Is $K[X]$ not a semilocal ring?












0














Let $K$ be a field. We will write $K[X]$ to denote the set of all polynomials in one variable over the field $K$ and $mathrm{Maxspec}(K[X])$, the set of all maximal ideals of $K[X].$ Also, we call a ring semilocal, if $|mathrm{Maxspec}(K[X])|<infty$.



I found in a book, that the ring $K[X]$ is not semilocal. But, why does this happen?



Thoughts:




  1. One can prove that
    $$mathrm{Maxspec}(K[X])={langle p(X) rangle triangleleft K[X]: p(X) text{ is irreducible over } K[X] }.$$
    And this, drives as directly to count the irreducible polynomials over $K[X]$. But, how can we find this cardinality in general?


  2. If $K=mathbb{Z}_p$, does this topic help us?



Thank you in advance.










share|cite|improve this question


















  • 1




    If $K$ is infinite, then $)X-a)$ give us infinitely many prime ideals. If $K$ is finite....
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Jan 5 at 22:39










  • Thank you for your answer. Ok, if $K$ is infinite, then $X-a in K[X]$ is irreducible, for all $ain K$. So, there are infinitely many $langle X-a rangle $, and thus $K[X]$ is not semilocal. But, what if $|K|<infty$?
    – Chris
    Jan 5 at 22:45










  • If $K$ is finite, one has to work a little harder to get infinitely many prime ideals.
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Jan 5 at 22:46






  • 1




    That there are infinetly many irreducible polynomials is basically equivalent to the classification of finite fields.
    – RghtHndSd
    Jan 5 at 22:48












  • In fact $R[x]$ is not semi-local for any ring with identity, even if $R$ has zero divisors. Let $M$ be a maximal ideal of $R$. Then $R[x]/M[x] cong (R/M)[x]$ is a polynomial ring over a field. As @jgon shows, $(R/M)[x]$ will thus have infinitely many maximal ideals, and the ideal correspondence for quotient rings gives us infinitely many maximal ideals of $R[x]$ containing $M[x]$.
    – Badam Baplan
    2 days ago
















0














Let $K$ be a field. We will write $K[X]$ to denote the set of all polynomials in one variable over the field $K$ and $mathrm{Maxspec}(K[X])$, the set of all maximal ideals of $K[X].$ Also, we call a ring semilocal, if $|mathrm{Maxspec}(K[X])|<infty$.



I found in a book, that the ring $K[X]$ is not semilocal. But, why does this happen?



Thoughts:




  1. One can prove that
    $$mathrm{Maxspec}(K[X])={langle p(X) rangle triangleleft K[X]: p(X) text{ is irreducible over } K[X] }.$$
    And this, drives as directly to count the irreducible polynomials over $K[X]$. But, how can we find this cardinality in general?


  2. If $K=mathbb{Z}_p$, does this topic help us?



Thank you in advance.










share|cite|improve this question


















  • 1




    If $K$ is infinite, then $)X-a)$ give us infinitely many prime ideals. If $K$ is finite....
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Jan 5 at 22:39










  • Thank you for your answer. Ok, if $K$ is infinite, then $X-a in K[X]$ is irreducible, for all $ain K$. So, there are infinitely many $langle X-a rangle $, and thus $K[X]$ is not semilocal. But, what if $|K|<infty$?
    – Chris
    Jan 5 at 22:45










  • If $K$ is finite, one has to work a little harder to get infinitely many prime ideals.
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Jan 5 at 22:46






  • 1




    That there are infinetly many irreducible polynomials is basically equivalent to the classification of finite fields.
    – RghtHndSd
    Jan 5 at 22:48












  • In fact $R[x]$ is not semi-local for any ring with identity, even if $R$ has zero divisors. Let $M$ be a maximal ideal of $R$. Then $R[x]/M[x] cong (R/M)[x]$ is a polynomial ring over a field. As @jgon shows, $(R/M)[x]$ will thus have infinitely many maximal ideals, and the ideal correspondence for quotient rings gives us infinitely many maximal ideals of $R[x]$ containing $M[x]$.
    – Badam Baplan
    2 days ago














0












0








0







Let $K$ be a field. We will write $K[X]$ to denote the set of all polynomials in one variable over the field $K$ and $mathrm{Maxspec}(K[X])$, the set of all maximal ideals of $K[X].$ Also, we call a ring semilocal, if $|mathrm{Maxspec}(K[X])|<infty$.



I found in a book, that the ring $K[X]$ is not semilocal. But, why does this happen?



Thoughts:




  1. One can prove that
    $$mathrm{Maxspec}(K[X])={langle p(X) rangle triangleleft K[X]: p(X) text{ is irreducible over } K[X] }.$$
    And this, drives as directly to count the irreducible polynomials over $K[X]$. But, how can we find this cardinality in general?


  2. If $K=mathbb{Z}_p$, does this topic help us?



Thank you in advance.










share|cite|improve this question













Let $K$ be a field. We will write $K[X]$ to denote the set of all polynomials in one variable over the field $K$ and $mathrm{Maxspec}(K[X])$, the set of all maximal ideals of $K[X].$ Also, we call a ring semilocal, if $|mathrm{Maxspec}(K[X])|<infty$.



I found in a book, that the ring $K[X]$ is not semilocal. But, why does this happen?



Thoughts:




  1. One can prove that
    $$mathrm{Maxspec}(K[X])={langle p(X) rangle triangleleft K[X]: p(X) text{ is irreducible over } K[X] }.$$
    And this, drives as directly to count the irreducible polynomials over $K[X]$. But, how can we find this cardinality in general?


