Aim

To discuss about the unique factorization of non-constant polynomials in

[ , , , ] , where is a field.
To discuss about existence of common factor of two polynomials

These two concepts are used in the proof the Extension theorem

Unique factorization
We start with a definition.
Definition 1. Let
1.
2.

be a field. A polynomial

[ ,

, ,

] is irreducible over

is non constant and

is not the product of two non-constant polynomials in [ ,

, ,

if

].

The concept of irreducibility depends on the field.

Examples
1. Let

= . and ( ) =
( )=

Then

2=

2.

2 ( + 2). But 2 and 2

is irreducible over .

Thus
2. Let

= and
( )=

Then
Hence

( )=

+ 1.

+ 1 = ( )( + ). But ,

is irreducible over .

But since , ,

is reducible over .

Proposition 1. Every non constant polynomial

[ ,

, ,

] can be written as a product of

polynomials which are irreducible over .

Proof:
Let

[ ,

, ,

] be a non constant polynomial. If

is irreducible, then we are done.

Otherwise, we can write = ,

, [ , , , ] are non constant. Note that the
total degrees of
are less than the total degree of . Now apply this process to
:
if either fails to be irreducible over , we factor it into non constant factors. Since the total
degree drops each time we factor, this process can be repeated at most finitely many times. Thus
must be the product of irreducibles.

Theorem 1. Let [ ,
product , where ,

, , ] be irreducible over and suppose that

[ , , , ]. Then divides
.

divides the

This theorem is in the same analogy as prime integers.

|

That is by a consequence of Euclids Lemma , if

| .

This theorem is the crucial property of irreducibles.

Corollary: Let [ ,
where [

, , ] be irreducible over and suppose that

]. Then divides
.
1, 2, ,

divides the product

Proof:
Let [ , , , ] be irreducible over such that | where [ 1 , 2 , , ]. We
can write | as | ( ). Then by Theorem 1 |
|( ). We then can
repeat the same step | ( ). Again by Theorem 1 |
|( ). So continuing this
process completes the proof.
Thus

divides

Theorem 2. (Unique factorization)

Every non constant [ , , , ] can be written as a product =
of
irreducibles over . Further, if =
is another factorization into irreducibles over ,
then = and the
can be permuted so that each is a constant multiple of .
Proof
Existence: the existence of the irreducible polynomials is guaranteed by proposition 1.
Uniqueness:

WTS:-

and

Since

and

= 1,2, , =

as

).(%)
|

and

by the corollary of Theorem 1.

Now WLOG (without loss of generality) assume

as both & are irreducibles.

| . Thus

. When we substitute

..(%%)

Substitute (%%) into (%).

Then

Similarly,

0.

as

. WLOG assume

| . Thus

We then repeat the same process.

= .

Now lets show that

Suppose < . Then

...

= 1, ,

we eventually reach at,

of the equation, on the left

. When we compare the degrees on the right and left side

= 0, but on the right
0 as the
are irreducible.

< doesnt hold.

Thus

Suppose > . then

left side of the equation, on the right

...

. When we substitute

= 1, ,

we eventually reach at,

= 1 . When we compare the degrees on the right and
= 0, but on the left
0 as the
are irreducible.

> doesnt hold.

Thus

Therefore,

= . And continuing the same process we get that

.
=
Hence,

= and

= 1,2, , =

[ ] have a common factor ?

Question: When do two polynomials in

Or equivalently

( ) > 0 |

[ ] with

| ?

To answer this question

One way would be using Unique factorization.
Drawback :- it may be time consuming process.
using the Euclidean Algorithm.

A more efficient method would be to compute the GCD of

Example: To compute the GCD of

1, first we use the division algorithm:

1 = 0( 1) + 1
1 = ( 1) + 1
1 = ( + 1)( 1) + 0 .
(

Thus

1) =

1,

( , ) = 1, then

Note: If

And recall that if ,

1 is the last non zero remainder.

have no common factor.

[ ], then ,

[ ]

( , ).

Drawback: it requires successive divisions in the field .

Is there a way determining the existence of common factor without doing any division in
Lemma : Let
>0
have a common factor if and only if there are polynomials ,
(i)
(ii)

are not both zero.

has degree at most 1 and
+
=0

(iii)

> 0,
[ ] such that:

has degree at most 1.

Proof
() Assume
WTS: ,

[ ] (i), (ii), and (iii) hold.

have a common factor,

Since
Then

have a common factor.

Note that deg( ) 1, and similarly deg(

[ ] with deg() > 0 |

[ ].
)

1.

| .

. Then

Then
zero,

+ ( )

1 and

has degree at most

() suppose ,
WTS:

= 0, and thus,

has degree at most 1, and

with not both

= 0.

[ ] (i), (ii), and (iii) hold.

have a common factor. We use proof by contradiction.

