CHAPTER 3

Rings

§29
Basic Definitions

In the preceding chapter, we have examined groups. Groups are sets

with one binary operation on them. In this chapter, we want to study
sets with two binary operations defined on them. The most fundamental
algebraic structure with two binary operations is called a ring.

29.1 Definition: Let R be a nonempty set and let + and . be two binary
operations defined on R. The ordered triple (R,+,.) is called a ring if the
following conditions (ring axioms) are satisfied.

(i) For all a,b R, a + b R.

(ii) For all a,b,c R, (a + b) + c = a + (b + c).
(iii) There is an element in R, denoted by 0, such that
a + 0 = a for all a R.
(iv) For each a R, there is an element in R, denoted by a,
such that
a + ( a) = 0.
(v) For all a,b R, a + b = b + a.
(1) For all a,b R, a .b R.

320
 (2) For all a,b,c R, (a .b).c = a .(b.c).
(D) For all a,b,c R, there hold
a .(b + c) = a .b + a .c and (b + c).a = b.a + c .a.

The conditions (i) and (1) assert that two binary operations + and . are
defined on R. We shall refer to + as addition and to . as multiplication.
Further, we shall call the element a + b the sum of a and b, and the
element ab the product of a and b. The conditions (i)-(v) say that R forms
a group with respect to addition. The identity element 0 of this group
will be called the zero element, or simply the zero of R. So 0 is an
element of the set R and not neccessarily the number zero. The inverse
element a of a R is called the opposite of a.

The condition (2) states that the multiplication on R is associative. The

condition (D) relates the two binary operations + and .. It is called the
distributivity of multiplication over addition. Here it should be noted
that a .b + a .c stands for (a .b) + (a .c) and similarly b.a + c .a for (b.a) + (c .a).
Notice that there are two equations in (D), and we must check both of
them when we want to show that a given ordered triple (R,+,.) is a ring.
In general, neither of them implies the other, and it is not enough to
check one of them. There are ordered triples (R,+,.) for which all the
conditions above are satisfied, except for one of the equations in (D), and
they fail to be a ring just for that reason.

For ease of notation, we shall frequently denote multiplication by juxta-

position and thus write ab in place of a .b. Also, we shall write a b for
a + ( b). Since multiplication in a ring is associative, the products of ele-
ments in a ring are independent of the mode of inserting parentheses
and the usual exponentiation rules are valid (see §8). We shall use the
results of §8 without explicit mention.

29.2 Examples: (a) Let (R,+) be any commutative group, whose

identity element we shall denote as 0. We define a multiplication on R
by declaring
ab = 0 for all a,b R.

It is easily seen that (R,+,.) is a ring.

321
(b) A more interesting ring is ( ,+,.), where + and . are the usual addi-
tion and multiplication of integers.

(c) Let 2 denote the set of even integers. Then (2 ,+,.), where + and .
are the usual addition and multiplication of integers, is a ring. In the
same way, if n and n is the set of integers divisibile by n, then
(n ,+,.) is a ring.

(d) ( ,+,.), ( ,+,.), ( ,+,.), ( n

,+,.) are rings under the usual addition and
multiplication.

(e) Let R := {a/b : (a,b) = 1 and 5 b}. With respect to the usual
addition and multiplication of rational numbers, (R,+,.) is a ring.

(f) Let S := {a/b : (a,b) = 1 and 6 b}. With respect to the usual
addition and multiplication of rational numbers, (S,+,.) is a not ring. The
very first property (i) is not satisfied. For example

1 1 1 1 5
S, S, but + = S.
2 3 2 3 6

(g) Let p be a prime number and put T = {a/b : (a,b) = 1 and p b}.
With respect to the usual addition and multiplication of rational num-
bers, (T,+,.) is a ring.

(h) Let R be a ring. A matrix over R is an array (ac bd) of four elements
a,b,c,d of R, arranged. in two rows and two columns and enclosed within
parentheses. The set of all matrices over R will be denoted by Mat2(R). If
A,B Mat2(R), we say A is equal to B provided the correspording entries
in A and B are equal and write A = B in this case.. This is clearly an equi-
valence relation on Mat2(R).

a b e f
Let A = (c d), B = (g h) Mat2(R). The sum A + B of A and B is defined
a+e b+f
to be the matrix (c+g d+h) and the product AB of A and B is defined to
ae+bg af+bh
be the matrix (ce+dg cf+dh ).
The proof of Theorem 17.4 remains valid and shows that Mat2(R) is a
commutative group under addition.. The proof of Theorem 17.6(1),(2),(4)
is also valid and establishes the ring axioms (1),(2),(D). So (Mat (R),+,.) is
2
a ring. .

322
(i) Let K be the set of all real-valued functions defined on the closed
interval [0,1]. We define operations + and . on K by
(f + g)(x) = f(x) + g(x), (f.g)(x) = f(x)g(x) for all x [0,1]
(f,g K). So f + g is that function that maps any x [0,1] to the sum of
the values f(x) and g(x) of the functions f and g at x; and f.g is that
function that maps any x [0,1] to the product of the values f(x) and
g(x). In "f + g", the sign "+" stands for the binary operation + we just
defined, and in "f(x) + g(x)", the sign "+" stands for the usual addition of
real numbers. It is easily verified that (K,+,.) is a ring. The sum f + g and
the product f.g are said to be defined pointwise. The operations + and .
are called pointwise addition and pointwise multiplication.

(j) Let S be any set and let (R,+,.) be any ring. Let L denote the set of all
functions from S into R. For f, g L, we put

(f + g)(s) = f(s) + g(s), (f.g)(s) = f(s)g(s) for all s S.

On the right, we have the sum (product) of elements f(s),g(s)in R, on the

left, we have the operations on L. The operations + and . on L are called
pointwise addition and pointwise multiplication. With these operations,
(L,+,.) is a ring.

Let us find the zero elements of the rings in Example 29.2. This is the
identity element of the commutative group R in Example 29.2(a); the
number zero in the Examples 29.2(b),(c),(d),(e),(f),(g) except in the case
n
of Example 29.2(d), where the zero element is the residue class 0 n
0 0
of 0 ; the so-called zero matrix (0 0) Mat2(R), where 0 is the zero

element of R in Example 29.2(h). In the ring of Example 29.2(i), the zero

element is the function : [0,1] for which (x) = 0 for all x [0,1];
and in the ring of Example 29.2(j), the zero element is the function u: S
R for which u(s) = 0 for all s S.

We make a convention. As in the case of groups, if (R,+,.) is a ring, and if

it is clear from what the binary operations + and . are, we shall call the
set R a ring. Hence we shall speak of the ring instead of using the more
correct but more cumbersome expression "the ring ( ,+,.)", etc.

323
The addition in a ring has all the desirable properties one could wish for:
it is associative, there is an identity element, all elements possess
inverses, and it is also commutative. As for multiplication, only one of
these properties, namely the associativity, is assumed to be satisfied. It
may happen, of course, that multiplication in a ring has some of these
properties. Then we make the following definitions.

29.3 Definition: A ring R is called a commutative ring if ab = ba for all

a,b R.

29.4 Definition: A ring R is called a ring with identity if there is an

element e in R such that ae = ea = a for all a R.

Thus a ring is a commutative ring. if the multiplication on it is commuta-

tive.. This is a natural definition: since addition is commutative in any
ring,. commutativity can refer only to multiplication. , , , , 2 and
n
are examples of commutative rings. Mat2( ) is not a commutative
ring because, for instance,.

(11 01).(01 01) = (01 01) (02 01) = (01 01).(11 01).
Likewise, a ring with identity is a ring with a multiplicative identity. The
additive identity exists in any ring anyway. Notice that e in Definition
29.4 must be both a right identity and a left identity. Since multiplica-
tion in a ring is not necessarily commutative, we cannot conclude, say,
from
ae = a for all a R
that the other condition
ea = a for all a R
also holds. In the case of groups, we proved that a right identity is also a
left identity, but in the proof we made use of the existence of inverse
elements. We cannot use the same argument in the case of rings, for we
do not know anything about the existence of inverse elements. They
may or may not exist for all a R. It is possible that a ring R has an
element f such that
af = a for all a R
but fb b for some b R.

324
In short, R may have a multiplicative right identity which is not a left
identity. If each right identity in a ring fails to be a left identity, then
the ring is not a ring with identity.

These remarks make sense only for noncommutative rings. Of course, in

a commutative ring, any right (left) identity is also a left (right) identity.

A ring may be commutative without having an identity: 2 is an

example. A ring may have an identity without being commutative:
1 0
Mat2( ) is an example. An identity of this ring is the matrix (0 1). More
generally, if R is a ring with an identity e, then Mat2(R) is a ring with an
e 0
identity (0 e ). The proof of Theorem 17.6(3) works here without

change.

29.5 Lemma: Let R be a ring with identity. Then its multiplicative

identity is unique (i.e., there is one and only one element e such that ea
= ae = a for all a R).

Proof: If e and f are identity elements of R, then e = ef since f is a right

identity and ef = f since e is a left identity, so e = ef = f.

In view of this lemma, we can speak of the identity. We shall follow the
convention of writing 1 for the multiplicative identity of a ring with
identity. 1 is therefore an element of the ring under study, and not
necessarily the number one. For instance, in the ring Mat2( ), the
10
element 1 is the matrix (0 1), the identity matrix. The ring K of Example

29.2(i) is a ring with identity, and one checks easily that 1 here is the
function h: [0,1] such that h(x) = 1 (real number one) for all x
[0,1].

What about the existence of multiplicative inverses? Of course the ring

must be a ring with identity if we are to speak about multiplicative
inverses. We will see presently that the additive identity 0 of a ring
cannot have a multiplicative inverse unless the ring is idiosyncratic.

29.6 Lemma: Let R be a ring and 0 its zero element.

325
(1) a0 = 0 for all a R.
(2) 0a = 0 for all a R.
(3) a( b) = (ab) for all a,b R.
(4) ( a)b = (ab) for all a,b R.
(5) ( a)b = a( b) for all a,b R.
(6) ( a)( b) = ab for all a,b R.