  2. If $K=mathbb{Z}_p$, does this topic help us?



Thank you in advance.







abstract-algebra commutative-algebra semi-simple-rings






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Jan 5 at 22:30









ChrisChris

836411




836411








  • 1




    If $K$ is infinite, then $)X-a)$ give us infinitely many prime ideals. If $K$ is finite....
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Jan 5 at 22:39










  • Thank you for your answer. Ok, if $K$ is infinite, then $X-a in K[X]$ is irreducible, for all $ain K$. So, there are infinitely many $langle X-a rangle $, and thus $K[X]$ is not semilocal. But, what if $|K|<infty$?
    – Chris
    Jan 5 at 22:45










  • If $K$ is finite, one has to work a little harder to get infinitely many prime ideals.
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Jan 5 at 22:46






  • 1




    That there are infinetly many irreducible polynomials is basically equivalent to the classification of finite fields.
    – RghtHndSd
    Jan 5 at 22:48












  • In fact $R[x]$ is not semi-local for any ring with identity, even if $R$ has zero divisors. Let $M$ be a maximal ideal of $R$. Then $R[x]/M[x] cong (R/M)[x]$ is a polynomial ring over a field. As @jgon shows, $(R/M)[x]$ will thus have infinitely many maximal ideals, and the ideal correspondence for quotient rings gives us infinitely many maximal ideals of $R[x]$ containing $M[x]$.
    – Badam Baplan
    2 days ago














  • 1




    If $K$ is infinite, then $)X-a)$ give us infinitely many prime ideals. If $K$ is finite....
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Jan 5 at 22:39










  • Thank you for your answer. Ok, if $K$ is infinite, then $X-a in K[X]$ is irreducible, for all $ain K$. So, there are infinitely many $langle X-a rangle $, and thus $K[X]$ is not semilocal. But, what if $|K|<infty$?
    – Chris
    Jan 5 at 22:45










  • If $K$ is finite, one has to work a little harder to get infinitely many prime ideals.
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Jan 5 at 22:46






  • 1




    That there are infinetly many irreducible polynomials is basically equivalent to the classification of finite fields.
    – RghtHndSd
    Jan 5 at 22:48












  • In fact $R[x]$ is not semi-local for any ring with identity, even if $R$ has zero divisors. Let $M$ be a maximal ideal of $R$. Then $R[x]/M[x] cong (R/M)[x]$ is a polynomial ring over a field. As @jgon shows, $(R/M)[x]$ will thus have infinitely many maximal ideals, and the ideal correspondence for quotient rings gives us infinitely many maximal ideals of $R[x]$ containing $M[x]$.
    – Badam Baplan
    2 days ago








1




1




If $K$ is infinite, then $)X-a)$ give us infinitely many prime ideals. If $K$ is finite....
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Jan 5 at 22:39




If $K$ is infinite, then $)X-a)$ give us infinitely many prime ideals. If $K$ is finite....
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Jan 5 at 22:39












Thank you for your answer. Ok, if $K$ is infinite, then $X-a in K[X]$ is irreducible, for all $ain K$. So, there are infinitely many $langle X-a rangle $, and thus $K[X]$ is not semilocal. But, what if $|K|<infty$?
– Chris
Jan 5 at 22:45




Thank you for your answer. Ok, if $K$ is infinite, then $X-a in K[X]$ is irreducible, for all $ain K$. So, there are infinitely many $langle X-a rangle $, and thus $K[X]$ is not semilocal. But, what if $|K|<infty$?
– Chris
Jan 5 at 22:45












If $K$ is finite, one has to work a little harder to get infinitely many prime ideals.
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Jan 5 at 22:46




If $K$ is finite, one has to work a little harder to get infinitely many prime ideals.
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Jan 5 at 22:46




1




1




That there are infinetly many irreducible polynomials is basically equivalent to the classification of finite fields.
– RghtHndSd
Jan 5 at 22:48






That there are infinetly many irreducible polynomials is basically equivalent to the classification of finite fields.
– RghtHndSd
Jan 5 at 22:48














In fact $R[x]$ is not semi-local for any ring with identity, even if $R$ has zero divisors. Let $M$ be a maximal ideal of $R$. Then $R[x]/M[x] cong (R/M)[x]$ is a polynomial ring over a field. As @jgon shows, $(R/M)[x]$ will thus have infinitely many maximal ideals, and the ideal correspondence for quotient rings gives us infinitely many maximal ideals of $R[x]$ containing $M[x]$.
– Badam Baplan
2 days ago




In fact $R[x]$ is not semi-local for any ring with identity, even if $R$ has zero divisors. Let $M$ be a maximal ideal of $R$. Then $R[x]/M[x] cong (R/M)[x]$ is a polynomial ring over a field. As @jgon shows, $(R/M)[x]$ will thus have infinitely many maximal ideals, and the ideal correspondence for quotient rings gives us infinitely many maximal ideals of $R[x]$ containing $M[x]$.
– Badam Baplan
2 days ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















2














A simpler proof.



We can prove that there are infinitely many irreducibles by adapting Euclid's proof from the integers.




If $k$ is a field, then $k[x]$ has infinitely many irreducibles.




Proof:



Suppose there are not infinitely many irreducible polynomials, suppose there are only $p_1,ldots,p_n$.
Consider $P=p_1p_2cdots p_n+1$. Some irreducible $p_i$ must divide it since it has positive degree and is therefore not a unit. (See the note)



But then we have $P=p_iq+1=p_ik$ where $q=p_1p_2cdots hat{p_i}cdots p_n$ and $k$ is the polynomial such that $P=p_ik$, so $p_i(k-q)=1$, and $p_i$ is a unit. Contradiction.
$k[x]$ has infinitely many irreducibles. (This proof of infinitely many irreducibles generalizes to $k$ any Noetherian domain) $blacksquare$



Note



For the fewest assumptions, we can prove that any positive degree polynomial over a field is divisible by an irreducible by induction.