( , ) = 1. So
have no common factor. Then
( , ) = 1. (*)
+
=

By (i) we may assume 0. Suppose

we can find polynomials
[ ]
Multiplying both sides of (*) by
(

) =

and using (iii)

=0

, we have

) = . Since is non zero, this equation shows that

contradicts (ii) { has degree at most 1}

has degree at least

, which

Hence, there must be a common factor of positive degree.

The answer given in this Lemma may not be satisfactory, for we still need to decide whether the
required
exist. We can use linear algebra to answer the last question.

The idea is to turn

=

= 0 into a system of linear equations. Write:

+ +

Coefficients

+ +

Coefficients

Where for now we regard the + coefficients , , ,

goal is to find , , not all zero , so that the equation

+ +

, (

+ +

, ,
as unknowns. Our
= 0 holds.

To get a system of linear equations, let us write out

=

,
+

0)

, (

0) where

Then we substitute these into (iii)

(

+ +

+ +

++

+ +

)=0

and compare the coefficients of powers of , and then we get the following system of linear
equations with unknowns , and coefficients
,
:
+
+

=0

coefficient of

=0

coefficient of

=0

coefficient of

.. (#)

Since there are + linear equations and + unknowns, we know from linear algebra on matrices
that there is a nonzero solution (nontrivial solution) if and only if the coefficient matrix has zero
determinant .

Definition 2. Given polynomials ,

=

+ +

+ +

, (

[ ] of positive degree, write them in the form

0) ,

, (

0).

Then the Sylvester matrix of

with respect to
matrix of the system of equations given in (#) . Thus,
matrix:

( , , ) =

, denoted by
( , , ) is the coefficient
( , , ) is the following ( + ) ( + )

columns

columns

Where the empty spaces are filled by zeros.

The Resultant of
Sylvester matrix. Thus,

with respect to

( , , )=

, denoted by

( , , )).

( , , ) is the determinant of the

James Joseph Sylvester (1814 1897) was an English Mathematician. He made fundamental
contributions to matrix theory, invariant theory, number theory, and combinatorics. He played a
leadership role in American mathematics in the late half of the 19th century as a professor at the
Johns Hopkins University and as a founder of the American Journal of mathematics.

Proposition 2. Given , [ ] of positive degree, the resultant

( , , ) is an integer
polynomial in the coefficients of
. Furthermore,
have a common factor in [ ] if
( , , )= .
and only if
Examples:

1. Let ( ) = 3 + 1 and ( ) = 2
Then

= deg( ) = 1

+ 4 3.

= deg( ) = 2

and

= 3,

with
3
( , , )= 1
0

Now

0 2
3 4 . And
1 3

( +

= 1,

= 2,

( , , ) = det

= 3)

=4&

= 3.

( , , ) = det

3 0
1 3
0 1

2
4
3

= 3(9 4) 2(1) = 3(13) 2 = 39 2 = 41 0

Since

( , , ) = 41 0,

2. Let ( ) = 2

+ 3 + 1 and ( ) = 7

= deg( ) = 2

Then

have no common factor.

and

= deg( ) = 2
With

2
( , , )= 3
1
0

0
2
3
1

7
1
3
0

0
7 . And
1
3

Thus

3. Let ( ) =
Then

( +
= 2,

( , , ) = det

= 3,

= 4)
= 1,

( , , ) = det

= 7,
2
3
1
0

=1 &
0
2
3
1

7
1
3
0

0
7
1
3

( )=

= deg( ) = 4 and
With

+ 3.

= 1,

= deg( ) = 2
=0

= 1,2,3 ,

( +
= 1 ,

1
0 1
0 0
0
0
1
0
1 0
0

0
0
1
0
1
0 . And
( , , )=
0

0 0
1 0
1
1 0 0
0 1 0
0 1 0
0
0 1

= 1,

= 6)
=0 &

= 1

=3

= 153 0.

1
0
0
( , , ) = det

( , , ) = det

Hence

0
1
0
0
0
1

1
0
1
0
0
0

0 0
0
1 0
0

0 1
0 = 0.

1 0
1

0 1 0
0
0 1

have a common factor.

4. Let

Regarding
= deg( ) = 1 and

( +
= ,
0

( , , ) = det 1
0

Hence,

= 3)

= 1,

1
0
=
4

=1,

=0 &

+10

have no common factor.

Proposition 3: Given ,
+
=
coefficients of

= deg( ) = 2
With

Then,

4.

[ ] of positive degree, there are polynomials ,

( , , ). Furthermore, the coefficients of

.

It is like the
( , ). i.e
+
=
It is the denominator-free version of the

( , ).
.

Note:- As you can see there is no division in using Resultant.

[ ]

are integer polynomials in the

Thank You!

You can get this presentation note on

http://albohessab.weebly.com/notes.html