Proof: (1) Since 0 is the additive identity of R, we have 0 + 0 = 0. Thus

a(0 + 0) = a0 for all a R,
a0 + a0 = a0 for all a R.
By Lemma 7.3(1), a0 must be the identity of the group (R, +). Thus a0 =
0.

(2) This is proved by the same agument, using 0a + 0a = (0 + 0 )a = 0a.

(3) For any a,b R, we have

0 = a0 = a (b + ( b)) = ab + a( b).
So a( b) is the additive inverse of ab. The additive inverse of ab is (ab)
by definition. Hence a( b) = (ab).

(4) For any a,b R, we have

0 = 0b = (a + ( a))b = ab + ( a)b.
So ( a)b is the additive inverse of ab. The additive inverse of ab is (ab) .
Hence ( a)b = (ab).

(5) This follows from (3) and (4).

(6) This follows from (5) on writing b for b and observing ( b) = b.

29.7 Lemma: Let R be a ring with identity 1. If the zero element 0 of R

has an inverse (i.e., if there is an element t R such that 0t = t0 = 1),
then R has only one element.

Proof: If r R, then r = r1 = r(0t) = (r0)t = 0t = 0, so R {0}, so R = {0}.

The set {0} can be made into a ring if we define + and . in the only
possible way: 0 + 0 = 0 and 0.0 = 0. This is a commutative ring with

326
identity, the multiplicative identity being the additive identity 0. This
ring is called the null ring.

29.8 Lemma: Let R be a ring with identity 1. If R is not the null ring,
then 1 0.

Proof: If R is not the null ring, then there is an r R, r 0. Then the

assumption 1 = 0 leads to the contradiction r = r1 = r0 = 0. So 1 0.

Lemma 29.7 states that 0 in a ring cannot possess a multiplicative

inverse unless the ring is the null ring. We now want to show that
divisors of 0 cannot possess a multiplicative inverses, either.

29.9 Definition: Let R be a ring. If a 0, b 0 are elements of R such

that ab = 0, then a is called a left zero divisor and b is called a right zero
divisor.

It may very well happen that a 0, b 0, but ab = 0 in a ring.. For

example, in the ring Mat2( ) of matrices over ,

(00 01) 0 = (00 00) and (10 00) 0, but (00 01)(10 00) = (00 00) = 0.
As a second example, consider the ring K of real-valued functions on
[0,1] with respect to pointwise addition and multiplication (Example
29.2(i)). The zero element in this ring is the function , where (x) = 0
for all x [0,1]. The functions a and b, where

a(x) = { 01 if
if 0
1/2 x
x 1/2
1 , b(x) =
1 if 0
{
0 if 1/2
x
x
1/2
1
are thus distinct from , but their pointwise product is , as a(x)b(x) = 0
for all x [0,1].

In a commutative ring, there is no distinction between right and left

zero divisors. But in a non commutative ring, an element a 0 may be a
right zero divisor without being a left zero divisor, and vice versa.

327
29.10 Lemma: Let R be a ring with identity. If a is a left zero divisor,
then a does not have a multiplicative left inverse. If a is a right zero
divisor, then a does not have a multiplicative right inverse.

a leftzero
Proof: Let 1 be the identity of R. If a is left zero divisor, then a 0 and
there is a b 0 in R such that ab = 0. Now if a had a left inverse x, so
that xa = 1, we would obtain b = 1b = (xa)b = x(ab) = x0 = 0, a contra-
diction. So a has no left inverse. The second statement is proved analog-
ously.

We know that the zero element in a ring distinct from the null ring
cannot have an inverse and we understand from Lemma 29.10 that
being a zero divisor is the very opposite of having an inverse. So if we
want a ring to have the property that every nonzero element in it has a
multiplicative inverse, the ring has to be free from zero divisors.

29.11 Definition: A commutative ring with identity, which is distinct

from the null ring, and which has no zero divisors, is called an integral
domain.

29.12 Definition: A ring with identity, which is distinct from the null
ring, and in which every nonzero element has a right inverse, is called a
division ring.

An integral domain is therefore a ring in which we may expect that

nonzero elements have inverses, but nothing is said about the actual ex-
istence of inverses. The necessary condition that zero divisors be absent
is satisfied in an integral domain, plus commutativity. Whether the
nonzero elements do in fact have inverses is not relevant in the defini-
tion of integral domains.

In a division ring, every nonzero element does have a right inverse;

more precisely, a right inverse. But this means that the nonzero ele-
ments in a division ring form a group under multiplication. We know

328
that, in any group, right inverses are also left inverses and that they are
unique (Lemma 7.3). Hence, in a division ring, every nonzero element
has a left inverse as well, and the right and left inverse of an arbitrary
element coincide. This will be called the inverse of that element.

is an integral domain. In fact, is the prototype of all integral

domains. 2 is not an integral domain, because 2 is not a ring with
identity, although 2 is commutative and has no zero divisors. An
example of division rings is given in Ex. 9.

A ring which is both an integral domain and a division ring deserves a

name.

29.13 Definition: A commutative ring with identity, which is distinct

from the null ring, and in which every nonzero element has a multiplica-
tive inverse, is called a field.

Thus a field is a commutative division ring. Also, a field is an integral

domain in which every nonzero element does have an inverse. A field is
a ring in which the nonzero elements form a commutative group under
multiplication.

is not a field, since 2 ,. for instance, does not have an inverse in

(there is no z such that 2z = 1).. Thus is an integral domain which
is not a field. The rings , , , and p (where p is a prime number) are
example of fields,. so Definition 17.1 is consistent with Definition 29.13.
There are fields with finitely many elements. as well as with infinitely
many elements..

29.14 Definition: Let R be a ring with identity. An element a R of R

is sait to be a unit of R if a has both a right inverse and a left inverse in
R. The set of all units in R will be denoted by R .

329
For example, the units of are 1 and 1, so = {1, 1}. The units in n
are the residue classes a for which there is a b n
such that a b = 1,
and this holds if and only if (a,n) = 1. Hence n = {a n
: (a,n) = 1}, as in
§11. We know that = {1, 1} and n are groups under multiplication
(Theorem 12.4). This are a special cases of the following theorem..

29.15 Theorem: Let R be a ring with identity. Then R is a group under

multiplication.

Proof: We denote the identity of R by 1. Since 1.1 = 1, we have 1 R

and so R . We now show that any unit of R has a unique right
inverse, which is also the unique left inverse of that unit. Let a R , let x
be any right inverse of a and let y be any left inverse of a. Then ax = 1 =
ya and
y = y1 = y(ax) = (ya)x = 1x = x.
Thus any right inverse of a is equal to y. Hence there is only one right
inverse of a, namely x. Then any left inverse of a is also equal to x.
Hence there is a unique left inverse of a, namely the unique right
inverse x of a.

We check the group axioms.

(i) If a,b R , then there are uniquely determined elements

x, z in R with ax = 1 = xa and bz = 1 = zb. From
(ab)(zx) = a(bz)x = a1x = ax = 1, (zx)(ab) = z(xa)b = z1b = zb = 1,
we see that zx is both a right inverse and a left inverse of ab. Hence
ab R and R is closed under multiplication.

(ii) The multiplication on R is associative since R is a ring.

(iii) Since a1 = a = 1a for all a R, and since 1 R , we see

an identity element of R .
that 1 is the

(iv) If a R , then there is an x R with ax = 1 = xa. This x is

in fact an element of R : it follows from ax = 1 = xa that a is a left and
right inverse of x, so x R . So any a R has an inverse in R .

Thus R is a group under multiplication.

330
The reader will check easily that, if R is a ring with identity, distinct
from the null ring, then R is a division ring if and only if R = R\{0}.
Likewise, if K is a commutative ring with identity, distinct from the null
ring, then K is a field if and only if K = K\{0}.

From now on we will write , , for the multiplicative groups \{0},

\{0}, \{0} of nonzero rational, real, complex numbers, respectively.

We conclude this paragraph with the binomial theorem.

29.16 Theorem (Binomial Theorem) : Let R be a ring and a,b R. If

n n
ab = ba, then (a + b)n = ∑  k a n kbk.
k=0

Proof: First we remark that a nb0 and a 0bn are to be interpreted as a n

n n!
and bn respectively, even if R has no identity. As usual,  k =
k!(n k)!
n n n+1
and 0! = 1. We use the formula  k +  k 1 =  k  for 1 k n 1.

1 1
We make induction on n. The formula (a + b)1 =  0 a 1b0 +  1 a 0b1 is

clearly true. We suppose that the formula is proved when the exponent
of a + b is n. Then

n n
(a + b)n+1 = (a + b)(a + b)n = (a + b) ∑  k a n kbk
k=0

n n n n
= ∑  k a n+1 kbk + ∑  k a n kbk+1
k=0 k=0

n n n n 1 n n
=  0 a n+1b0 + ∑  k a n+1 kbk + ∑  k a n kbk+1 +  n a 0bn+1
k=1 k=0

n+1 n n n n n+1
=  0  a n+1b0 + ∑  k a n+1 kbk + ∑  k 1 a n (k 1)bk +  n+1 a 0bn+1
k=1 k=1

331
 n+1 n n n n+1
=  0  a n+1b0 + ∑   k + k 1  a n+1 kbk +  n+1 a 0bn+1
k=1

n+1 n n+1 n+1

=  0  a n+1b0 + ∑  k  a n+1 kbk +  n+1 a 0bn+1
k=1

 n+1 a n+1 kbk

n+1
= ∑  k 
k=0

and the formula is true when the exponent of a + b is n + 1. This com-

pletes the proof.

Exercises

3
1. Let X = {a + b 2 : a,b } and Y = {a + b 2 : a,b }. Determine
whether X and Y are rings under the usual addition and multiplication of
real numbers.