If $P$ has positive degree and is not irreducible itself, then $P=ab$ for $ab$ both nonunits, and hence both of positive degree (necessarily less than that of $P$). Thus one of $a$ or $b$ is divisible by an irreducible by induction. (Note that the base case here is if $P$ is irreducible).



General case



For the case of $k$ a Noetherian domain, we use the fact that $k$ Noetherian implies $k[x]$ is Noetherian, and the fact that in any Noetherian domain any nonunit is divisible by some irreducible, which is proved in the following manner.



Let $p_0$ be a nonunit. If $p_0$ is irreducible, then we are done. Otherwise $p_0=p_1a_1$ with $p_1,a_1$ nonunits. Now if $p_1$ is irreducible, we are done. Otherwise, we repeat to get $p_1=p_2a_2$, and $p_n=p_{n+1}a_{n+1}$. Then either some $p_{n+1}$ is irreducible, or this continues forever,
but if it continued forever, we get this strictly increasing chain of ideals:
$$(p_0)subsetneq (p_1)subsetneq (p_2)subsetneq cdots subsetneq(p_n)subsetneq cdots,$$
which is impossible. Thus some $p_n$ is irreducible, and $p_nmid p_0$.



That the chain is strictly increasing follows from the fact that if $p_nin (p_{n+1})$, then $p_nmid p_{n+1}$ and $p_{n+1}mid p_n$, which in a domain would imply that $a_{n+1}$ is a unit, which would be a contradiction.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Yes, this is indeed far simpler than my argument. I had never thought of this...
    – Mindlack
    Jan 5 at 23:10










  • Thank you for your answer. Simple and elegant.
    – Chris
    Jan 5 at 23:15










  • @Mindlack The proof you gave is also very important and useful though. Iirc, a counting argument based on it proves that finite fields have irreducible polynomials of every degree, which is a stronger result than what I proved.
    – jgon
    Jan 5 at 23:17










  • @jgon Can we claim, istead of your note, that $K[X]$ is a UFD, so $p(X)=cp_1(X)^{n_1} cdots p_k(X)^{n_k}$, for some $kin mathbb{N}$ and $n_1,...,n_kin mathbb{Z}^+, cin K^*$?
    – Chris
    Jan 5 at 23:43








  • 1




    @Chris, sure, there are many proofs of that fact (which is why I put it in the note at the end, since you can substitute any of many proofs for that fact)
    – jgon
    Jan 6 at 0:02



















1














This is a very strange claim, and it is very likely to be false.



It states basically that the ring $K[X]$ is semilocal iff it has finitely many irreducible monic polynomials.



Since all $X+a$, $a in K$, are monic irreducible polynomials, if $K[X]$ is semilocal, then $K$ is finite.



Now assume that $K$ is finite.



I claim that $X^{|K|^n}-X$ is the product $Pi$ of all monic irreducible polynomials over $K$ such that their degree divides $n$.



First, let $P$ denote some irreducible factor of $X^{|K|^n}-X$, let $d$ be its degree. Then $L=K[X]/(P)$ is a field extension of degree $d$ of $K$. Let $F : u in L longmapsto u^{|K|}$, it is a field automorphism of $L$, and $F^{circ n}$ is identity on $K$ and the image of $X$ in $L$ (Because $P|X^{|K|^n}-X$). These elements span $L$ as a ring, thus $F^{circ n}$ is the identity on $L$.



Now, let $r$ be the gcd of $n$ and $d$, then $|K|^r-1$ is the gcd of $|K|^n-1$ and $|K|^d-1=|L^*|$. Since every element of $L^*$ is a root of $X^{|K|^n-1}-1$ and of $X^{|K|^d-1}-1$, the polynomial $X^{|K|^r-1}-1$ vanishes at every element of $L^*$ so has at least $|K|^d-1$ roots. Thus $|K|^d-1 leq |K|^r -1$ hence $d | n$ thus $P | Pi$.



Conversely, let $P$ be an irreducible factor of $Pi$ with degree $d$, and $P neq X$. Then $L=K[X]/(P)$ is a field extension of $K$ with degree $d$, so $L^*$ is a group of cardinality $|K|^d-1$, thus the identity $X^{|K|^d-1}=1$ holds in $L$, thus $X^{|K|^n-1}=1$ in $L$ as well, which translates to $P | X^{|K|^n-1}-1$ in $K[X]$.



Since $X^{|K|^n}-X$ and $Pi$ have the same irreducible factors, are monic, and do not have double factors (check the derivative for the first one), $Pi=X^{|K|^n-1}$.



As a consequence: there exists a monic irreducible polynomial in $K$ of degree $2^n$ for every $n$. Thus there are infinitely many irreducible polynomials over $K$ and $K[X]$ is not semilocal.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Thank you for your nice answer. Let me please study it carefully to understand it.
    – Chris
    Jan 5 at 23:24












  • Could you please explain this point: What do you mean $F : u in L longmapsto u^{|K|}$ and what is exactly $F^{circ n}$?
    – Chris
    Jan 6 at 0:15








  • 1




    I consider the application $F$ from $L$ to $L$ defined by the formula. It is a field automorphism. And $F^{circ n}=overbrace{F circ F ldots circ F}^{n text{ times}}$.
    – Mindlack
    Jan 6 at 0:22











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
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3063263%2fis-kx-not-a-semilocal-ring%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









2














A simpler proof.



We can prove that there are infinitely many irreducibles by adapting Euclid's proof from the integers.




If $k$ is a field, then $k[x]$ has infinitely many irreducibles.




Proof:



Suppose there are not infinitely many irreducible polynomials, suppose there are only $p_1,ldots,p_n$.
Consider $P=p_1p_2cdots p_n+1$. Some irreducible $p_i$ must divide it since it has positive degree and is therefore not a unit. (See the note)



But then we have $P=p_iq+1=p_ik$ where $q=p_1p_2cdots hat{p_i}cdots p_n$ and $k$ is the polynomial such that $P=p_ik$, so $p_i(k-q)=1$, and $p_i$ is a unit. Contradiction.
$k[x]$ has infinitely many irreducibles. (This proof of infinitely many irreducibles generalizes to $k$ any Noetherian domain) $blacksquare$



Note



For the fewest assumptions, we can prove that any positive degree polynomial over a field is divisible by an irreducible by induction.



If $P$ has positive degree and is not irreducible itself, then $P=ab$ for $ab$ both nonunits, and hence both of positive degree (necessarily less than that of $P$). Thus one of $a$ or $b$ is divisible by an irreducible by induction. (Note that the base case here is if $P$ is irreducible).



General case



For the case of $k$ a Noetherian domain, we use the fact that $k$ Noetherian implies $k[x]$ is Noetherian, and the fact that in any Noetherian domain any nonunit is divisible by some irreducible, which is proved in the following manner.



Let $p_0$ be a nonunit. If $p_0$ is irreducible, then we are done. Otherwise $p_0=p_1a_1$ with $p_1,a_1$ nonunits. Now if $p_1$ is irreducible, we are done. Otherwise, we repeat to get $p_1=p_2a_2$, and $p_n=p_{n+1}a_{n+1}$. Then either some $p_{n+1}$ is irreducible, or this continues forever,
but if it continued forever, we get this strictly increasing chain of ideals:
$$(p_0)subsetneq (p_1)subsetneq (p_2)subsetneq cdots subsetneq(p_n)subsetneq cdots,$$
which is impossible. Thus some $p_n$ is irreducible, and $p_nmid p_0$.



That the chain is strictly increasing follows from the fact that if $p_nin (p_{n+1})$, then $p_nmid p_{n+1}$ and $p_{n+1}mid p_n$, which in a domain would imply that $a_{n+1}$ is a unit, which would be a contradiction.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Yes, this is indeed far simpler than my argument. I had never thought of this...
    – Mindlack
    Jan 5 at 23:10










  • Thank you for your answer. Simple and elegant.
    – Chris
    Jan 5 at 23:15










  • @Mindlack The proof you gave is also very important and useful though. Iirc, a counting argument based on it proves that finite fields have irreducible polynomials of every degree, which is a stronger result than what I proved.
    – jgon
    Jan 5 at 23:17










  • @jgon Can we claim, istead of your note, that $K[X]$ is a UFD, so $p(X)=cp_1(X)^{n_1} cdots p_k(X)^{n_k}$, for some $kin mathbb{N}$ and $n_1,...,n_kin mathbb{Z}^+, cin K^*$?
    – Chris
    Jan 5 at 23:43








  • 1




    @Chris, sure, there are many proofs of that fact (which is why I put it in the note at the end, since you can substitute any of many proofs for that fact)
    – jgon
    Jan 6 at 0:02
















2














A simpler proof.



We can prove that there are infinitely many irreducibles by adapting Euclid's proof from the integers.




If $k$ is a field, then $k[x]$ has infinitely many irreducibles.




Proof:



Suppose there are not infinitely many irreducible polynomials, suppose there are only $p_1,ldots,p_n$.
Consider $P=p_1p_2cdots p_n+1$. Some irreducible $p_i$ must divide it since it has positive degree and is therefore not a unit. (See the note)



But then we have $P=p_iq+1=p_ik$ where $q=p_1p_2cdots hat{p_i}cdots p_n$ and $k$ is the polynomial such that $P=p_ik$, so $p_i(k-q)=1$, and $p_i$ is a unit. Contradiction.
$k[x]$ has infinitely many irreducibles. (This proof of infinitely many irreducibles generalizes to $k$ any Noetherian domain) $blacksquare$



Note



For the fewest assumptions, we can prove that any positive degree polynomial over a field is divisible by an irreducible by induction.



If $P$ has positive degree and is not irreducible itself, then $P=ab$ for $ab$ both nonunits, and hence both of positive degree (necessarily less than that of $P$). Thus one of $a$ or $b$ is divisible by an irreducible by induction. (Note that the base case here is if $P$ is irreducible).



General case



For the case of $k$ a Noetherian domain, we use the fact that $k$ Noetherian implies $k[x]$ is Noetherian, and the fact that in any Noetherian domain any nonunit is divisible by some irreducible, which is proved in the following manner.



Let $p_0$ be a nonunit. If $p_0$ is irreducible, then we are done. Otherwise $p_0=p_1a_1$ with $p_1,a_1$ nonunits. Now if $p_1$ is irreducible, we are done. Otherwise, we repeat to get $p_1=p_2a_2$, and $p_n=p_{n+1}a_{n+1}$. Then either some $p_{n+1}$ is irreducible, or this continues forever,
but if it continued forever, we get this strictly increasing chain of ideals:
$$(p_0)subsetneq (p_1)subsetneq (p_2)subsetneq cdots subsetneq(p_n)subsetneq cdots,$$
which is impossible. Thus some $p_n$ is irreducible, and $p_nmid p_0$.



That the chain is strictly increasing follows from the fact that if $p_nin (p_{n+1})$, then $p_nmid p_{n+1}$ and $p_{n+1}mid p_n$, which in a domain would imply that $a_{n+1}$ is a unit, which would be a contradiction.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Yes, this is indeed far simpler than my argument. I had never thought of this...
    – Mindlack
    Jan 5 at 23:10










  • Thank you for your answer. Simple and elegant.
    – Chris
    Jan 5 at 23:15










  • @Mindlack The proof you gave is also very important and useful though. Iirc, a counting argument based on it proves that finite fields have irreducible polynomials of every degree, which is a stronger result than what I proved.
    – jgon
    Jan 5 at 23:17










  • @jgon Can we claim, istead of your note, that $K[X]$ is a UFD, so $p(X)=cp_1(X)^{n_1} cdots p_k(X)^{n_k}$, for some $kin mathbb{N}$ and $n_1,...,n_kin mathbb{Z}^+, cin K^*$?
    – Chris
    Jan 5 at 23:43








  • 1




    @Chris, sure, there are many proofs of that fact (which is why I put it in the note at the end, since you can substitute any of many proofs for that fact)
    – jgon
    Jan 6 at 0:02














2












2








2






A simpler proof.



We can prove that there are infinitely many irreducibles by adapting Euclid's proof from the integers.




If $k$ is a field, then $k[x]$ has infinitely many irreducibles.




Proof:



Suppose there are not infinitely many irreducible polynomials, suppose there are only $p_1,ldots,p_n$.
Consider $P=p_1p_2cdots p_n+1$. Some irreducible $p_i$ must divide it since it has positive degree and is therefore not a unit. (See the note)



But then we have $P=p_iq+1=p_ik$ where $q=p_1p_2cdots hat{p_i}cdots p_n$ and $k$ is the polynomial such that $P=p_ik$, so $p_i(k-q)=1$, and $p_i$ is a unit. Contradiction.
$k[x]$ has infinitely many irreducibles. (This proof of infinitely many irreducibles generalizes to $k$ any Noetherian domain) $blacksquare$



Note



For the fewest assumptions, we can prove that any positive degree polynomial over a field is divisible by an irreducible by induction.



If $P$ has positive degree and is not irreducible itself, then $P=ab$ for $ab$ both nonunits, and hence both of positive degree (necessarily less than that of $P$). Thus one of $a$ or $b$ is divisible by an irreducible by induction. (Note that the base case here is if $P$ is irreducible).



General case



For the case of $k$ a Noetherian domain, we use the fact that $k$ Noetherian implies $k[x]$ is Noetherian, and the fact that in any Noetherian domain any nonunit is divisible by some irreducible, which is proved in the following manner.



Let $p_0$ be a nonunit. If $p_0$ is irreducible, then we are done. Otherwise $p_0=p_1a_1$ with $p_1,a_1$ nonunits. Now if $p_1$ is irreducible, we are done. Otherwise, we repeat to get $p_1=p_2a_2$, and $p_n=p_{n+1}a_{n+1}$. Then either some $p_{n+1}$ is irreducible, or this continues forever,
but if it continued forever, we get this strictly increasing chain of ideals:
$$(p_0)subsetneq (p_1)subsetneq (p_2)subsetneq cdots subsetneq(p_n)subsetneq cdots,$$
which is impossible. Thus some $p_n$ is irreducible, and $p_nmid p_0$.



That the chain is strictly increasing follows from the fact that if $p_nin (p_{n+1})$, then $p_nmid p_{n+1}$ and $p_{n+1}mid p_n$, which in a domain would imply that $a_{n+1}$ is a unit, which would be a contradiction.






share|cite|improve this answer














A simpler proof.



We can prove that there are infinitely many irreducibles by adapting Euclid's proof from the integers.




If $k$ is a field, then $k[x]$ has infinitely many irreducibles.




Proof:



Suppose there are not infinitely many irreducible polynomials, suppose there are only $p_1,ldots,p_n$.
Consider $P=p_1p_2cdots p_n+1$. Some irreducible $p_i$ must divide it since it has positive degree and is therefore not a unit. (See the note)



But then we have $P=p_iq+1=p_ik$ where $q=p_1p_2cdots hat{p_i}cdots p_n$ and $k$ is the polynomial such that $P=p_ik$, so $p_i(k-q)=1$, and $p_i$ is a unit. Contradiction.
$k[x]$ has infinitely many irreducibles. (This proof of infinitely many irreducibles generalizes to $k$ any Noetherian domain) $blacksquare$



Note



For the fewest assumptions, we can prove that any positive degree polynomial over a field is divisible by an irreducible by induction.



If $P$ has positive degree and is not irreducible itself, then $P=ab$ for $ab$ both nonunits, and hence both of positive degree (necessarily less than that of $P$). Thus one of $a$ or $b$ is divisible by an irreducible by induction. (Note that the base case here is if $P$ is irreducible).



General case



For the case of $k$ a Noetherian domain, we use the fact that $k$ Noetherian implies $k[x]$ is Noetherian, and the fact that in any Noetherian domain any nonunit is divisible by some irreducible, which is proved in the following manner.



Let $p_0$ be a nonunit. If $p_0$ is irreducible, then we are done. Otherwise $p_0=p_1a_1$ with $p_1,a_1$ nonunits. Now if $p_1$ is irreducible, we are done. Otherwise, we repeat to get $p_1=p_2a_2$, and $p_n=p_{n+1}a_{n+1}$. Then either some $p_{n+1}$ is irreducible, or this continues forever,
but if it continued forever, we get this strictly increasing chain of ideals:
$$(p_0)subsetneq (p_1)subsetneq (p_2)subsetneq cdots subsetneq(p_n)subsetneq cdots,$$
which is impossible. Thus some $p_n$ is irreducible, and $p_nmid p_0$.



