4

Problem:

Let $F$ be a field. Prove that if $p(x)$ is irreducible, then $\langle p(x) \rangle$ is a maximal ideal of $F[x]$.

Attempt:

Let $d(x),a(x),p(x) \in F[x]$ and suppose $\text{gcd}[a(x), p(x)] = d(x)$. Then $d(x) \mid p(x)$. So $p(x) = d(x)c(x)$ for some $c(x) \in F[x]$. Because $p(x)$ is irreducible, either $d(x)$ or $c(x)$ is a constant.

If $d(x)$ is a nonzero constant in $F$, then $\langle p(x) \rangle = F[x]$ by [previous proof]* and $\langle p(x) \rangle$ is not maximal because it generates all of $F[x]$.

If $c(x)$ is a nonzero constant, then: \begin{align*} p(x) &= d(x)c(x) \\ p(x) &= d(x)c && \text{$c(x) = c$ is a constant}\\ p(x)c^{-1} &= d(x)cc^{-1} \\ p(x)c^{-1} &= d(x) \\ d(x) &= p(x)c^{-1} \end{align*}

Since $d(x) \mid a(x)$, we have that $a(x) = d(x)e(x)$ for some $e(x) \in F[x]$. Then: \begin{align*} a(x) &= d(x)e(x) \\ a(x) &= p(x)c^{-1}e(x) && \text{substitution}\\ a(x) &= p(x)e(x)c^{-1} \end{align*}

This implies that $a(x)$ is a multiple of $p(x)$.

Questions:

My understanding is that if $d(x)$ is a nonzero constant, then $\langle p(x) \rangle$ cannot be maximal because it generates the entire ring. But it also seems to me that $c(x)$ being a constant presents a contradiction.

Does $a(x)$ being a multiple of $p(x)$ present a contradiction, because $a(x)$ and $p(x)$ are relatively prime?

If not, how can I use that $c(x)$ being constant shows that $\langle p(x) \rangle$ is maximal?

Second, guided attempt:

Let $J$ be an ideal containing $\langle p(x) \rangle$ that isn't equal to $\langle p(x) \rangle$. Then there must exist a polynomial $a(x)$ that is in $J$ but not in $\langle p(x) \rangle$. We'll show that $J = F[x]$ using that $p(x)$ and $a(x)$ are relatively prime.

Let $d(x),a(x),p(x) \in F[x]$ and suppose $\text{gcd}[a(x), p(x)] = d(x)$. Then $d(x) \mid p(x)$. So $p(x) = d(x)c(x)$ for some $c(x) \in F[x]$. Because $p(x)$ is irreducible, either $d(x)$ or $c(x)$ is a constant.

By [previous proof]*, if $d(x)$ is a nonzero constant in $F$, then $J=F[x]$ and we are done.

If, on the other hand, $c(x)$ is a nonzero constant, then: \begin{align*} p(x) &= d(x)c(x) \\ p(x) &= d(x)c && \text{$c(x) = c$ is a constant}\\ p(x)c^{-1} &= d(x)cc^{-1} \\ p(x)c^{-1} &= d(x) \\ d(x) &= p(x)c^{-1} \end{align*}

Since $d(x) \mid a(x)$, we have that $a(x) = d(x)e(x)$ for some $e(x) \in F[x]$. Then: \begin{align*} a(x) &= d(x)e(x) \\ a(x) &= p(x)c^{-1}e(x) && \text{substitution}\\ a(x) &= p(x)e(x)c^{-1} \end{align*}

This implies that $a(x)$ is a multiple of $p(x)$, which is a contradiction, because $a(x)$ and $p(x)$ are relatively prime. Thus, $\langle p(x) \rangle$ is a maximal ideal of $F[x]$.

* Previous proof: If $J$ is an ideal of $A$ and $J$ contains an invertible element $a$ of $A$, then $J = A$.

  • 1
    $(d) = (a,p) = (1),$ or $(p)$ by $(p)$ irred, so $,a\not\in (p)\Rightarrow, (a,p)=(1),$ so $(p)$ is maximal. – Bill Dubuque May 13 '19 at 15:58
  • 4
    Hint $\ $ For principal ideals: $\ \rm\color{#0a0}{contains} = \color{#c00}{divides}$, $ $ i.e. $(a)\supseteq (b)\iff a\mid b,,$ thus having no proper containing ideal (maximal) is the same as having no proper divisor (irreducible), $ $ i.e.

    $\ \qquad\quad\begin{eqnarray} \ (p),\text{ is maximal} &\iff&!!\ (p), \text{ has no proper } ,{\rm\color{#0a0}{container}},\ (d)\ &\iff&\ p\ \ \text{ has no proper},\ {\rm\color{#c00}{divisor}},\ d\ &\iff&\ p\ \ \text{ is irreducible}\ \end{eqnarray}\ \ \ $