2. Let (R,+,.) be a ring. On the group (R,+), we define an operation o by

declaring a o b = ba for all a,b R. Show that (R,+,o ) is a ring (called the
opposite ring of (R,+,.)).

3. On the group , we define a multiplication by

(a,b).(c,d) = (ac,b)
for all (a,b), (c,d) . Does become a ring with this multipli-
cation?

4. Show that the set A = {a/b : (a,b) = 1, n b} is not a ring (under the
usual addition and multiplication of rational numbers) if n is a composite
number.

5. Prove that n
has zero divisors if n is composite, and that n
is a field
if n is prime.

332
6. On the group R = , we define a multiplication by
(a,b).(c,d) = (ac,ad)
for all (a,b), (c,d) . Prove that, with this multiplication, R becomes
a ring. Show that (1,0) is a left identity in R, but not a right identity; and
that (1,0) is a right zero divisor, but not a left zero divisor. Is R a ring
with identity?

7. Let R be a ring without identity, and let S = R . On the

commutative group S, we define a multiplication by
(r,a).(r´,b) = (rr´ + ar´ + br,ab)
for all (r,a), (r´,b) S. Prove that S is a ring with identity.

8. On the group R = n n
, we define a multiplication by
(a ,b).(c ,d) = ( ac bd , ad + bc )

for all (a ,b),(c ,d) R. Show that R is a commutative ring with identity.
Prove that R is a field when n = 3,7,11 and that R is not an integral
domain if n = 5,13,17.

9. Let H = {(ab b
a ): a,b }
Mat2( ). Prove that, under the usual
matrix addition and multiplication, H is a division ring (cf. §17, Ex. 14).

10. Let R1,R2, . . . ,Rn be rings. Prove that the group R1 R2 ... Rn
becomes a ring if multiplication is defined by

(r1,r2, . . . ,rn)(s1,s2, . . . ,sn) = (r1s1,r2s2, . . . ,rnsn)

for all (r1,r2, . . . ,rn),(s1,s2, . . . ,sn) R1 R2 ... Rn. Moreover, prove that
R1 R2 ... Rn is a commutative ring if and only if each Rk is; and
that R1 R2 ... Rn is a ring with identity if and only if each Rk is.
The ring R1 R2 ... Rn is called the direct sum of R1,R2, . . . ,Rn.

333
 §30
Subrings, Ideals and Homomorphisms

As in the case of groups, we give a name to subsets of a ring which are

themselves rings.

30.1 Definition: Let R be a ring. A nonempty subset S of R is called a

subring of R if S itself is a ring with respect to the operations on R.

Thus a nonempty subset S of a ring R is a subring of R if and only if S

satisfies all the ring axioms in Definition 29.1. As in the case of groups,
we can dispense with some of them.

Let (R,+,.) be a ring and S R. If S is a subring of R, then (S,+) is a

commutative group, thus (S,+) is a subgroup of (R,+); and (S,+) is a
subgroup of (R,+) if and only if
(i) a + b S for all a,b S,
(ii) a S for all a S,
as we know from Lemma 9.2. Let us now consider multiplication. If
(S,+,.) is to be a ring, the the restriction of the operation . to S must be a
binary operation on S; and this holds if and only if
(1) a .b S for all a S.
So, if a nonempty subset S of a ring R is a subring of R, then (i),(ii),(1)
hold. Conversely, if S is a nonempty subset of a ring R and (i),(ii),(1) hold,
then (S,+) is a subgroup of (R,+), so (S,+) is a a commutative group, and .
is a binary operation on S, and the associativity of multiplication and the
disributivity of multiplication over addition holds in S since they hold in
fact in R. Thus (S,+,.) is a subring of (R,+,.). We proved the following
lemma.

30.2 Lemma (Subring criterion): Let (R,+,.) be a ring and let S be a

nonempty subset of R. Then (S,+,.) is a subring of R if and only if
(i) a + b S for all a,b S,

334
 (ii) a S for all a S,
.
(iii) a b S for all a,b S.

30.2´ Examples: (a) {0} and R are subrings of any ring R.

(b) If R is a ring and S i is an arbitrary collection of subrings of R, then it

follows immediately from Lemma 30.2 that S i is a subring of R.
i I

(c) If R is a ring and X is a subset of R, the intersection of all subrings of

R that contain X is a subring of R by Example 30.2´(b). It is called the
subring generated by X.

Some properties of multiplication are inherited by subrings.

30.3 Lemma: (1) A subring of a commutative ring is a commutative

ring.
(2) A subring of a noncommutative ring can be commutative.
(3) A subring of a ring with identity can be a ring without identity.
(4) A subring of a ring without identity can be a ring with identity.
(5) A subring of a ring without zero divisors is a ring without zero
divisors.
(6) A subring of a ring with zero divisors can be a ring without zero
divisors.
(7) A subring of a division ring is not necessarily a division ring.
(8) A subring of a field is not necessarily a field.
(9) A subring, distinct from {0}, of an integral domain is an integral
domain if and only if it contains the identity.

Proof: Let R be a ring and S a subring of R.

(1) If R is commutative, then ab = ba for all a,b R and, a fortiori, ab =

ba for all a,b S. Hence S is commutative.

(2) Assume R is not commutative.. Then there are a,b R with ab ba.
The point is that all such pairs a,b may be outside S,. and that st = ts may

335
hold for all s,t S. For example, R = Mat2( ) is not commutative, but S =

{(a0 0b) : a,b } is a subring of R and S is commutative.

(3) The point is that the identity 1 of R need not belong to S. For
example, is a ring with identity, 2 is a subring of and 2 has no
identity.

(4) The point is that. there may be an e in S such that es = se = s for all s
in S, but er = re = r need not be true for all r R, i.e., er0 r0 or r0e r0
for a particular r0 in R. As an example, considerR = , on which
addition and multiplication are defined by declaring.
(a,b) + (c,d) = (a + c,a + d)
(a,b)(c,d) = (ac,ad)
for all (a,b) R and which is easily verified to be a ring with respect to
these operations. If (a,b) R is a left identity element of R so that
(a,b)(x,y) = (x,y) for all (x,y) R, then (ax,ay) = (x,y) for all (x,y) R, thus
a = 1. But (1,b) is not a right identity element of R, because (x,y)(1,b) =
(x,xb) (x,y) for any (x,y) R with y xb. Thus R is a ring without an
identity. However, S = {(a,0): a } is a subring of R with an identity
(1,0) S, as (1,0)(a,0) = (a,0) = (a,0)(1,0) for any (a,0) S.

(5) If R has no zero divisors, then

for all a,b R, a 0 b ab 0.
But this holds for all a,b S, too. Hence S has no zero divisors.

(6) If R has no zero divisors, it may happen that all zero divisors fall
outside S, and in this case S has no zero divisors. For instance, The ring R
a 0
{
= Mat2( ) has zero divisors, but its subset S = (0 0) : a } is a sub-
a 0
ring of R with no zero divisors. For if s,t S and st = 0, then s = (0 0)
b 0 a 0 b 0 0 0
and t = (0 0) for some a,b , and st = 0 means (0 0)(0 0) = (0 0),

which is possible only if a = 0 or b = 0 (in ), that is, only if s = 0 or t = 0

(in S).

(7) and (8) Consider the division ring , which is a field as well. Its
subring is neither a division ring nor a field.

336
(9) A subring S {0} of an integral domain R is commutative by (1) and
has no zero divisors by (5). Hence S is an integral domain if and only if S
has an identity. We claim S has an identity if and only if the identity of
R belongs to S. Indeed, if S contains the identity element 1R of R, then of
course 1R is an identity element of S. Conversely, if S has an identity
element e, then ee = e = 1R e, so ee 1R e, so (e 1R )e = 0 and, since e 0
(for S {0} by assumption) and R has no zero divisors, e 1R = 0 and
hence e must be equal to 1R .

The claim in the proof of Lemma 30.3(9) is not self-evident. If R is a ring

with identity and S is a subring of R, then it is possible that S is a ring
with identity and the identity of S is distinct from the identity of R. Can
you give some examples?

Just as in the case of groups, we want to define factor rings by subrings.

We take our factor group construction as a model. For a group G and a
subgroup H of G, the factor group G/H is the set of all right cosets of H in
G, on which the multiplication is defined by the rule [Link] = Hab. In
order that this multiplication be well defined, it is necessary and
sufficient that H be normal in G (Theorem 18.4).

Now let R be a ring and S a subring of R. Then R is an abelian group with

respect to addition and S is a subgroup of R. Using our results in group
theory, we build the factor group R/S. This is possible because S is a
normal subgroup of R (any subgroup of an abelian group is normal in
that group). The elements of R/S are the (right or left) cosets r + S,
where r ranges over R. Of course we must write the cosets as r + S or as
S + r, not as rS or as Sr, for the group R is an additive group. We now
wish to define a multiplication on R/S and make R/S into a ring.

The most natural way to define a multiplication on R/S is to put

(r + S)(u + S) = ru + S for all r,u R.
Let us see if this multiplication is well defined. Once we show that this
multiplication is well defined, it is routine to prove that R/S becomes a
ring with this multiplication. This multiplication is well defined if and
only if the implication
r1 + S = r2 + S, t1 + S = t2 + S r1t1 + S = r2t2 + S (for all r1,r2,t1,t2 R)
holds, and it holds if and only if

337
r1 = r2 + s1, t1 = t2 + s2, s1,s2 S r1t1 r2t2 S (for all r1,r2,t1,t2 R),
i.e., if and only if
s1,s2 S (r2 + s1)(t2 + s2) r2t2 S (for all r2,t2 R),
i.e., if and only if
s1,s2 S r2s2 + s1t2 + s1s2 S (for all r2,t2 R),

that is, since s1s2 S when s1,s2 S, if and only if

s1,s2 S rs2 + s1t S (for all r,t R) (*)

is true. We dropped the subscripts of r2 and t2.