That the chain is strictly increasing follows from the fact that if $p_nin (p_{n+1})$, then $p_nmid p_{n+1}$ and $p_{n+1}mid p_n$, which in a domain would imply that $a_{n+1}$ is a unit, which would be a contradiction.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Jan 5 at 23:14

























answered Jan 5 at 23:03









jgonjgon

13.4k22041




13.4k22041












  • Yes, this is indeed far simpler than my argument. I had never thought of this...
    – Mindlack
    Jan 5 at 23:10










  • Thank you for your answer. Simple and elegant.
    – Chris
    Jan 5 at 23:15










  • @Mindlack The proof you gave is also very important and useful though. Iirc, a counting argument based on it proves that finite fields have irreducible polynomials of every degree, which is a stronger result than what I proved.
    – jgon
    Jan 5 at 23:17










  • @jgon Can we claim, istead of your note, that $K[X]$ is a UFD, so $p(X)=cp_1(X)^{n_1} cdots p_k(X)^{n_k}$, for some $kin mathbb{N}$ and $n_1,...,n_kin mathbb{Z}^+, cin K^*$?
    – Chris
    Jan 5 at 23:43








  • 1




    @Chris, sure, there are many proofs of that fact (which is why I put it in the note at the end, since you can substitute any of many proofs for that fact)
    – jgon
    Jan 6 at 0:02


















  • Yes, this is indeed far simpler than my argument. I had never thought of this...
    – Mindlack
    Jan 5 at 23:10










  • Thank you for your answer. Simple and elegant.
    – Chris
    Jan 5 at 23:15










  • @Mindlack The proof you gave is also very important and useful though. Iirc, a counting argument based on it proves that finite fields have irreducible polynomials of every degree, which is a stronger result than what I proved.
    – jgon
    Jan 5 at 23:17










  • @jgon Can we claim, istead of your note, that $K[X]$ is a UFD, so $p(X)=cp_1(X)^{n_1} cdots p_k(X)^{n_k}$, for some $kin mathbb{N}$ and $n_1,...,n_kin mathbb{Z}^+, cin K^*$?
    – Chris
    Jan 5 at 23:43








  • 1




    @Chris, sure, there are many proofs of that fact (which is why I put it in the note at the end, since you can substitute any of many proofs for that fact)
    – jgon
    Jan 6 at 0:02
















Yes, this is indeed far simpler than my argument. I had never thought of this...
– Mindlack
Jan 5 at 23:10




Yes, this is indeed far simpler than my argument. I had never thought of this...
– Mindlack
Jan 5 at 23:10












Thank you for your answer. Simple and elegant.
– Chris
Jan 5 at 23:15




Thank you for your answer. Simple and elegant.
– Chris
Jan 5 at 23:15












@Mindlack The proof you gave is also very important and useful though. Iirc, a counting argument based on it proves that finite fields have irreducible polynomials of every degree, which is a stronger result than what I proved.
– jgon
Jan 5 at 23:17




@Mindlack The proof you gave is also very important and useful though. Iirc, a counting argument based on it proves that finite fields have irreducible polynomials of every degree, which is a stronger result than what I proved.
– jgon
Jan 5 at 23:17












@jgon Can we claim, istead of your note, that $K[X]$ is a UFD, so $p(X)=cp_1(X)^{n_1} cdots p_k(X)^{n_k}$, for some $kin mathbb{N}$ and $n_1,...,n_kin mathbb{Z}^+, cin K^*$?
– Chris
Jan 5 at 23:43






@jgon Can we claim, istead of your note, that $K[X]$ is a UFD, so $p(X)=cp_1(X)^{n_1} cdots p_k(X)^{n_k}$, for some $kin mathbb{N}$ and $n_1,...,n_kin mathbb{Z}^+, cin K^*$?
– Chris
Jan 5 at 23:43






1




1




@Chris, sure, there are many proofs of that fact (which is why I put it in the note at the end, since you can substitute any of many proofs for that fact)
– jgon
Jan 6 at 0:02




@Chris, sure, there are many proofs of that fact (which is why I put it in the note at the end, since you can substitute any of many proofs for that fact)
– jgon
Jan 6 at 0:02











1














This is a very strange claim, and it is very likely to be false.



It states basically that the ring $K[X]$ is semilocal iff it has finitely many irreducible monic polynomials.



Since all $X+a$, $a in K$, are monic irreducible polynomials, if $K[X]$ is semilocal, then $K$ is finite.



Now assume that $K$ is finite.



I claim that $X^{|K|^n}-X$ is the product $Pi$ of all monic irreducible polynomials over $K$ such that their degree divides $n$.



First, let $P$ denote some irreducible factor of $X^{|K|^n}-X$, let $d$ be its degree. Then $L=K[X]/(P)$ is a field extension of degree $d$ of $K$. Let $F : u in L longmapsto u^{|K|}$, it is a field automorphism of $L$, and $F^{circ n}$ is identity on $K$ and the image of $X$ in $L$ (Because $P|X^{|K|^n}-X$). These elements span $L$ as a ring, thus $F^{circ n}$ is the identity on $L$.



Now, let $r$ be the gcd of $n$ and $d$, then $|K|^r-1$ is the gcd of $|K|^n-1$ and $|K|^d-1=|L^*|$. Since every element of $L^*$ is a root of $X^{|K|^n-1}-1$ and of $X^{|K|^d-1}-1$, the polynomial $X^{|K|^r-1}-1$ vanishes at every element of $L^*$ so has at least $|K|^d-1$ roots. Thus $|K|^d-1 leq |K|^r -1$ hence $d | n$ thus $P | Pi$.



