand is real since all of the coefficients are real.
For all nonzero real numbers $x$, $r_jx^j$ is not a real number since $r_j$ is not real.
For all real numbers $x$ sufficiently large, the first summand is less than the imaginary part of $r_jx^j$. For a sketch, let $r$ be the maximum of the absolute values of the $r_i$'s. Then, using a geometric sum, the absolute value of the first sum is bounded from above by
$$
rleft(frac{x^j-1}{x-1}right).
$$
A short calculation will show that if $x$ is sufficiently large,
$$
rleft(frac{x^j-1}{x-1}right)<Im(r_j)x^j.
$$
Combining all of this results in the conclusion that the imaginary part of $r_jx^j$ cannot fully cancel, so $R(x)$ is not real.
This leads directly to our contradiction. After fixing $x$ sufficiently large from above, note that $P(x)$ and $Q(x)$ are real numbers (and we may choose $x$ sufficiently large so that these are nonzero). We then have $P(x)=Q(x)R(x)$, but it is impossible for this equality to hold while $P(x)$ and $Q(x)$ are real, but $R(x)$ is not.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This can also be done by contradiction as follows:
Suppose that $P=QR$ where $P$ and $Q$ are in $mathbb{R}[x]$ and $R$ is in $mathbb{C}[x]setminusmathbb{R}[x]$. Let us write
$$
R=sum_{i=0}^kr_ix^i.
$$
Since $R$ is not a polynomial with real coefficients, there is some $r_i$ which is not real. Let $j$ be the largest index where $r_i$ is not real. Then,
$$
R=left(sum_{i=0}^{j-1}r_ix^iright)+r_jx^j+left(sum_{i=j+1}^kr_ix^iright).
$$
I claim that, for $x$ sufficiently large, $R(x)$ is not a real number.
For any real number $x$, the third summand is real since all of the coefficients are real.
For all nonzero real numbers $x$, $r_jx^j$ is not a real number since $r_j$ is not real.
For all real numbers $x$ sufficiently large, the first summand is less than the imaginary part of $r_jx^j$. For a sketch, let $r$ be the maximum of the absolute values of the $r_i$'s. Then, using a geometric sum, the absolute value of the first sum is bounded from above by
$$
rleft(frac{x^j-1}{x-1}right).
$$
A short calculation will show that if $x$ is sufficiently large,
$$
rleft(frac{x^j-1}{x-1}right)<Im(r_j)x^j.
$$
Combining all of this results in the conclusion that the imaginary part of $r_jx^j$ cannot fully cancel, so $R(x)$ is not real.
This leads directly to our contradiction. After fixing $x$ sufficiently large from above, note that $P(x)$ and $Q(x)$ are real numbers (and we may choose $x$ sufficiently large so that these are nonzero). We then have $P(x)=Q(x)R(x)$, but it is impossible for this equality to hold while $P(x)$ and $Q(x)$ are real, but $R(x)$ is not.
$endgroup$
This can also be done by contradiction as follows:
Suppose that $P=QR$ where $P$ and $Q$ are in $mathbb{R}[x]$ and $R$ is in $mathbb{C}[x]setminusmathbb{R}[x]$. Let us write
$$
R=sum_{i=0}^kr_ix^i.
$$
Since $R$ is not a polynomial with real coefficients, there is some $r_i$ which is not real. Let $j$ be the largest index where $r_i$ is not real. Then,
$$
R=left(sum_{i=0}^{j-1}r_ix^iright)+r_jx^j+left(sum_{i=j+1}^kr_ix^iright).
$$
I claim that, for $x$ sufficiently large, $R(x)$ is not a real number.
For any real number $x$, the third summand is real since all of the coefficients are real.
For all nonzero real numbers $x$, $r_jx^j$ is not a real number since $r_j$ is not real.
For all real numbers $x$ sufficiently large, the first summand is less than the imaginary part of $r_jx^j$. For a sketch, let $r$ be the maximum of the absolute values of the $r_i$'s. Then, using a geometric sum, the absolute value of the first sum is bounded from above by
$$
rleft(frac{x^j-1}{x-1}right).
$$
A short calculation will show that if $x$ is sufficiently large,
$$
rleft(frac{x^j-1}{x-1}right)<Im(r_j)x^j.
$$
Combining all of this results in the conclusion that the imaginary part of $r_jx^j$ cannot fully cancel, so $R(x)$ is not real.
This leads directly to our contradiction. After fixing $x$ sufficiently large from above, note that $P(x)$ and $Q(x)$ are real numbers (and we may choose $x$ sufficiently large so that these are nonzero). We then have $P(x)=Q(x)R(x)$, but it is impossible for this equality to hold while $P(x)$ and $Q(x)$ are real, but $R(x)$ is not.
answered Dec 24 '18 at 2:27
Michael BurrMichael Burr
26.9k23262
26.9k23262
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
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
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f764488%2fdivisor-in-mathbbcx-implies-divisor-in-mathbbrx%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown