Why is it that derivatives, which are used in calculus, are also useful in abstract algebra concerning abstract polynomial rings? What is the connection between calculus and algebra here?
-
4One application: formal derivatives can be used to help identify repeated roots of members of polynomial rings. – Simon S Jun 01 '15 at 20:20
-
2You ask if you knew derivatives are useful in abstract algebra, but you don't explain why you think so. – Git Gud Jun 01 '15 at 20:22
-
2If $P$ is a polynomial, we may need information about $P(x+a)-P(x)$. One example is in Hensel lifting. The derivative here is a formal derivative, which can be defined purely algebraically, but it coincides with the ordinary derivative. – André Nicolas Jun 01 '15 at 20:23
-
2Follow the links here. – Bill Dubuque Jun 01 '15 at 20:27
-
2Every kind of derivations can be defined in abstract algebra, and the key connection is the Leibniz rule for products ($(fg)'=f'g+fg'$) and this in itself is written purely algebraically, in the language of rings (uses addition and multipliction). – Berci Jun 01 '15 at 20:31
-
@GitGud I know that they are used in abstract algebra (sometimes it seems like just a "trick"). But I am asking why we have these things that came into being thru distance/ topological concerns (specifically calculus) being transposed into a non-topological, no-distances type of arena. – 123 Jun 01 '15 at 21:08
1 Answers
Partial derivatives can give information about "functional dependence". Here is a fact that is easy for polynomials over $\mathbb{R}$ but is true in general for polynomials over any perfect field.
Let $\phi_1$, $\ldots$, $\phi_n$ be $n$ polynomials in $n$ variables $x_1$, $\ldots$, $x_n$ over a field $F$. Assume that the jacobian determinant $\det (\frac{\partial \phi_i}{\partial x_j})$ is not the zero polynomial. Then the $\phi_i$'s are functionally independent, that is, there does not exist a non-zero polynomial $P$ such that $P(\phi_1, \ldots, \phi_n ) \equiv 0$.
Assume such $P$ there exists and take one of minimal degree. From the equality $P(\phi_1, \ldots, \phi_n ) = 0$ we get a system of equations in $\frac{\partial P}{\partial y_i}(\phi_1, \ldots, \phi_n)$: $$\sum_i \frac{\partial P}{\partial y_i}(\phi_1, \ldots, \phi_n)\cdot \frac{\partial \phi_i}{\partial x_j}= 0$$ $j=1,\ldots, n$ and so by Cramer $$\det (\frac{\partial \phi_i}{\partial x_j}) \cdot \frac{\partial P}{\partial y_k}(\phi_1, \ldots, \phi_n)=0$$ for all $k = 1,\ldots, n$ and since the jacobian is nonzero and the ring of polynomials is a domain, we get $\frac{\partial P}{\partial y_k}(\phi_1, \ldots, \phi_n)\equiv 0$ for all $k=1,\ldots, n$. Since $P$ was chosen of minimal degree we get $\frac{\partial P}{\partial y_k}(y_1, \ldots, y_n) \equiv 0$, and so $P$ is either a constant polynomial (in the case char $F = 0$) or a polynomial in $y_i^p$ if char $F= p$. Now since $F$ is perfect, in the second case we necessarily have $P = Q^p$ for some $Q \in F[y_1, \ldots, y_n]$. In either case we get a contradiction.
Note that if we were working over $\mathbb{R}$ this meant that around any point where the jacobian is not $0$ the map $(x_1, \ldots, x_n) \mapsto (\phi_1(x), \ldots, \phi_n(x))$ is a local diffeomorphism (analytic in fact) so the image of the map $\phi$ contains an open set, hence it is "Zariski dense".
$\bf{Added:}$ Let $R_1$, $\ldots$, $R_{k+1}$ rational functions of several variables such that the jacobian matrices of $(R_1, \ldots, R_k)$ and $(R_1, \ldots, R_{k+1})$ have the same rank. Then $R_{k+1}$ is algebric over $(R_1,\ldots, R_k)$. Indeed, otherwise there would exist an $F$ derivation of the field $F(x_i)$ that is $0$ on $R_1$, $\ldots$, $R_k$, but $1$ on $R_{k+1}$, but this is not possible, because of the rank condition on the jacobians.

- 53,909
-
It seems "functionally independent" is in fact algebraically independent. – user26857 Jun 02 '15 at 16:12
-
@user26857: Correct, in the case of polynomials. However, a similar result holds for analytic functions, or smooth, so it's useful to have a wide perspective. – orangeskid Jun 03 '15 at 00:46