Conversely, let $P$ be an irreducible factor of $Pi$ with degree $d$, and $P neq X$. Then $L=K[X]/(P)$ is a field extension of $K$ with degree $d$, so $L^*$ is a group of cardinality $|K|^d-1$, thus the identity $X^{|K|^d-1}=1$ holds in $L$, thus $X^{|K|^n-1}=1$ in $L$ as well, which translates to $P | X^{|K|^n-1}-1$ in $K[X]$.



Since $X^{|K|^n}-X$ and $Pi$ have the same irreducible factors, are monic, and do not have double factors (check the derivative for the first one), $Pi=X^{|K|^n-1}$.



As a consequence: there exists a monic irreducible polynomial in $K$ of degree $2^n$ for every $n$. Thus there are infinitely many irreducible polynomials over $K$ and $K[X]$ is not semilocal.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Thank you for your nice answer. Let me please study it carefully to understand it.
    – Chris
    Jan 5 at 23:24












  • Could you please explain this point: What do you mean $F : u in L longmapsto u^{|K|}$ and what is exactly $F^{circ n}$?
    – Chris
    Jan 6 at 0:15








  • 1




    I consider the application $F$ from $L$ to $L$ defined by the formula. It is a field automorphism. And $F^{circ n}=overbrace{F circ F ldots circ F}^{n text{ times}}$.
    – Mindlack
    Jan 6 at 0:22
















1














This is a very strange claim, and it is very likely to be false.



It states basically that the ring $K[X]$ is semilocal iff it has finitely many irreducible monic polynomials.



Since all $X+a$, $a in K$, are monic irreducible polynomials, if $K[X]$ is semilocal, then $K$ is finite.



Now assume that $K$ is finite.



I claim that $X^{|K|^n}-X$ is the product $Pi$ of all monic irreducible polynomials over $K$ such that their degree divides $n$.



First, let $P$ denote some irreducible factor of $X^{|K|^n}-X$, let $d$ be its degree. Then $L=K[X]/(P)$ is a field extension of degree $d$ of $K$. Let $F : u in L longmapsto u^{|K|}$, it is a field automorphism of $L$, and $F^{circ n}$ is identity on $K$ and the image of $X$ in $L$ (Because $P|X^{|K|^n}-X$). These elements span $L$ as a ring, thus $F^{circ n}$ is the identity on $L$.



Now, let $r$ be the gcd of $n$ and $d$, then $|K|^r-1$ is the gcd of $|K|^n-1$ and $|K|^d-1=|L^*|$. Since every element of $L^*$ is a root of $X^{|K|^n-1}-1$ and of $X^{|K|^d-1}-1$, the polynomial $X^{|K|^r-1}-1$ vanishes at every element of $L^*$ so has at least $|K|^d-1$ roots. Thus $|K|^d-1 leq |K|^r -1$ hence $d | n$ thus $P | Pi$.



Conversely, let $P$ be an irreducible factor of $Pi$ with degree $d$, and $P neq X$. Then $L=K[X]/(P)$ is a field extension of $K$ with degree $d$, so $L^*$ is a group of cardinality $|K|^d-1$, thus the identity $X^{|K|^d-1}=1$ holds in $L$, thus $X^{|K|^n-1}=1$ in $L$ as well, which translates to $P | X^{|K|^n-1}-1$ in $K[X]$.



Since $X^{|K|^n}-X$ and $Pi$ have the same irreducible factors, are monic, and do not have double factors (check the derivative for the first one), $Pi=X^{|K|^n-1}$.



As a consequence: there exists a monic irreducible polynomial in $K$ of degree $2^n$ for every $n$. Thus there are infinitely many irreducible polynomials over $K$ and $K[X]$ is not semilocal.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Thank you for your nice answer. Let me please study it carefully to understand it.
    – Chris
    Jan 5 at 23:24












  • Could you please explain this point: What do you mean $F : u in L longmapsto u^{|K|}$ and what is exactly $F^{circ n}$?
    – Chris
    Jan 6 at 0:15








  • 1




    I consider the application $F$ from $L$ to $L$ defined by the formula. It is a field automorphism. And $F^{circ n}=overbrace{F circ F ldots circ F}^{n text{ times}}$.
    – Mindlack
    Jan 6 at 0:22














1












1








1






This is a very strange claim, and it is very likely to be false.



It states basically that the ring $K[X]$ is semilocal iff it has finitely many irreducible monic polynomials.



Since all $X+a$, $a in K$, are monic irreducible polynomials, if $K[X]$ is semilocal, then $K$ is finite.



Now assume that $K$ is finite.



I claim that $X^{|K|^n}-X$ is the product $Pi$ of all monic irreducible polynomials over $K$ such that their degree divides $n$.



First, let $P$ denote some irreducible factor of $X^{|K|^n}-X$, let $d$ be its degree. Then $L=K[X]/(P)$ is a field extension of degree $d$ of $K$. Let $F : u in L longmapsto u^{|K|}$, it is a field automorphism of $L$, and $F^{circ n}$ is identity on $K$ and the image of $X$ in $L$ (Because $P|X^{|K|^n}-X$). These elements span $L$ as a ring, thus $F^{circ n}$ is the identity on $L$.



Now, let $r$ be the gcd of $n$ and $d$, then $|K|^r-1$ is the gcd of $|K|^n-1$ and $|K|^d-1=|L^*|$. Since every element of $L^*$ is a root of $X^{|K|^n-1}-1$ and of $X^{|K|^d-1}-1$, the polynomial $X^{|K|^r-1}-1$ vanishes at every element of $L^*$ so has at least $|K|^d-1$ roots. Thus $|K|^d-1 leq |K|^r -1$ hence $d | n$ thus $P | Pi$.



