Why every polynomial is separable over a field of char 0?
There is a definition:
Characteristic: the least common multiple (can be zero) of all orders of all elements in a field.
Then for a field with characteristic 0, pick elements,
$$ alpha_1, alpha_2, ..., alpha_n$$
such that the least common multiple of their orders is $q$.
Then the irreducible,
$$ f(x) = alpha_0 + alpha_1 x^q + alpha_2 x^{2q} + ... + alpha_n x^{nq} $$
has derivative,
$$ f'(x) = qalpha_1x^{q-1} + 2qalpha_2x^{2q-1} + ... + nqalpha_nx^{nq-1} = 0 $$
It follows that $gcd(f, f') = f$, and $f$ is inseparable.
Note that this can also work in field of characteristic $p$, if we choose such $q$ less than $p$.
So could anyone proof this is wrong, in the hope that there does not exist such a $q$?
abstract-algebra
add a comment |
There is a definition:
Characteristic: the least common multiple (can be zero) of all orders of all elements in a field.
Then for a field with characteristic 0, pick elements,
$$ alpha_1, alpha_2, ..., alpha_n$$
such that the least common multiple of their orders is $q$.
Then the irreducible,
$$ f(x) = alpha_0 + alpha_1 x^q + alpha_2 x^{2q} + ... + alpha_n x^{nq} $$
has derivative,
$$ f'(x) = qalpha_1x^{q-1} + 2qalpha_2x^{2q-1} + ... + nqalpha_nx^{nq-1} = 0 $$
It follows that $gcd(f, f') = f$, and $f$ is inseparable.
Note that this can also work in field of characteristic $p$, if we choose such $q$ less than $p$.
So could anyone proof this is wrong, in the hope that there does not exist such a $q$?
abstract-algebra
1
Why would the additive orders of the coefficients of a polynomial be related to the degrees of the terms? There's a kind of disconnect in your introduction of $f(x)$ in that it came out of nowhere. You cannot assume that an arbitrary irreducible polynomial would only have terms of degrees that are multiples of $q$. In other words, exactly what are you asking?
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Dec 27 '18 at 8:16
5
Also, when the characteristic of a field (or an integral domain) is introduced, one of the first exercises is to prove that ALL the elements (with the exception of zero) have exactly the same order. So defining the characteristic as the least common multiple, while correct, feels a bit like a misdescription. It is kinda missing the main point, if you ask me :-)
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Dec 27 '18 at 8:18
@JyrkiLahtonen Sorry for the confusion, I think the two answers gets my idea.
– Astrick Harren
Dec 28 '18 at 4:52
add a comment |
There is a definition:
Characteristic: the least common multiple (can be zero) of all orders of all elements in a field.
Then for a field with characteristic 0, pick elements,
$$ alpha_1, alpha_2, ..., alpha_n$$
such that the least common multiple of their orders is $q$.
Then the irreducible,
$$ f(x) = alpha_0 + alpha_1 x^q + alpha_2 x^{2q} + ... + alpha_n x^{nq} $$
has derivative,
$$ f'(x) = qalpha_1x^{q-1} + 2qalpha_2x^{2q-1} + ... + nqalpha_nx^{nq-1} = 0 $$
It follows that $gcd(f, f') = f$, and $f$ is inseparable.
Note that this can also work in field of characteristic $p$, if we choose such $q$ less than $p$.
So could anyone proof this is wrong, in the hope that there does not exist such a $q$?
abstract-algebra
There is a definition:
Characteristic: the least common multiple (can be zero) of all orders of all elements in a field.
Then for a field with characteristic 0, pick elements,
$$ alpha_1, alpha_2, ..., alpha_n$$
such that the least common multiple of their orders is $q$.
Then the irreducible,
$$ f(x) = alpha_0 + alpha_1 x^q + alpha_2 x^{2q} + ... + alpha_n x^{nq} $$
has derivative,
$$ f'(x) = qalpha_1x^{q-1} + 2qalpha_2x^{2q-1} + ... + nqalpha_nx^{nq-1} = 0 $$
It follows that $gcd(f, f') = f$, and $f$ is inseparable.
Note that this can also work in field of characteristic $p$, if we choose such $q$ less than $p$.
So could anyone proof this is wrong, in the hope that there does not exist such a $q$?
abstract-algebra
abstract-algebra
asked Dec 27 '18 at 7:59
Astrick Harren
614
614
1
Why would the additive orders of the coefficients of a polynomial be related to the degrees of the terms? There's a kind of disconnect in your introduction of $f(x)$ in that it came out of nowhere. You cannot assume that an arbitrary irreducible polynomial would only have terms of degrees that are multiples of $q$. In other words, exactly what are you asking?
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Dec 27 '18 at 8:16
5
Also, when the characteristic of a field (or an integral domain) is introduced, one of the first exercises is to prove that ALL the elements (with the exception of zero) have exactly the same order. So defining the characteristic as the least common multiple, while correct, feels a bit like a misdescription. It is kinda missing the main point, if you ask me :-)
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Dec 27 '18 at 8:18
@JyrkiLahtonen Sorry for the confusion, I think the two answers gets my idea.
– Astrick Harren
Dec 28 '18 at 4:52
add a comment |
1
Why would the additive orders of the coefficients of a polynomial be related to the degrees of the terms? There's a kind of disconnect in your introduction of $f(x)$ in that it came out of nowhere. You cannot assume that an arbitrary irreducible polynomial would only have terms of degrees that are multiples of $q$. In other words, exactly what are you asking?
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Dec 27 '18 at 8:16
5
Also, when the characteristic of a field (or an integral domain) is introduced, one of the first exercises is to prove that ALL the elements (with the exception of zero) have exactly the same order. So defining the characteristic as the least common multiple, while correct, feels a bit like a misdescription. It is kinda missing the main point, if you ask me :-)
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Dec 27 '18 at 8:18
@JyrkiLahtonen Sorry for the confusion, I think the two answers gets my idea.
– Astrick Harren
Dec 28 '18 at 4:52
1
1
Why would the additive orders of the coefficients of a polynomial be related to the degrees of the terms? There's a kind of disconnect in your introduction of $f(x)$ in that it came out of nowhere. You cannot assume that an arbitrary irreducible polynomial would only have terms of degrees that are multiples of $q$. In other words, exactly what are you asking?
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Dec 27 '18 at 8:16
Why would the additive orders of the coefficients of a polynomial be related to the degrees of the terms? There's a kind of disconnect in your introduction of $f(x)$ in that it came out of nowhere. You cannot assume that an arbitrary irreducible polynomial would only have terms of degrees that are multiples of $q$. In other words, exactly what are you asking?
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Dec 27 '18 at 8:16
5
5
Also, when the characteristic of a field (or an integral domain) is introduced, one of the first exercises is to prove that ALL the elements (with the exception of zero) have exactly the same order. So defining the characteristic as the least common multiple, while correct, feels a bit like a misdescription. It is kinda missing the main point, if you ask me :-)
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Dec 27 '18 at 8:18
Also, when the characteristic of a field (or an integral domain) is introduced, one of the first exercises is to prove that ALL the elements (with the exception of zero) have exactly the same order. So defining the characteristic as the least common multiple, while correct, feels a bit like a misdescription. It is kinda missing the main point, if you ask me :-)
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Dec 27 '18 at 8:18
@JyrkiLahtonen Sorry for the confusion, I think the two answers gets my idea.
– Astrick Harren
Dec 28 '18 at 4:52
@JyrkiLahtonen Sorry for the confusion, I think the two answers gets my idea.
– Astrick Harren
Dec 28 '18 at 4:52
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
How can any non-zero $a_i$ in a field of characteristic $0$ have finite additive order? Suppose $a$ has finite order so that $$0=a+a+ dots a=(1+1+dots +1)a$$
Now multiply by $a^{-1}$ to obtain $$0=1+1+ dots +1$$ with say $q$ summands.
Then multiply this by an arbitrary field element $b$ to show that $b$ has order at most $q$, and every element of the field has finite order which is a factor of $q$. And the characteristic is therefore non-zero.
add a comment |
As noted in comments, the definition you give of characteristic is deceptive. Actually, your argument is sound: indeed
if there exist elements $alpha_1, alpha_2, dots, alpha_n$ having finite order $>1$ such that the polynomial $$f(x) = alpha_0 + alpha_1 x^q + alpha_2 x^{2q} + dots + alpha_n x^{nq}$$ is irreducible, then $f$ is inseparable
is a true statement.
The only problem is that such elements don't exist.
The reason is very simple: in a field $F$ of characteristic $0$, there is no element $alphane0$ with finite order $q>0$. Indeed, if $qalpha=0$, with $alphane0$, then, for every $betain F$,
$$
qbeta=qalphaalpha^{-1}beta=0
$$
so the least common multiple of the orders of elements in $F$ is a divisor of $q$, hence it cannot be $0$: contradiction.
Similarly, if an element $alphane0$ in the field $F$ of characteritic $p>0$ has order $q$, then, for every element $betain F$,
$$
qbeta=qalphaalpha^{-1}beta=0
$$
and therefore the least common multiple of the orders of elements is a divisor of $q$. In particular $pmid q$. Thus you cannot find elements of order $q<p$.
In a field $F$, the characteristic is the order of the identity element (taking it to be $0$, if the identity element has infinite order). Indeed, if the order of the identity element is $p>0$, then for every $alphain F$ we have $palpha=p1alpha=0$, so the order of $alpha$ is a divisor of $p$. In the case of characteristic $0$, no nonzero element can have finite order, as shown before.
Over a ring (not a field), the argument above doesn't apply, but there is a much easier way to introduce the notion of characteristic: if $1$ is the identity element of the ring $R$, there exists a unique ring homomorphism $chicolonmathbb{Z}to R$, defined by $chi(n)=n1$ (the usual group-theoretic multiple).
If $kmathbb{Z}$ is the kernel of $chi$ (and $kge0$ is uniquely determined), then by definition of kernel, $kalpha=0$, for every $alphain R$. If $k>0$, then the least common multiple of the orders of elements is obviously $k$ (because one element with order $k$ exists, namely $1$). If $k=0$, then all elements except $0$ have infinite order.
So for a ring it is not necessary to have all element with the same order while for a domain is? By domain I mean the ring without zero divisors.
– Astrick Harren
Dec 28 '18 at 4:50
@AstrickHarren Yes, that's it: a domain can be embedded in a field, so the same argument as for fields applies. In a ring such as $mathbb{Z}/6mathbb{Z}$, the elements have different orders.
– egreg
Dec 28 '18 at 8:52
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%2f3053692%2fwhy-every-polynomial-is-separable-over-a-field-of-char-0%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
How can any non-zero $a_i$ in a field of characteristic $0$ have finite additive order? Suppose $a$ has finite order so that $$0=a+a+ dots a=(1+1+dots +1)a$$
Now multiply by $a^{-1}$ to obtain $$0=1+1+ dots +1$$ with say $q$ summands.
Then multiply this by an arbitrary field element $b$ to show that $b$ has order at most $q$, and every element of the field has finite order which is a factor of $q$. And the characteristic is therefore non-zero.
add a comment |
How can any non-zero $a_i$ in a field of characteristic $0$ have finite additive order? Suppose $a$ has finite order so that $$0=a+a+ dots a=(1+1+dots +1)a$$
Now multiply by $a^{-1}$ to obtain $$0=1+1+ dots +1$$ with say $q$ summands.
Then multiply this by an arbitrary field element $b$ to show that $b$ has order at most $q$, and every element of the field has finite order which is a factor of $q$. And the characteristic is therefore non-zero.
add a comment |
How can any non-zero $a_i$ in a field of characteristic $0$ have finite additive order? Suppose $a$ has finite order so that $$0=a+a+ dots a=(1+1+dots +1)a$$
Now multiply by $a^{-1}$ to obtain $$0=1+1+ dots +1$$ with say $q$ summands.
Then multiply this by an arbitrary field element $b$ to show that $b$ has order at most $q$, and every element of the field has finite order which is a factor of $q$. And the characteristic is therefore non-zero.
How can any non-zero $a_i$ in a field of characteristic $0$ have finite additive order? Suppose $a$ has finite order so that $$0=a+a+ dots a=(1+1+dots +1)a$$
Now multiply by $a^{-1}$ to obtain $$0=1+1+ dots +1$$ with say $q$ summands.