Assume (*) holds. Then, choosing t = 0, we see rs2 S whenever r R,

s2 S; and choosing r = 0, we see s1t S whenever s1 S, t R.
Conversely, if rs2 S and s1t S whenever r R, s2 S and s1 S, t R,
then rs2 + s1t S for all r,t R, s2,s1 S, since S is a subgroup of R with
respect to addition. Thus (*) is equivalent to, and the multiplication on
R/S is well defined if and only if:
for all s S, r R, there hold rs S and sr S. (**)

Subrings with this property have a name.

30.4 Definition: A nonempty subset S of a ring R is called an ideal of R

if the following two conditions are satisfied.
(i) S is a subgroup of R under addition.
(ii) For all s S, r R, we have rs S and sr S.

According to this definition, an ideal of a ring R is a subring of R, since it

is closed under multiplication by (ii). The condition (ii) tells more than
simply that the product of an element in S by an element in S is in S. It
tells that the product of any element in R by any element in S, as well as
the product of any element in S by an element in R, are both in S. Thus S
"swallows" or "absorbs" products by elements in R.

The condition (ii) consists of two subconditions: rs S and sr S. In a

commutative ring, these subconditions are identical. But when R is not
commutative, neither of them implies the other in general, and one of
them is not enough to make S an ideal: both of them ought to hold.

Definition 30.4 and the discusion preceding it give us the following

theorem (cf. Theorem 18.4).

338
30.5 Theorem: Let R be a ring and S a subgroup of R under addition.
The multiplication on the set R/S of right (and left) cosets of S, given by
(r + S)(u + S) = ru + S for all r,u R.
is well defined if and only if S is an ideal of R.

After giving some examples of ideals, we will prove that the multiplica-
tion on R/S makes R/S into a ring.

30.6 Examples: (a) In any ring R, the set {0} is an ideal (Lemma
29.6(1) and (2)). The set R itself is also an ideal of R since R is closed
under multiplication.

(b) In the ring of integers, 2 is a subring and in fact an ideal of ,

since the product of an even integer by an arbitrary integer is always an
even integer. In the same way, the set n is an ideal of (n ).

(c) Let K be the ring of real-valued functions on [0,1] (Example 29.2(i)).

Its subset {f K: f(1/2) = 0} is an ideal of K. Similarly, when Y is a subset
of [0,1], the subset {f K: f(y) = 0 for all y Y} is an ideal of K.

(d) Let T = {a/b : (a,b) = 1, p b} be the ring in Example 29.2(g). Then

its subsets
A = {a/b : (a,b) = 1, p b, p a} and {a/b : (a,b) = 1, p b, p2 a}
are ideals of T.

1 1.
(e) is not an ideal of , since for example, 1 , , but 1 .
2 2

(f) Consider the subset S = {(ab 00): a,b } of Mat ( 2

). Then S is a
subring of Mat2( ). Also, one sees easily that rs S for all r Mat2( ),
s S. Nevertheless, S is not an ideal of Mat2( ), since it is not true that
1 0 1 1
sr S for all r Mat2( ), s S: for example (1 0) S, (1 1)
10 11 11
Mat2( ), but (1 0)(1 1) = (1 1) S.

339
Now let S 1 = {(0c 00): c } and S = {(a0 0b): a,b
2 }. It is easy to see
that S 1 and S 2 are subrings of Mat2( ) and of course S 1 S 2. Here S 1 is
a 0 c 0 c 0 a 0 ac 0
an ideal of S 2, because (0 b)(0 0) = (0 0)(0 b) = ( 0 0) S 1 for any

(a0 0b) S 2 and (0c 00) S 1. On the other hand, S 1 is not an ideal of
10 11
Mat2( ), because, for example, (0 0) S 1, (0 0) Mat2( ) and yet

(10 00)(10 10) = (10 10) S 1. Thus S 1 is an ideal of S 2 but not an ideal of
Mat2( ). This shows that "idealness" is not an intrinsic property of a
subring. A subring is not merely an ideal, but an ideal of a ring that has
to be clearly specified. Compare this with Example 18.5(i).

(g) Intersection of ideals in a ring is an ideal.. More precisely, if R is a

ring and S i are ideals of R (i I), then S := S i is an ideal of R: we
i I
know that S is an additive subgroup of R (Example 9.4(f)). and whenever
r R, s S, we have s S i for all i I, hence rs S i and sr S i for all
i I, hence rs S and sr S, and S is therefore an ideal of R..

(h) Let R be a ring and X a subset of R. There are ideals of R which

contain X, for example R itself. The intersection of all ideals that contain
X is an ideal of R by Example 30.6(g). This ideal is called the ideal
generated by X. Compare this with Definition 24.1. When X consists of a
single element only, say when X = {a}, the ideal generated by X is said to
be a principal ideal, more exactly the principal ideal generated by a. It is
easy to verify that the principal ideal generated by a is
n
{za + ua + at + ∑ riasi : z , u,t,ri,si R, n }
i=1

(cf. Lemma 24.2). If R has an identity, this ideal can be written more
simply as
n
{∑ riasi : ri,si R, n }.
i=1

If R is commutative, the principal ideal generated by a is

{za + ra : z ,r R}.

If R is a commutative ring with identity, in particular, if R is an integral

domain,

340
 {ra : r R} = {ar : r R}

is the principal ideal generated by a. This is usually written as Ra, or as

aR, or as (a).

30.7 Theorem: Let R be a ring and A an ideal of R. On the set R/A of

right cosets of A in R, we define two operations + and . by
(r + A) + (s + A) = (r + s) + A, (r + A).(s + A) = rs + A
for all r,s R. With respect to these operations, R/A is a ring.

Proof: The addition on R/A is well defined since A is a normal additive

subgroup of R and the multiplication on R/A is well defined since A is an
ideal of R (Theorem 30.5).

R/A is a commutative group under addition (Theorem 18.7, Lemma

18.9(2)). We must now check the associativity of multiplication and the
distributivity laws.

For all r + A, s + A, t + A R/A, we have

[(r + A).(s + A)].(t + A) = (rs + A).(t + A)
= (rs)t + A
= r(st) + A
= (r + A).(st + A)
= (r + A).[(s + A).(t + A)],
so multiplication is associative; and we also have
(r + A).[(s + A) + (t + A)] = (r + A).[(s + t) + A)]
= r(s + t) + A
= (rs + rt) + A
= (rs + A) + (rt + A)
= (r + A).(s + A) + (r + A).(t + A)
and
[(s + A) + (t + A)].(r + A) = [(s + t) + A)].(r + A)
= (s + t)r + A
= (sr + tr) + A
= (sr + A) + (tr + A)
= (s + A).(r + A) + (t + A).(r + A).
Hence R/A is a ring.

341
30.8 Definition: Let A be an ideal of a ring R. The ring R/A of Theorem
30.7 is called the factor ring of R with respect to A, or the factor ring R
by A, or the factor ring R mod(ulo) A. Other names for R/A are: "quotient
ring", "difference ring", "residue class ring".

30.9 Examples: (a) In the ring of integers, the multiples n of an

integer n form an ideal, the principal ideal generated by n (Example
30.6(b) and (h)). The factor ring /n is exactly the ring n of integers
mod n.

(b) Let T and A be as in Example 30.6(d). Then A is an ideal of T and we

can build the factor ring T/A. This factor ring has precisely p elements.
What are they?

(c) Let R be a ring and A an ideal of R. If R is commutative, so is R/A, for

then (r + A).(s + A) = rs + A = sr + A = (s + A).(r + A) for all (r + A),(s + A)
in R/A; and if R is a ring with identity, so is R/A, for if 1 is an identity of
R, then 1 + A R/A is an identity of R/A, because
(r + A).(1 + A) = r1 + A = r + A = r1 + A = (1 + A).(r + A)
for all r + A R/A.

Ideals are the subrings with respect to which we can build factor rings,
just as normal subgroups are the subgroups with respect to which we
can build factor groups. We know that normal subgroups are exactly the
kernels of homomorphisms. We now show that ideals, too, are the ker-
nels of homomorphisms.

30.10 Definition: Let R and R1 be rings and let :R R1 be a mapping

from R into R1. If
(a + b) = a + b and (ab) = a .b
for all a,b R, then is called a (ring) homomorphism.

The operations on the left hand sides are the operations on R,. and those
on the right hand side are the operations on R1. If the operations on R1

342
were denoted by and , the equations would read (a + b) = a b
and (ab) = a b .

If : R R1 is a ring homomorphism and S is a subring of R, then the

restriction S of to S is also a ring homomorphism.

A ring homomorphism is a homomorphism of additive groups which

preserves products as well. This remark enables us to use the properties
of group homomorphisms whenever we investigate ring homomorph-
isms.

30.11 Lemma: Let : R R1 be a ring homomorphism.

(1) 0 = 0. .
(2) ( a) = (a ) for all a R. .
(3) (a + a + . . . + a ) = a
1 2 n 1
+ a2 + . . . + an for all a1,a2, . . . ,an R, n ,
n 2. (In particular, (na) = n(a ) for all a R)..
(4) (a1a2. . . an) = a1 a2 . . . an for all a1,a2, . . . ,an R, n , n 2. (In
particular, (a n) = (a )n for all a R). .

Proof: (1),(2),(3) follow immediately from Lemma 20.3, since is a

group homomorphism. (4) is proved by the same argument as in the
proof of Lemma 20.3(3).

We now establish the ring theoretical analogues of theorems about

group homomorphisms.

30.12 Theorem: Let : R R1 and : R1 R2 be a ring homomorphisms.

Then the composition mapping
:R R2
is a ring homomorphism from R into R2.

Proof: We regard and as group homomorphisms. We know from

Theorem 20.4 that is an additive group homomorphism. It remains to
show that preserves multiplication. Since
(rs) = ((rs) )
= (r .s )

343
 = (r ) .(s )
= r( ).s( )
for all r,s R, does preserve multiplication and hence is a ring
homomorphism.