Conversely, let $P$ be an irreducible factor of $Pi$ with degree $d$, and $P neq X$. Then $L=K[X]/(P)$ is a field extension of $K$ with degree $d$, so $L^*$ is a group of cardinality $|K|^d-1$, thus the identity $X^{|K|^d-1}=1$ holds in $L$, thus $X^{|K|^n-1}=1$ in $L$ as well, which translates to $P | X^{|K|^n-1}-1$ in $K[X]$.



Since $X^{|K|^n}-X$ and $Pi$ have the same irreducible factors, are monic, and do not have double factors (check the derivative for the first one), $Pi=X^{|K|^n-1}$.



As a consequence: there exists a monic irreducible polynomial in $K$ of degree $2^n$ for every $n$. Thus there are infinitely many irreducible polynomials over $K$ and $K[X]$ is not semilocal.






share|cite|improve this answer












This is a very strange claim, and it is very likely to be false.



It states basically that the ring $K[X]$ is semilocal iff it has finitely many irreducible monic polynomials.



Since all $X+a$, $a in K$, are monic irreducible polynomials, if $K[X]$ is semilocal, then $K$ is finite.



Now assume that $K$ is finite.



I claim that $X^{|K|^n}-X$ is the product $Pi$ of all monic irreducible polynomials over $K$ such that their degree divides $n$.



First, let $P$ denote some irreducible factor of $X^{|K|^n}-X$, let $d$ be its degree. Then $L=K[X]/(P)$ is a field extension of degree $d$ of $K$. Let $F : u in L longmapsto u^{|K|}$, it is a field automorphism of $L$, and $F^{circ n}$ is identity on $K$ and the image of $X$ in $L$ (Because $P|X^{|K|^n}-X$). These elements span $L$ as a ring, thus $F^{circ n}$ is the identity on $L$.



Now, let $r$ be the gcd of $n$ and $d$, then $|K|^r-1$ is the gcd of $|K|^n-1$ and $|K|^d-1=|L^*|$. Since every element of $L^*$ is a root of $X^{|K|^n-1}-1$ and of $X^{|K|^d-1}-1$, the polynomial $X^{|K|^r-1}-1$ vanishes at every element of $L^*$ so has at least $|K|^d-1$ roots. Thus $|K|^d-1 leq |K|^r -1$ hence $d | n$ thus $P | Pi$.



Conversely, let $P$ be an irreducible factor of $Pi$ with degree $d$, and $P neq X$. Then $L=K[X]/(P)$ is a field extension of $K$ with degree $d$, so $L^*$ is a group of cardinality $|K|^d-1$, thus the identity $X^{|K|^d-1}=1$ holds in $L$, thus $X^{|K|^n-1}=1$ in $L$ as well, which translates to $P | X^{|K|^n-1}-1$ in $K[X]$.



Since $X^{|K|^n}-X$ and $Pi$ have the same irreducible factors, are monic, and do not have double factors (check the derivative for the first one), $Pi=X^{|K|^n-1}$.



As a consequence: there exists a monic irreducible polynomial in $K$ of degree $2^n$ for every $n$. Thus there are infinitely many irreducible polynomials over $K$ and $K[X]$ is not semilocal.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Jan 5 at 22:51









MindlackMindlack

2,16717




2,16717












  • Thank you for your nice answer. Let me please study it carefully to understand it.
    – Chris
    Jan 5 at 23:24












  • Could you please explain this point: What do you mean $F : u in L longmapsto u^{|K|}$ and what is exactly $F^{circ n}$?
    – Chris
    Jan 6 at 0:15








  • 1




    I consider the application $F$ from $L$ to $L$ defined by the formula. It is a field automorphism. And $F^{circ n}=overbrace{F circ F ldots circ F}^{n text{ times}}$.
    – Mindlack
    Jan 6 at 0:22


















  • Thank you for your nice answer. Let me please study it carefully to understand it.
    – Chris
    Jan 5 at 23:24












  • Could you please explain this point: What do you mean $F : u in L longmapsto u^{|K|}$ and what is exactly $F^{circ n}$?
    – Chris
    Jan 6 at 0:15








  • 1




    I consider the application $F$ from $L$ to $L$ defined by the formula. It is a field automorphism. And $F^{circ n}=overbrace{F circ F ldots circ F}^{n text{ times}}$.
    – Mindlack
    Jan 6 at 0:22
















Thank you for your nice answer. Let me please study it carefully to understand it.
– Chris
Jan 5 at 23:24






Thank you for your nice answer. Let me please study it carefully to understand it.
– Chris
Jan 5 at 23:24














Could you please explain this point: What do you mean $F : u in L longmapsto u^{|K|}$ and what is exactly $F^{circ n}$?
– Chris
Jan 6 at 0:15






Could you please explain this point: What do you mean $F : u in L longmapsto u^{|K|}$ and what is exactly $F^{circ n}$?
– Chris
Jan 6 at 0:15






1




1




I consider the application $F$ from $L$ to $L$ defined by the formula. It is a field automorphism. And $F^{circ n}=overbrace{F circ F ldots circ F}^{n text{ times}}$.
– Mindlack
Jan 6 at 0:22




I consider the application $F$ from $L$ to $L$ defined by the formula. It is a field automorphism. And $F^{circ n}=overbrace{F circ F ldots circ F}^{n text{ times}}$.
– Mindlack
Jan 6 at 0:22


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































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.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • 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.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3063263%2fis-kx-not-a-semilocal-ring%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

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







Popular posts from this blog

Mario Kart Wii

The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth/Afterbirth

What does “Dominus providebit” mean?