Then multiply this by an arbitrary field element $b$ to show that $b$ has order at most $q$, and every element of the field has finite order which is a factor of $q$. And the characteristic is therefore non-zero.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 8:50
Mark Bennet
80.6k981179
80.6k981179
add a comment |
add a comment |
As noted in comments, the definition you give of characteristic is deceptive. Actually, your argument is sound: indeed
if there exist elements $alpha_1, alpha_2, dots, alpha_n$ having finite order $>1$ such that the polynomial $$f(x) = alpha_0 + alpha_1 x^q + alpha_2 x^{2q} + dots + alpha_n x^{nq}$$ is irreducible, then $f$ is inseparable
is a true statement.
The only problem is that such elements don't exist.
The reason is very simple: in a field $F$ of characteristic $0$, there is no element $alphane0$ with finite order $q>0$. Indeed, if $qalpha=0$, with $alphane0$, then, for every $betain F$,
$$
qbeta=qalphaalpha^{-1}beta=0
$$
so the least common multiple of the orders of elements in $F$ is a divisor of $q$, hence it cannot be $0$: contradiction.
Similarly, if an element $alphane0$ in the field $F$ of characteritic $p>0$ has order $q$, then, for every element $betain F$,
$$
qbeta=qalphaalpha^{-1}beta=0
$$
and therefore the least common multiple of the orders of elements is a divisor of $q$. In particular $pmid q$. Thus you cannot find elements of order $q<p$.
In a field $F$, the characteristic is the order of the identity element (taking it to be $0$, if the identity element has infinite order). Indeed, if the order of the identity element is $p>0$, then for every $alphain F$ we have $palpha=p1alpha=0$, so the order of $alpha$ is a divisor of $p$. In the case of characteristic $0$, no nonzero element can have finite order, as shown before.
Over a ring (not a field), the argument above doesn't apply, but there is a much easier way to introduce the notion of characteristic: if $1$ is the identity element of the ring $R$, there exists a unique ring homomorphism $chicolonmathbb{Z}to R$, defined by $chi(n)=n1$ (the usual group-theoretic multiple).
If $kmathbb{Z}$ is the kernel of $chi$ (and $kge0$ is uniquely determined), then by definition of kernel, $kalpha=0$, for every $alphain R$. If $k>0$, then the least common multiple of the orders of elements is obviously $k$ (because one element with order $k$ exists, namely $1$). If $k=0$, then all elements except $0$ have infinite order.
So for a ring it is not necessary to have all element with the same order while for a domain is? By domain I mean the ring without zero divisors.
– Astrick Harren
Dec 28 '18 at 4:50
@AstrickHarren Yes, that's it: a domain can be embedded in a field, so the same argument as for fields applies. In a ring such as $mathbb{Z}/6mathbb{Z}$, the elements have different orders.
– egreg
Dec 28 '18 at 8:52
add a comment |
As noted in comments, the definition you give of characteristic is deceptive. Actually, your argument is sound: indeed
if there exist elements $alpha_1, alpha_2, dots, alpha_n$ having finite order $>1$ such that the polynomial $$f(x) = alpha_0 + alpha_1 x^q + alpha_2 x^{2q} + dots + alpha_n x^{nq}$$ is irreducible, then $f$ is inseparable
is a true statement.
The only problem is that such elements don't exist.
The reason is very simple: in a field $F$ of characteristic $0$, there is no element $alphane0$ with finite order $q>0$. Indeed, if $qalpha=0$, with $alphane0$, then, for every $betain F$,
$$
qbeta=qalphaalpha^{-1}beta=0
$$
so the least common multiple of the orders of elements in $F$ is a divisor of $q$, hence it cannot be $0$: contradiction.
Similarly, if an element $alphane0$ in the field $F$ of characteritic $p>0$ has order $q$, then, for every element $betain F$,
$$
qbeta=qalphaalpha^{-1}beta=0
$$
and therefore the least common multiple of the orders of elements is a divisor of $q$. In particular $pmid q$. Thus you cannot find elements of order $q<p$.