Since any ring homomorphism : R R1 is a group homomorphism, we

can talk about the image and kernel of . Of course.

Im = {r R1: r R} R1 and Ker = {r R: r = 0} R.

30.13 Theorem: Let : R R1 be a ring homomorphism. Then Im is a

subring of R1 and Ker is an ideal of R (cf. Theorem 20.6).

Proof: Im is a subgroup of R1 by Theorem 20.6. We must show that

Im is closed under multiplication (Lemma 30.2). Let x,y Im . Then x
= r , y = s for some r,s R. Then xy = r . s = (rs) is the image, under ,
of an element of R, namely of rs R. So xy Im and Im is closed
under multiplication. This proves that Im is a subring of R1. .

Ker is a subgroup of R by Theorem 20.6. We must only show that Ker

has the "absorbing" property (Definition 30.4). For any r R and
a Ker , we have a = 0 and so
(ra) = r .a = r .0 = 0 and (ar) = a .r = 0.r = 0
by Lemma 29.6(1),(2). Thus ra Ker and ar Ker . Therefore Ker is
an ideal of R.

We prove conversely that every ideal is the kernel of some homomorph-

ism.

30.14 Theorem: Let R be a ring and let A be an ideal of R. Then

:R R/A
r r+A
is a ring homomorphism from R onto R/A and Ker = A ( is called the
natural or canonical homomorphism).

344
Proof: The natural mapping : R R/A is a group homomorphism from
R onto R/A and Ker = A by Theorem 20.12. So we need only show that
is a ring homomorphism, i.e., that preserves multiplication. This
follows from the very definition of multiplication in R/A: we have
(rs) = rs + A = (r + A)(s + A) = r .s
for all r,s R. So is a ring homomorphism.

30.15 Definition: A ring homomorphism : R R1 is called a (ring)

isomorphism if it is one-to-one and onto.. In this case, we say R is iso-
morphic to R1 and write R R1. If R is not isomorphic to R1, we put R R1.

So a ring isomorphism is a group isomorphism that preserves multiplica-

tion. We use the same sign " " for isomorphic rings as for isomorphic
groups. This should not lead to any confusion. When confusion is likely,
we state explicitly whether we mean ring isomorphism or group iso-
morphism.

30.16 Lemma: Let : R R1 and : R1 R2 be ring isomorphisms.

(1) :R R2 is a ring isomorphism.
1
(2) : R1 R is a ring isomorphism.

Proof: (1) We know that is a group isomorphism (Lemma 20.11(1))

and a ring homomorphism (Theorem 30. 12), so is a ring
isomorphism. This proves (1).

1
(2) We know that is a group isomorphism (Lemma 20.11(2)). We
1
must also show that preserves products. For any x,y R1, we must
show (xy) 1 = x 1.y 1. Since is onto, there are a,b R such that a = x
and b = y. Now a and b are unique with this property, for is one-to-
one, and a = x 1, b = y 1. This is the definition of the inverse mapping.
Since is a homomorphism, we have
(ab) = a .b
(ab) = xy
ab = (xy) 1

345
 1
x .y 1 = (xy) 1
1
for all x,y R1. So : R1 R is a ring homomorphism and consequently
1
is a ring isomorphism. .

30.17 Theorem . (Fundamental theorem on homomorphisms): Let

:R R1 be a ring homomorphism and let :R R/Ker be the natural
homomorphism..

R/Ker R/Ker

R R1 R R1

(a) (b)

Then there is a one-to-one ring homomorphism :R/Ker R1 such that

= ..

Proof: From Theorem 20.15 and its proof, we know that the mapping

: R/Ker R1
r + Ker r

is a well defined one-to-one group homomorphism such that = . It

only remains to check that preserves multiplication. For all r,s R, we
have ((r + Ker ).(s + Ker )) = (rs + Ker )
= (rs)
= r .s
= (r + Ker ) . (s + Ker ) ,
so preserves products and is a ring homomorphism.

30.18 Theorem: Let :R R1 be a ring homomorphism. Then

R/Ker Im (ring isomorphism).

Proof: The mapping :R/Ker R1 is a one-to-one ring homomorphism

r + Ker r

346
(Theorem 30.17) and Im = Im (see the proof of Theorem 20.16).
Thus is a one-to-one ring homomorphism onto Im and therefore
R/Ker Im .

30.19 Theorem: Let :R R1 be a ring homomorphism from R onto

R1.
(1) Each subring S of R with Ker S,. is mapped to a subring of R1,
which will be denoted by S1.
(2) If S and T are subrings of R and Ker S T, then S1 T1.
(3) If S and T are subrings of R containing Ker and if S1 T1, then S T.
(4) If S and T are subrings of R containing Ker and if S1 = T1, then S = T.
(5) For any subring U of R1, there is a subring S of R such that Ker S
and S1 = U.
(6) Let S be a subring of R containing Ker . Then S is an ideal of R if and
only if S1 is an ideal of R1.
(7) If S is an ideal of R containing Ker , then R/S R1/S1.

R R1 R R1 R1/S1

T T1

S S1 S S1 1

Ker {0} Ker {0}

{0} {0}

Proof: (1) As in Theorem 21.1, we put S1 = Im S . By Theorem 30.13, S1

is a subring of R1. (The restriction of a ring homomorphism to a subring
is also a ring homomorphism.)

(2),(3),(4) We regard merely as a group homomorphism and apply

Theorem 21.1(2),(3),(4).

(5) Let U be a subring of R1. Consider U as an additive subgroup of R1.

From Theorem 21.1(5), we know that there is a subgroup S of R, namely.

S = {r R: r U}

347
with Ker S and S1 = U. It remains to show that S is a subring of R. We
need only check that S is closed under multiplication,. and this is easy: if
r,s S, then r , s U, then r .s
.
U, then (rs) U, then rs S and S
is multiplicatively closed. .

(6) Let S be a subring of R, with Ker S.. First we assume that S is an

ideal of R and prove that S1 is an ideal of R1. We must show that r1s1 S1
and s1r1 S1 for all r1 R1, s1 S1. Well, if r1 R1, s1 S = Im S , then
there are r R with r = r1 and s S with s = s1, and so
r s = r .s = (rs)
1 1
Im S
= S since rs S as S is an ideal of R,
1
s1r1 = s .r = (sr) Im S = S1 since sr S as S is an ideal of R.
This proves that S1 is an ideal of R1 if S is an ideal of R.

Next we suppose S1 is an ideal of R1. By Theorem 30.14, S1 = Ker ´,

where ´: R1 R1/S1 is the natural homomorphism. Then ´: R R1/S1 is
a ring homomorphism (Theorem 30.12) with
Ker ´ = S, (*)
as follows from (ii) on page 225. By Theorem 30.13, S is an ideal of R.

(7) Assume that S is an ideal of R and S1 is an ideal of R1. From the ring
homomorphism ´: R R1/S1, we get

R/Ker ´ Im ´ (ring isomorphism)

by Theorem 30.18. Here Ker ´ = S by (*) and Im ´ = R1/S1, for and ´

are both onto. Thus.
R/S R1/S1 (ring homomorphism).

30.20 Theorem: Let A be an ideal of R.. The subrings of R/A are given
by S/A, where S runs through the subrings of R containing A.. In other
words, for each subring U of R/A,. there is a unique subring S of R such
that A U and U = S/A. When U1 and U2 are subrings of R/A, say with
U1 = S1/A and U2 = S2/A, where S1, S2 are subrings of R containing A,
then U1 U2 if and only if S1 S2. Furthermore, S /A is an ideal of R/A if
and only if S is an ideal of R. In this case .
R/A / S/A R/S (ring isomorphism).

Proof: The natural homomorphism : R R/A . is onto by Theorem

30.14. Now we may apply Theorem 30.19,. which states that any subring

348
of R/A is of the form S1 = Im S = {s R/A: s S} = {s + A R/A: s S} =
S/A for some subring S of R containing Ker = A . (notice that S/A is
mean-ingful, for A is an ideal of S when A S . and S is a subring of R).
We know that U1 = Im S1
Im S2
= U2 if and only if S1 S2 (Theorem
30.19 (2),(3)). Finally, S /A = Im S
is an ideal of R/A if and only if S is
an ideal of R, in which case R/A / S/A R/S (Theorem 30.19(6),(7)). .

30.21 Theorem: Let R be a ring, S a subring of R and A an ideal of R.

(1) S + A is a subring of R (here S + A denotes {s + a R: s S, a A} R
in accordance with Definition 19.1).
(2) A is an ideal of S + A, and S A is an ideal of S.
(3) S + A / A S /S A (ring isomorphism).

Proof: (1) S + A is an additive subgroup of R (Lemma 19.4), and it is also

closed under multiplication since
(s + a)(s´ + a´) = ss´ + sa´ + as´ + aa´ S + A
for all s,s´ S, a,a´ A, because then ss´ S; and sa´,as´,aa´ A, conse-
quently sa´ + as´ + aa´ A. So S + A is a subring of R.

(2) A is an ideal of R and a subset of S + A, so, a fortiori, A is an ideal of

S + A. Also, S A is a subgroup of S and, for all a S A, s S,
sa S and sa A, so sa S A,
as S and as A, so as S A
since S is closed under multiplication and A is an ideal of R. This shows
that S A is an ideal of S.

(3) We have a ring homomorphism S : S R/A, the restriction of the

natural homomorphism : R R/A. Hence S/Ker S Im S . From the
proof of Theorem 21.3, we know Ker S = S A and Im S = S + A /A. So
S +A/A S /S A
as contended.

Exercises

349
1. Let R be a ring. The center of R is defined to be the set
Z(R) = {z R: za = az for all a R}.
Is Z(R) a subring or an ideal of R?

2. Given a ring R, find Z(Mat2(R)).

3. Prove that, if D is a division ring, then Z(D) is a field.

4. Let R be a ring and b R. Is the centralizer

CR (b) := {r R: rb = br}
of b a subring of R?