    – Bill Dubuque May 13 '19 at 16:01
  • What is $a(x)$ in your proof? And how are you using it in the proof? – Julian Mejia May 13 '19 at 16:03
  • @JulianMejia An element in $F[x]$ such that $\text{gcd}[a(x), p(x)] = d(x)$. – Alex Johnson May 13 '19 at 16:05
  • My question was on the direction that what you need to prove is that $\langle a(x),p(x)\rangle$ is either $\langle p(x)\rangle$ or the entire $F[x]$. – Julian Mejia May 13 '19 at 16:10
  • Above I meamt $p$ irred, not $(p)$ irred. Do you grok my hinted proof? That's the conceptual essence of the matter here. – Bill Dubuque May 13 '19 at 16:10
  • To be more explicit: your second line "If d(x) is a nonzero constant in F, then ⟨p(x)⟩=F[x] by [previous proof] and ⟨p(x)⟩ is not maximal because it generates all of F[x]." Is wrong. – Julian Mejia May 13 '19 at 16:14
  • @BillDubuque I understand your proof, it's my own that I'm having trouble with! But yes, your explanation is helpful. – Alex Johnson May 13 '19 at 16:17
  • @JulianMejia OK, I may have misunderstood the proof that this was based on. If $d(x)$ is a nonzero constant, then $\langle p(x) \rangle$ is maximal. If, on the other hand, $c(x)$ is a nonzero constant, then that would imply that $a(x)$ is a multiple of $p(x)$, which is a contradiction, because $a(x)$ and $p(x)$ are relatively prime. Thus, $d(x)$ must be the nonzero constant and $\langle p(x) \rangle$ must be maximal. Does that make sense? – Alex Johnson May 13 '19 at 16:22
  • Please explain the method you are using in your proof to prove that $(p)$ is max. There appears to be some confusion there. – Bill Dubuque May 13 '19 at 16:23
  • For the record, that previous proof states that if $J$ is an ideal of $A$ and $J$ contains an invertible element $a$ of $A$, then $J = A$. – Alex Johnson May 13 '19 at 16:26
  • @Alex What method are you using to show $(p)$ is max? Is it: for any $a$ we have $(a,p) = (p),$ or $(1)?\ $ We need to know that in order to debug the proof. – Bill Dubuque May 13 '19 at 16:37
  • @BillDubuque Saying I have a method is probably overly generous. My strategy was to show that either c(x) or d(x) were constants, but I'm stuck on the fact that it if d(x) is a constant, then it's invertible in F, which implies that J = F[x], which implies that J is not maximal because it's equal to F[x]. If, on the other hand, c(x) is a constant, then a(x) is a multiple of p(x), which is a contradiction because a(x) and p(x) are relatively prime. There are obviously simpler ways to prove this, as you have shown. But I'm trying to finish up my own version here. – Alex Johnson May 13 '19 at 16:43
  • How do you propose to prove that $(p)$ is maximal, i.e. ___ $\Longrightarrow (p)$ is maximal? Please fill in the blank with the maximality criterion that you are attempting to apply in your proof (if your are using the definition of a maximal ideal then please tell us that definition). – Bill Dubuque May 13 '19 at 16:46
  • I would recommend Algebra II (MA249) Lecture Notes from Warwick. – Fly by Night May 13 '19 at 16:48
  • 1
    So, after reading the answer of Ehsaan, apparently your assumption was $(p(x))\subset I= (a(x))$ and you wanted to prove that $I=(p(x))$or $F[x]$? Is that right? This is what I was asking for, because in your proof, $(a(x))$ is not just a random polynomial. – Julian Mejia May 13 '19 at 16:58
  • @BillDubuque My strategy, now amended above, is to show that any ideal larger than $\langle p(x) \rangle$ must equal $F[x]$. – Alex Johnson May 13 '19 at 17:05
  • @JulianMejia You're correct. And I see now why you were asking that. Thanks for your patience. – Alex Johnson May 13 '19 at 17:05
  • @Alex Your 2nd proof is correct, but you should say why $,d\in J.,$ Said more succinctly the proof is as in my first comment, i.e. $\ (a,p) = (d),\Rightarrow, d = \gcd(a,p) = 1$ or $p$ by $p$ irred, so $,d = 1,$ by $,a\not\in (p).\ $ The proof in my 2nd comment is a bit clearer conceptually. – Bill Dubuque May 13 '19 at 17:18
  • @BillDubuque Noted. Thank you for your help. – Alex Johnson May 13 '19 at 17:25
  • 1
    So the proof boils down to the fact that irred $,p\nmid a,\Rightarrow, (p,a) = 1,$ where we can read the pair notation as either a gcd or ideal. This connection between gcds and principal ideals in PIDs allows us to transfer divisibility intuition from $\Bbb Z$ to arbitrary PIDs, e.g. see generalizations of Euclid' Lemma – Bill Dubuque May 13 '19 at 17:39

3 Answers3

1

Every ideal of $F[x]$ is principal. If $\langle p(x)\rangle$ is not maximal, then $p(x)$ must have a non-constant factor with a lower degree, which is impossible.

hchar
  • 1,181
0

Assume the contrary. Suppose that $<p(x)>=I$ (say) is not a maximal ideal. Let $<q(x)>=J$ (say) be another ideal property contained in $<p(x)>$, that is, $<p>\subset <q(x)>$. Then $q(x)=r(x)p(x)$ for some $r(x)\in F[x]$. Now consider the necessary cases.

Unknown
  • 3,073
-1

Here is the proof, maybe that will settle your questions?

If $(p(x))$ is not maximal, then there is an ideal $I$ containing it. We'll show $I=F[x]$ or $I=(p(x)).

Since $F[x]$ is a principal ideal domain, we know $I=(f(x))$ for some polynomial $f(x)$. (This is probably where your argument involving $a(x)$, $d(x)$, and $c(x)$ comes in --- your $a(x)$ is my $f(x)$.)

Now the containment of ideals $(p(x))\subseteq (f(x))$ implies that $f(x)$ divides $p(x)$. But $p(x)$ is irreducible --- so this is only possible if $f(x)$ is a scalar multiple of $p(x)$, or if $f(x)$ is constant. These cases correspondingly imply $(f(x))=(p(x))$, or $(f(x))=F[x]$.

Ehsaan
  • 3,227