In a field $F$, the characteristic is the order of the identity element (taking it to be $0$, if the identity element has infinite order). Indeed, if the order of the identity element is $p>0$, then for every $alphain F$ we have $palpha=p1alpha=0$, so the order of $alpha$ is a divisor of $p$. In the case of characteristic $0$, no nonzero element can have finite order, as shown before.
Over a ring (not a field), the argument above doesn't apply, but there is a much easier way to introduce the notion of characteristic: if $1$ is the identity element of the ring $R$, there exists a unique ring homomorphism $chicolonmathbb{Z}to R$, defined by $chi(n)=n1$ (the usual group-theoretic multiple).
If $kmathbb{Z}$ is the kernel of $chi$ (and $kge0$ is uniquely determined), then by definition of kernel, $kalpha=0$, for every $alphain R$. If $k>0$, then the least common multiple of the orders of elements is obviously $k$ (because one element with order $k$ exists, namely $1$). If $k=0$, then all elements except $0$ have infinite order.
So for a ring it is not necessary to have all element with the same order while for a domain is? By domain I mean the ring without zero divisors.
– Astrick Harren
Dec 28 '18 at 4:50
@AstrickHarren Yes, that's it: a domain can be embedded in a field, so the same argument as for fields applies. In a ring such as $mathbb{Z}/6mathbb{Z}$, the elements have different orders.
– egreg
Dec 28 '18 at 8:52
add a comment |
As noted in comments, the definition you give of characteristic is deceptive. Actually, your argument is sound: indeed
if there exist elements $alpha_1, alpha_2, dots, alpha_n$ having finite order $>1$ such that the polynomial $$f(x) = alpha_0 + alpha_1 x^q + alpha_2 x^{2q} + dots + alpha_n x^{nq}$$ is irreducible, then $f$ is inseparable
is a true statement.
The only problem is that such elements don't exist.
The reason is very simple: in a field $F$ of characteristic $0$, there is no element $alphane0$ with finite order $q>0$. Indeed, if $qalpha=0$, with $alphane0$, then, for every $betain F$,
$$
qbeta=qalphaalpha^{-1}beta=0
$$
so the least common multiple of the orders of elements in $F$ is a divisor of $q$, hence it cannot be $0$: contradiction.
Similarly, if an element $alphane0$ in the field $F$ of characteritic $p>0$ has order $q$, then, for every element $betain F$,
$$
qbeta=qalphaalpha^{-1}beta=0
$$
and therefore the least common multiple of the orders of elements is a divisor of $q$. In particular $pmid q$. Thus you cannot find elements of order $q<p$.
In a field $F$, the characteristic is the order of the identity element (taking it to be $0$, if the identity element has infinite order). Indeed, if the order of the identity element is $p>0$, then for every $alphain F$ we have $palpha=p1alpha=0$, so the order of $alpha$ is a divisor of $p$. In the case of characteristic $0$, no nonzero element can have finite order, as shown before.
Over a ring (not a field), the argument above doesn't apply, but there is a much easier way to introduce the notion of characteristic: if $1$ is the identity element of the ring $R$, there exists a unique ring homomorphism $chicolonmathbb{Z}to R$, defined by $chi(n)=n1$ (the usual group-theoretic multiple).
If $kmathbb{Z}$ is the kernel of $chi$ (and $kge0$ is uniquely determined), then by definition of kernel, $kalpha=0$, for every $alphain R$. If $k>0$, then the least common multiple of the orders of elements is obviously $k$ (because one element with order $k$ exists, namely $1$). If $k=0$, then all elements except $0$ have infinite order.
As noted in comments, the definition you give of characteristic is deceptive. Actually, your argument is sound: indeed
if there exist elements $alpha_1, alpha_2, dots, alpha_n$ having finite order $>1$ such that the polynomial $$f(x) = alpha_0 + alpha_1 x^q + alpha_2 x^{2q} + dots + alpha_n x^{nq}$$ is irreducible, then $f$ is inseparable
is a true statement.
The only problem is that such elements don't exist.
The reason is very simple: in a field $F$ of characteristic $0$, there is no element $alphane0$ with finite order $q>0$. Indeed, if $qalpha=0$, with $alphane0$, then, for every $betain F$,
$$
qbeta=qalphaalpha^{-1}beta=0
$$
so the least common multiple of the orders of elements in $F$ is a divisor of $q$, hence it cannot be $0$: contradiction.