5. Let R be a ring with identity. Prove or disprove that Z(R ) = (Z(R)) .

6. Show that, if K is a field, then {0} and K are the only ideals of K.

7. Let D be a division ring. Find all ideals of Mat2(D).

Let RRbebe
8. Let an aabelian
ring group, let End(R) be the set of all group
and let ring homomorphisms
from R into R. For any , End(R), we define + : R R by
r( + ) = r + r .
Show that + End(R) and that (End(R),+,o ) is a ring (o is the composi-
tion of functions).

9. Let R be a ring and A an ideal of R. Prove that

{r R: rx A for all x R}
is an ideal of R.

10. Let (R,+,.) be a ring. If A,B are nonempty subsets of R, we define AB

to be the nonempty subset
{a1b1 + a2b2 + . . . + anbn R: n , ai A, bi B}
of R. A subgroup A of (R,+) is called a right (resp. left) ideal of R
provided ar A (resp. ra A) for all a A, r R. Prove that, if A,B,C are
arbitrary right (resp. left) ideals of R, then
(a) A + B, AB, A B are right (resp. left) ideals of R,
(b) (AB)C = A(BC),
(c) A(B + C) = AB + AC and (B + C)A = BA + CA.

11. Let R be a ring. An ideal P of R is said to be prime if P R and if, for

any two ideals A,B of R, the implication

350
 AB P A P or B P
is valid (see Ex. 10). Prove the following statements.
(a) Let P be an ideal of R and P R. If, for any a,b R,
ab P a P or b P
then P is a prime ideal of R.
(b) Let R be commutative. If P is a prime ideal of R, then
ab P a P or b P
for any a,b R.
(c) {0} is a prime ideal of any integral domain.
(d) Let R be a commutative ring with identity and P an ideal of R.
Then P is a prime ideal of R if and only if R/P is an integral domain.

12. Let R be a ring. An ideal (resp. right ideal, resp. left ideal) M of R is
said to be maximal ideal (resp. right ideal, resp. left ideal)of R if M R
and if there is no ideal (resp. right ideal, resp. left ideal) N of R such that
M N R. Prove the following statements.
(a) If R is a commutative ring with identity, then every maximal
ideal of R is prime.
(b) If R is a ring with identity, distinct from the null ring, and if M
is an ideal of R such that R/M is a division ring, then M is maximal.
(c) If R is a ring with identity and M a maximal ideal of R, then
R/M is a field.
(d) Find a noncommutative ring R with identity and a maximal
ideal M of R such that R/M is not a division ring.

13. An element a in a ring R is said to be nilpotent if a n = 0 for some

n . Prove that, if a,b are nilpotent elements in a ring, and if ab = ba,
then a + b is also nilpotent.

14. Let R be a commutative ring. Show that the set N of all nilpotent ele-
ments in R is an ideal of R and that the factor ring R/N has no nilpotent
elements other than 0.

15. Find rings R,S with identities 1R , 1S respectively and a ring homo-
morphism : R S such that (1R ) 1S .

16. If R,S are rings with identities 1R ,1S respectively, and if :R S is a

ring homomorphism onto S, prove that (1R ) = 1S .

17. The notation being as in §29, Ex. 7, prove that the mapping r (r,0)
is a one-to-one ring homomorphism from R into S.

351
 §31
Field of Fractions of an Integral Domain

Let D be an integral domain, i.e., a commutative ring with identity which

has zo zero divisors, distinct from the null ring. Let a,b,c be elements of
D such that
a 0, ab = ac. (i)
1
sides of
If a has a multiplicative inverse a in D, we could multiply both sises
1
this equation by a and obtain
b = c. (ii)
But we do not know whether a has an inverse in D and we cannot argue
in this way. Nevertheless, it is true that (i) implies (ii) in an integral
domain: from (i), we get
ab ac = 0
a(b c) = 0,
and, since a 0 and D has no zero divisors,
b c =0
b = c.

Hence the cancellation law holds in an integral domain D just as if the

nonzero elements in D had inverses in D, i.e., as if D\{0} were a group
under multiplication.

It is the objective of this paragraph to show that any integral domain is

in fact a subring of a ring F such that F\{0} is a commutative multiplica-
tive group, i.e., a subring of a field F. We can then say that the nonzero
elements in D do have inverses, perhaps not in D, but certainly in F.

First we show that finite integral domains are always fields.

31.1 Theorem: If an integral domain has finitely many elements, then

it is a field.

Proof: (cf. Lemma 9.3) Let D be an integral domain with finitely many
elements. We are to show that every nonzero element of D has a multi-
plicative inverse in D.

352
Let a D, a 0. Since D is finite, the elements

a,a 2,a 3,. . . ,a n,. . .

of D cannot be all distinct. So there are natural numbers k,l such

that a k = a l, with k l, say. We obtain then
ak a l = 0
a k a ka l k = 0
ak(1 a l k) = 0,
where 1 is the identity of D. Since D has no zero divisors and a 0, we
conclude a k = a .a . . . . .a 0, which yields
1 al k =0
lk
a = 1,
. lk1
aa = 1.
lk1
Thus a D is an inverse of a. So D is a field.

Starting from an integral domain D, we now construct, without any

hypothesis on D , a field F which contains D as a subring. This construc-
tion is an immediate generalization of the construction of from ,
whose basic moments we recollect: every rational number is a fraction
a
of integers a,b, with b 0; different fractions can represent the same
b
a c
rational number, in fact = if and only if ad = bc (wherea,b,c,d
b d
a , c
and b 0 c); the addition of two rational numbers is carried out
b d
by writing them with a common denominator and adding the
a c ad bc ad + bc
numerators ( + = + = ); the multiplication is carried
b d bd bd bd
a c
out by multiplying the numerators and denominators separately ( =
b d
ac a
;); an integer a is considered to be equal to the rational number .
bd 1

All these carry over to the more general case of an arbitrary integral
domain D in place of , and give rise to a field F which is related to D in
the same way as is related to . The elements of F will be like
"fractions" of elements of D. We introduce them in the next two lemmas.

353
31.2 Lemma: Let D be an integral domain and put
S := {(a,b): a,b D, b 0} = D (D\{0}).
We define a relation on S by declaring
(a,b) (c,d) if and only if ad = bc
for all (a,b), (c,d) S. Then is an equivalence relation on S.

Proof: (i) For all (a,b) S, we have (a,b) (a,b) since ab = ba. So is
reflexive.

(ii) If (a,b), (c,d) S and (a,b) (c,d), then

ad = bc
da = cb
cb = da
(c,d) (a,b)
and is symmetric.

(iii) If (a,b), (c,d), (e,f)

S and (a,b) (c,d), (c,d) (e,f), then
ad = bc and cf = de
adf = bcf and bcf = bde
daf = dbe
d(af be) = 0.
From (c,d) S, we know d 0, and, since D has no zero divisors, we
obtain af be = 0. Thus af = be, so (a,b) (e,f) and is transitive.

So is an equivalence relation on S.

31.3 Lemma: Let D be an integral domain, S = D (D\{0}), and let be

the equivalence relation of Lemma 31.2. For (a,b) S, we designate the
equivalence class of (a,b) by [a:b]. Thus [a:b] = {(c,d) S: (c,d) (a,b)}.

Let F = {[a:b]: (a,b) S} be the set of all equivalence classes of the

elements in S. For all [a:b], [c:d] F, we put
[a:b] + [c:d] = [ad + bc : bd],
[a:b].[c:d] = [ac: bd].

Then + and . are well defined operations on F.

Proof: First we remark that, if (a,b), (c,d) S, then b,d 0, and so bd 0

since D has no zero divisors. Thus (ad + bc,bd), (ac,bd) S and therefore
[ad + bc:bd], [ac:bd] F.

354
We must show that + and . are well defined operations on F. This means
we must show that the implication

[a:b] = [x:y], [c:d] = [z:u] [ad + bc:bd] = [xu + yz:yu], [ac:bd] = [xz:yu]

is valid. This implication is equivalent to

(a,b) (x,y), (c,d) (z,u) (ad + bc,bd) (xu + yz,yu), (ac,bd) (xz,yu)

which, in turn, is equivalent to

ay = bx, cu = dz (ad + bc)yu = bd(xu + yz), [Link] = [Link],

where b,d,y,u 0. But certainly, when ay = bx, cu = dz, we have

(ad + bc)yu = adyu + bcyu = [Link] + [Link] = [Link] + [Link] = [Link] + [Link]
= [Link] + [Link] = bd(xu + yz) and [Link] = [Link] = [Link] = [Link].

31.4 Theorem: With the notation of Lemma 31.3, (F,+,.) is a field.

Proof: (i) According to Lemma 31.3, + is a binary operation on F.

(ii) + is associative since for any [a:b], [c:d], [e:f] F, we have

([a:b] + [c:d]) + [e:f] = [ad + bc:bd] + [e:f]
= [(ad + bc)f + (bd)e : (bd)f]
= [a(df) + b(cf + de): b(df)]
= [a:b] + [cf + de:df]
= [a:b] + ([c:d] + [e:f]).

(iii) [0:1] is a right additive identity since [a:b] + [0:1] = [a1 + b0: b1] = [a:b]
for any [a:b] F. (Notice that [0:1] = [0:d] for all d D, d 0.)

(iv) Any [a:b] F has a right additive inverse: [ a:b] is the opposite of
[a:b], for [a:b] + [ a:b] = [ab + b( a): b2] = [0:b2] = [0:1].

(v) + is commutative since for any [a:b], [c:d] F, we have

[a:b] + [c:d] = [ad + bc:bd] = [cb + da:db] = [c:d] + [a:b].

We proved that (F,+) is a commutative group. We now check the

remaining ring axioms.

(1) According to Lemma 31.3, . is a binary operation on F.

