0

The solution of the polynomial $(x−1)(x−2)⋯(x−n)−1$ is irreducible in $\mathbb{Z}\left [ x \right ]$ for all $n≥1$ is in here.

I think it's no problem that do the same thing on $\mathbb{Q\left [ x \right ] }$ and $\mathbb{R\left [ x \right ]}$ and get the same result that the polynomial $(x−1)(x−2)⋯(x−n)−1$ is irreducible.

But my question is on $\mathbb{R\left [ x \right ]}$, the polynomial is continuous in $\mathbb{R}$, let $$f(x):=(x−1)(x−2)⋯(x−n)−1$$ Obviously,$f(1)=-1<0;\;f(n+1)=n!-1>0$, so there is a solution between $0$ and $(n+1)$ which means the polynomial is reducible. There's a contradiction, so which part is wrong. Thank you!

user26857
  • 52,094
Zhiwei
  • 107
  • 6
  • 1
    The irreducible polynomials in $\mathbb{R}[x]$ are of degree $1$ or $2$. Once you have a real root $r$ there is a factor $x-r$. If there is a complex root $r$, then since the coefficients are real the complex conjugate $\overline{r}$ is also a root. Therefore, the polynomial is divisible by $x^2-(r+\overline{r})x+|r|^2$ – NDB Jul 15 '23 at 03:23
  • For the irreducibility in $\mathbb{Q}[x]$ you can deduce it from that in $\mathbb{Z}[x]$ using Gauss' lemma – NDB Jul 15 '23 at 03:26
  • @NDB Thank you! I completely understand now :) – Zhiwei Jul 15 '23 at 03:36

1 Answers1

-1

The logic doesn't generalize even to $\mathbb{Q}[x]$.

Then for the integers $1\leq k\leq n$, $h(k)=f(k)g(k)=-1$, so $f(k)$ and $g(k)$ must be one of the values $\pm 1$

What if $f(k) = \frac{1}{g(k)}$? This would be entirely permissible in $\mathbb{Q}$ since $k$ is rational and hence $g(k)$ is too, if $g \in \mathbb{Q}[x]$.

Of course, $1/n$ is a non-integer for integers $n$ (except $\pm 1$). Since $g \in \mathbb{Z}[x] \implies g(k) \in \mathbb{Z}$ (or more broadly, the evaluation of a polynomial over a ring, at an element in that ring, gives an element in that ring) this where they draw their conclusion in the linked post: it is clear the product must evaluate to $-1$, and the factors must be integers since they are polynomials over $\mathbb{Z}$ too.

Of course, then, this need not hold for polynomials over $\mathbb{Q}$.

Some playing around in WolframAlpha does suggest irreducibility over $\mathbb{Q}$ regardless for $n \ge 2$, where nontrivial cases are concerned. My instinct is suggesting perhaps the rational root theorem may help in proving that irreducibility holds (i.e. prove that $n!-1$ is not a root for any $n$).

It does not hold over $\mathbb{R}[x]$, as you have seen.

PrincessEev
  • 43,815
  • 2
  • 1
    I think your idea only holds over R[x], because in Gauss's lemma — A non-constant polynomial in Z[X] is irreducible in Z[X] if and only if it is both irreducible in Q[X] and primitive in Z[X]. So the polynomial is irreducible in Q[x] since it is irreducible in Z[x] – Zhiwei Jul 15 '23 at 03:30
  • @Zhiwei: Your statement is not quite right; you need the polynomial to be non-constant and primitive (the gcd of the coefficients is $1$); but your polynomial is monic, and therefore it is necessarily primitive. – Arturo Magidin Jul 15 '23 at 05:58