Similarly, if an element $alphane0$ in the field $F$ of characteritic $p>0$ has order $q$, then, for every element $betain F$,
$$
qbeta=qalphaalpha^{-1}beta=0
$$
and therefore the least common multiple of the orders of elements is a divisor of $q$. In particular $pmid q$. Thus you cannot find elements of order $q<p$.
In a field $F$, the characteristic is the order of the identity element (taking it to be $0$, if the identity element has infinite order). Indeed, if the order of the identity element is $p>0$, then for every $alphain F$ we have $palpha=p1alpha=0$, so the order of $alpha$ is a divisor of $p$. In the case of characteristic $0$, no nonzero element can have finite order, as shown before.
Over a ring (not a field), the argument above doesn't apply, but there is a much easier way to introduce the notion of characteristic: if $1$ is the identity element of the ring $R$, there exists a unique ring homomorphism $chicolonmathbb{Z}to R$, defined by $chi(n)=n1$ (the usual group-theoretic multiple).
If $kmathbb{Z}$ is the kernel of $chi$ (and $kge0$ is uniquely determined), then by definition of kernel, $kalpha=0$, for every $alphain R$. If $k>0$, then the least common multiple of the orders of elements is obviously $k$ (because one element with order $k$ exists, namely $1$). If $k=0$, then all elements except $0$ have infinite order.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 12:05
egreg
178k1484201
178k1484201
So for a ring it is not necessary to have all element with the same order while for a domain is? By domain I mean the ring without zero divisors.
– Astrick Harren
Dec 28 '18 at 4:50
@AstrickHarren Yes, that's it: a domain can be embedded in a field, so the same argument as for fields applies. In a ring such as $mathbb{Z}/6mathbb{Z}$, the elements have different orders.
– egreg
Dec 28 '18 at 8:52
add a comment |
So for a ring it is not necessary to have all element with the same order while for a domain is? By domain I mean the ring without zero divisors.
– Astrick Harren
Dec 28 '18 at 4:50
@AstrickHarren Yes, that's it: a domain can be embedded in a field, so the same argument as for fields applies. In a ring such as $mathbb{Z}/6mathbb{Z}$, the elements have different orders.
– egreg
Dec 28 '18 at 8:52
So for a ring it is not necessary to have all element with the same order while for a domain is? By domain I mean the ring without zero divisors.
– Astrick Harren
Dec 28 '18 at 4:50
So for a ring it is not necessary to have all element with the same order while for a domain is? By domain I mean the ring without zero divisors.
– Astrick Harren
Dec 28 '18 at 4:50
@AstrickHarren Yes, that's it: a domain can be embedded in a field, so the same argument as for fields applies. In a ring such as $mathbb{Z}/6mathbb{Z}$, the elements have different orders.
– egreg
Dec 28 '18 at 8:52
@AstrickHarren Yes, that's it: a domain can be embedded in a field, so the same argument as for fields applies. In a ring such as $mathbb{Z}/6mathbb{Z}$, the elements have different orders.
– egreg
Dec 28 '18 at 8:52
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.
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.
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%2f3053692%2fwhy-every-polynomial-is-separable-over-a-field-of-char-0%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
1
Why would the additive orders of the coefficients of a polynomial be related to the degrees of the terms? There's a kind of disconnect in your introduction of $f(x)$ in that it came out of nowhere. You cannot assume that an arbitrary irreducible polynomial would only have terms of degrees that are multiples of $q$. In other words, exactly what are you asking?
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Dec 27 '18 at 8:16
5
Also, when the characteristic of a field (or an integral domain) is introduced, one of the first exercises is to prove that ALL the elements (with the exception of zero) have exactly the same order. So defining the characteristic as the least common multiple, while correct, feels a bit like a misdescription. It is kinda missing the main point, if you ask me :-)
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Dec 27 '18 at 8:18
@JyrkiLahtonen Sorry for the confusion, I think the two answers gets my idea.
– Astrick Harren
Dec 28 '18 at 4:52