355
(2) . is associative since for any [a:b], [c:d], [e:f] F, we have
([a:b].[c:d]).[e:f] = [ac:bd].[e:f]
= [(ac)e :(bd)f]
= [a(ce):b(df)]
= [a:b]. [ce:df]
= [a:b].([c:d].[e:f]).

(D) For all [a:b], [c:d], [e:f] F, we have

[a:b].([c:d] + [e:f]) = [a:b].[cf + de:df]
= [a(cf + de):b(df)]
= [acf + ade:bdf]
= [bacf + bade:bbdf] (why?)
= [[Link] + [Link]:[Link]]
= [ac:bd] + [ae:bf]
= [a:b].[c:d] + [a:b].[e:f]
and one of the distributivity laws hold in F. We must prove the other
distributivity law. We can give an argument similar to the above, but we
show presently that . is commutative, and this will give the other distri-
butivity law as a bonus.

We have not yet proved that (F,+,.) is a ring.

(3) . is commutative since for any [a:b], [c:d] F, we have

[a:b].[c:d] = [ac:bd] = [ca:db] = [c:d].[a:b].
As we have already remarked above, this yields the distributivity law
we have not checked:
([c:d] + [e:f]).[a:b] = [a:b].([c:d] + [e:f])
= [a:b].[c:d] + [a:b].[e:f]
= [c:d].[a:b] + [e:f].[a:b]
for all [a:b], [c:d], [e:f] F.

We now proved that (F,+,.) is a commutative ring.

(4) [1:1] is the multiplicative identity because

[a:b].[1:1] = [a1:b1] = [a:b]
for all [a:b] F. Since multiplication is commutative, there holds also
[1:1].[a:b] = [a:b] for any [a:b] F. (Notice that [1:1] = [d:d] for all d D
with d 0.)

Thus (F,+,.) is a commutative ring with identity. It remains to show that

every nonzero element in F has a multiplicative inverse in F.

356
(5) For all [a:b] F\{0}, we show that [b:a] is a multiplicative inverse of
[a:b]. First of all, since [a:b] [0:1] in F,
(a,b) is not equivalent to (0,1) in S
a1 b0
a 0
(b,a) S
and [b:a] is an element of F. Secondly, [a:b].[b:a] = [ab:ba] = [ab:ab] = [1:1]
= multiplicative identity of F. Thus [b:a] is a multiplicative inverse of
[a:b] [0:1] in F.

This proves that (F,+,.) is a field.

31.5 Theorem: Let D be an integral domain and let (F,+,.) be the field of
Theorem 31.4. Then D is isomorphic to a subring of F.

Proof: Let : D F. We demonstrate that is a one-to-one ring homo-

a [a:1]
morphism. For all a,b D,
a + b = [a:1] + [b:1] = [a1 + 1b:1.1] = [a + b:1] = (a + b)
a .b = [a:1].[b:1] = [ab:1.1] = [ab:1] = (ab) ,
thus is a homomorphism. Also
Ker = {a D: a = zero element of F}
= {a D: [a:1] = [0:1]}
= {a D: (a,1) (0,1)}
= {a D: a .1 = 1.0}
= {a D: a = 0}
= {0}
and hence is one-to-one. By Theorem 30.18, D is isomorphic to the
subring Im = D = {[a:1] F: a D} of F.

31.6 Definition: Let D be an integral domain. Then the field of

Theorem 31.4 is called the field of fractions or the field of quotients of D.

357
 a
From now on, we shall write for [a:b]. The elements of F will be called
b
fractions (of elements from D). Furthermore, we identify the integral
domain D with its image D under the mapping in Theorem 31.5. Thus
a
we write a instead of and regard D as a subring of F. Then the inverse
1
1 a b
of b D F is F and that of is (here a,b D, a,b 0). With these
b b a
notations, calculations are carried out in the usual way.

Starting from an integral domain D,. we constructed the field F of frac-

tions of D. Now this field F is also an integral domain, too,. and we may
repeat our construction and obtain the field of fractions of F, say F1.
However, nothing is gained by this repetition, for F1 is not essentially
distinct from F. .

31.7 Theorem: Let K be a field and let K1 be the field of fractions of K.

Then K1 is isomorphic to K.

31.5 we know that : K

Proof: From Theorem 31.6, K1 is an isomorphism
a
a
1

from K onto K = Im . We will show that Im = K1.

a
Any element of K1 can be written as , where a,b K and b 0. Since K
b
is a field and b 0, there is an inverse b 1 K of b in K. Thus ab 1 K and
a ab 1
= [a:b] = [ab 1:1] = = (ab 1) Im .
b 1
This proves K1 Im , so Im = K1 and K1 is isomorphic to K.

Next we show that the field of fractions of an integral domain is the

smallest field containing that integral domain.

31.8 Theorem: Let D be an integral domain and F the field of fractions

of D. If K is any field that contains D, then K contains a subring iso-
morphic to F.

358
Proof: We construct an isomorphism From F onto a subring of K. The
a
elements of F are fractions , where a,b D and b 0. Regarded as an
b
element of K, b has an inverse b 1 in K, so ab 1 K. Let : F K.
a
ab 1
b

a c
is a well defined mapping, for if = (a,b,c,d D, b 0 d), then ad
b d
a c
= bc, so ad.b 1d 1 = bc.b 1d 1, so ab 1 = cd 1, so ( ) = ( ) . Now
b d

a c ad+bc
( + ) =( ) = (ad + bc)(bd) 1
b d bd
a c
= (ad + bc)d 1b 1 = ab 1 + cd 1 = ( ) + ( )
b d
a c ac a c
and ( . . ) = ( ) = (ac)(bd) 1 = ac.d 1b 1 = ab [Link] 1 = ( ) .( )
b d bd b d

a c
for any two fractions . , in F and is a ring homomorphism. Here is
b d
a a
one-to-one because Ker = {0}, for Ker implies ( ) = 0, so ab 1 = 0,
b b
a 0 0
so a = abb 1 = 0b 1 = 0, so = = = 0. Hence F is isomorphic to the
b b 1
subring Im of K (Theorem 30.18).

Exercises

1. Let D1 = {a + bi : a,b }, D2 = {a + 2bi : a,b } and

3 3
E = {a + b 2 + c 4 : a,b,c }. Show that D1, D2, E are integral
domains and describe, as simply as you can, the elements in the field of
fractions of these integral domains.

2. Let R be a commutative ring and let M be a nonempty multiplicatively

closed subset of R. For ordered pairs in R M, we put

(r,m) (r´,m´) if and only if there is an n M such that n(rm´ r´m)

359
Show that is an equivalence relation on R M. Denote the equivalence
r
class of (r,m) by and define, on the set M 1R of all equivalence classes,
m
addition and multiplication by
r r´ rm´+mr´ r r´ rr´
+ = and . . =
m m´ mm´ m m´ mm´
1
Prove that M R is a commutative ring with identity under these opera-
tions.

3. Keep the notation of Ex. 2. Prove that, if A is an ideal of R, then M 1A =

a
{ M 1R: a A, m M} is an ideal of M 1R. If A,B are ideals of R, then
m
M 1(A + B) = M 1A + M 1B and M 1(A B) = M 1A M 1B. Does every ideal
of M 1R have the form M 1A for some ideal A of R?

4. Let R be a commutative ring with identity and let P be a prime ideal

of M (see §30, Ex. 11). Show that M := R\P is a multiplicatively closed
subset of R. Prove that M 1R, in the notation of Ex. 2, has a unique
maximal ideal (see §30, Ex. 12).

5. Discuss the rings in Example 29.2(e),(g) under the light of Ex. 3 and 4.

360
 §32
Divisibility Theory in Integral Domains

As we have already mentioned, the ring of integers is the prototype of

integral domains. There is a divisibility relation on *: an integer b is
said to be divisible by a nonzero integer a when there is an integer c
such that ac = b. Integers with no nontrivial divisors are called prime,
and every nonzero integer that is not a unit can be written as a product
of prime numbers in a unique way.

We want to investigate whether there are similar results in other

integral domains. More generally, one can ask whether there are similar
results in an arbitrary ring. However, in an arbitrary ring, one has to
distinguish between left divisors and right divisors: if a,b,c are elements
of a ring and ab = c, then a is called a left divisor, and b is called a right
divisor of c. Here a may be a left divisor of c without being a right
divisor of c, and vice versa. Furthermore, the existence of zero divisors
in a ring complicates the theory. For these reasons, in this introductory
book, we confine ourselves to integral domains.

32.1 Definition: Let D be an integral domain and let , D. If 0

and if there is a D such that = , then is called a divisor or a
factor of and is said to be divisible by . We also say divides .

We write when divides , and when 0 and does not

divide .

32.2 Lemma: Let D be an integral domain and let , , , , , 1

, 2
, . . . , s,
, , . . . , s be elements of D.
1 2
(1) If , then | , | , | .
(2) If and , then | .
(3) If and 0, then .

* More precisely, on \{0}

361
(4) If , then .
(5) If and , then | + .
(6) If and , then | .
(7) If and , then | + .
(8) If 1
, 2
, ... , s
, then | 1 1
+ 2 2
+ ... + .
s s
(9) If 0, then |0.
(10) 1| and 1| .

Proof: The claims are proved exactly as in the proof of Lemma 5.2.

We know that the units 1, 1 of divide every integer. This is true in

any arbitrary integral domain (see Definition 29.14).

32.3 Lemma: Let D be an integral domain and D. Then is a unit of

D (i.e., D ) if and only if for all D.

Proof: If is a unit, then = 1 for some D; in particular, since D is

an integral domain, = 1 0 and 0. For any D, we have ( ) =
( ) = 1 = , with D. Thus for any D. Conversely, if for
all in D, then 1, so = 1 for some D. Thus has an inverse in D
and is a unit of D.

32.4 Definition: Let D be an integral domain and , D. Then is said

to be associate to if there is a unit D such that = . In this case,
we write .

32.5 Lemma: Let D be an integral domain. Then is an equivalence

relation on D.

Proof: (i) For any D, we have = 1 and 1 is a unit. Hence and

is reflexive. (ii) If , D and , then = for some D , then
1 1
= with D (for D is a group by Theorem 29.15) and , so is
symmetric. (iii) If , , D and , , then = , = ´, where

362
 , ´ are units in D. So = ´ , with ´ D (Theorem 29.15), thus
and is transitive.

Since symmetric relation, it is legitimate to say that

is a symmetic and are
associate when is associate to . The alert reader will have noticed that
the group D acts on the set D in the sense of Definition 25.1, and the
orbit of any D consists of the associates of (that is, elements of D
which are associate to ). Lemma 32.5 is thus merely a special case of
Lemma 25.5.

For any in DD,\ the

{0}, units and associates of are divisors of . A divisor of
, which is neither a unit nor an associate of , is called a proper divisor
of . An element need not have proper divisors; for instance, a unit has
no proper divisors.

The relation holds if and only if the relation 1 1 holds for any
associate 1 of and for any associate 1 of . In other words, as far as
divisibility is concerned, associate elements play the same role..

32.6 Examples: (a) The theory of divisibility in was discussed in §5.

The units in are 1 and 1, and the associates of a are a and a. The
terminology in this paragraph is consistent with that of §5.

(b) Let D be a field. Then for any , D, 0 since 0 implies

1 1 1
that there is an inverse of in D and ( ) = with D. In
particular, 1 for any D, 0. Hence any nonzero element in D is a
unit and any two nonzero elements are associate. The divisibility theory
is not very interesting in a field.

(c) Let R = {a/b : (a,b) =1, 5 b} be the ring of Example 29.2(e). It is

easily seen that R is an integral domain. Let us find the units of R. The
multiplicative inverse of a/b R ((a,b) = 1) is b/a , and b/a R
if and only if 5 a. Thus R = {a/b R: (a,b) =1, 5 b, 5 a}. The associates
of a/b R are the numbers x/y with (x,y) = 1, where a and x are exactly
divisible by the same power of of5. 5.

363
(d) We put [i] := {a + bi : a,b }. One easily checks that [i] is a
subring of and that [i] is an integral domain. The elements of [i] are
called gaussian integers (after C. F. Gauss (1777-1855) who introduced
them in his investigations about the so-called biquadratic reciprocity
law).

Since [i] is a subring of , each element = a + bi in [i] has a conjugate

and a norm. The conjugate of = a + bi [i] is defined to be = a bi
in [i] (a,b ). Notice that = for any , [i]. The norm N( ) of
a + bi [i] is defined by N( ) = ; hence N(a + bi) = a 2 + b2 (a,b ).
Thus N( ) is a nonnegative integer for any [i], and equals 0 if and
only if = 0 + 0i = 0. Moreover, N( ) = . = . = = N( )N( )
for any , [i].

Using this, it is easy to determine the units in [i]. We claim [i] is a

1
unit in [i] if and only if N( ) = 1. Indeed, if is a unit in [i], then
= 1, then N( )N( 1) = 1, where N( ),N( 1) are positive integers. This
forces N( ) = 1, as claimed. Conversely, if N( ) = 1, then = 1, where
[i], and this yields 1, which means is a unit.

Thus = a + bi is a unit if and only if N( ) = a 2 + b2 = 1 (here a,b )

2 2 2 2 2 2
and a + b = 1 if and only if a = 1, b = 0 or a = 0, b = 1. Therefore
is a unit if and only if = 1, 1,i, i, so that [i] = {1, 1,i, i}. The associates
of in [i] are the numbers , , i, i.

1+ 3i 2 2
(e) We put = . Thus = cos + isin . By de Moivre's
2 3 3
4
2 2 i 1 3i
theorem, 2 = cos 2 + isin 2 = e3 = = and
3 3 2

3 2 2
= cos 3
+ isin 3 = 1. So 3 1 = 0, so ( 1)( 2 + + 1) = 0. Since
3 3
1 0, we conclude 2 + + 1 = 0, which can also be verified directly.
From 3 = 1, we obtain 4 = , whence ( 2)2 + 2 + 1 = 0.

We put [ ] := {a + b : a,b }. One easily checks that [ ] is a

subring of and that [ ] is an integral domain. The closure of [ ]
under multiplication follows from 2 = 1 :
(a + b )(c + d ) = ac + ad + bc + bd 2
= ac + ad + bc + bd( 1 )
= (ac bd) + (ad + bc bd)

364
 [ ]
for all a + b , c + d [ ]. The ring [ ] was introduced independently
by C. G. J. Jacobi (1804-1851) and by G. Eisenstein (1823-1852) in their
investigations about the so-called cubic reciprocity law).

Repeating the proof for [i], we see that a + b [ ] is a unit in [ ] if

and only if N(a + b ) = 1. This is equivalent to a 2 ab + b2 = 1, so
equivalent to 4a 2 4ab + 4b2 = 4, so to (2a b)2 + 3b2 = 4. The last equa-
tion holds if and only if 2a b = 2, b = 0 or 2a b = 1, b = 1 (a,b ).
2
In this way, we get a + b = 1, , ( 1 )= . The units in [ ] are
2
1, , ( 1 )= ; the associates of [ ] are the numbers , ,
2
( 1 ) = .

(f) We put [ 5i] = {a + b 5i : a,b }. Again, it is easily verified

that [ 5i] is an integral domain, and [ 5i] is a unit if and only if
2 2
N( ) = 1. Now N(a + b 5i) = a + 5b = 1 if and only if a = 1, b = 0 (here
a,b ). Thus 1 are the only units in [ 5i] and the associates of a
number [ 5i] are the numbers .

So far, the divisibility theory in an arbitrary integral domain has been

completely analogous to the theory in , which culminates in the funda-
mental theorem of arithmetic asserting that every integer, not a zero or
a unit, can be written as a product of prime numbers in a unique way.
We proceed to investigate if a similar theorem is true in an arbitrary
integral domain. First we introduce the counterparts of prime numbers.

32.7 Definition: Let D be an integral domain and D. Then is said

to be irreducible if is neither zero nor a unit, and if, in any factoriza-
tion = of , where , D, either or is a unit in D. When is nei-
ther zero nor a unit, and when is not irreducible in D, is said to be
reducible.

An irreducible element in D is therefore one which has no proper

divisors. Clearly, when and are associates, is irreducible if and only
if is irreducible. One might expect that such elements be called prime

365
rather than irreducible, but the term "prime" is reserved for another
property (Definition 32.20).

We now ask if every nonzero,. nonunit element in an integral domain D

can be expressed as a product of finitely many irreducible elements. (cf.
Theorem 5.13) Let us try to argue as in Theorem 5.13.. Given D(
0, not a unit), is either irreducible or not.. In the former case, is a
product of one irreducible element. In the latter case, = 1 for some
suitable proper divisors of . Here 1 is either irreducible or not. In the
former case, 1 is an irreducible divisor of . In the latter case, 1 = 2
for some suitable proper divisors of 1. Here 2 is either irreducible or
not. Repeating this procedure, we get a sequence.
= 0, 1, 2, . . . (s)
of elements in D, where i+1 is a proper divisor of i (i = 0,1,2, . . . ).

When the sequence (s). stops after a finite number of steps, we obtain an
irreducible divisor of .. However, we do not know that the sequence (s)
ever terminates. In the case of , the absolute values of i, which are
nonnegative integers, get smaller and smaller and,. since there are
finitely many nonnegative integers less than ,. the sequence (s) does
come to an end.. But this argument cannot be extended to the general
case, for there is no absolute value concept.. Let us suppose, however,
that there is associated a nonnegative integer d( i) to each i in such a
way that d( i+1) d( i). If this is possible, we can conclude that
sequence (s) does terminate..

For example, when D is one of [i], [ ], [ 5i],. we may consider the

norm N( i) of i. The norm N( i) is a nonnegative integer, and also
N( i+1) N( i) whenever i+1 is a proper divisor of i. In fact, with the
norm function, there is a division algorithm in [i] and in [ ]..

32.8 Theorem: Let , be elements of [i] (resp. of [ ]), with 0.

Then there are two elements and in [i] (resp. in [ ]) such that
= + and N( ) N( ).

Proof: (Cf. Theorem 5.3; note that and are not claimed to be unique.)
The elements , of [i] (resp. of [ ]) are complex numbers, and 0.
Thus / . Let us write

366
 = x + yi (resp. =x+y )

with x,y . We want to be "approximately equal" to , with an

"error" so small that N( ) 1. So we approximate x + yi (resp. x + y )

by an element in [i] (resp. in [ ]) as closely as we can. To this end,
we choose integers a,b such that
1 1
x a y b
2 2
and put = a + bi (resp. = a + b ). This is possible since the distance
1
between x and the integer closest to x is less than or equal to . When x
2
is half an odd integer, there are two choices for a, and therefore there
1
can be no hope for uniqueness. In this case, we have in fact x a =
2
and the approximation above is the best possible one. The same remarks
apply to y and b.

We now put = . Then = + . It remains to show that N( ) 1.

We have indeed

N( ) = N( ) = N( )= { NN (((x(x ++ yi)
(a + bi))
y )(a + b ))
N ((x a) + (y b)i )
={ N ((x a) + (y b) )
2
(x a) + (y b)2
={
(x a)2 (x a)(y b) + (y b)2
x a2 + y b2
={
x a2 + x a y b + y b2
(1/2)2 + (1/2)2
{ (1/2)2 + (1/2)(1/2) + (1/2)2
2/4
={ 1.
3/4
This completes the proof.

What happens in [ 5i]? For α,

a,bβ [ 5i], 0, we write = x + yi, with

x,y . The best approximation to is given by = a + b 5i, where a,b

1 1
are integers such that x a , y b . Putting = , we can
2 2
conclude only

367
 N( ) = N( ) = N( ) = N ((x a) + (y b) 5i )
= (x a)2 + 5(y b)2 (1/2)2 + 5(1/2)2 = 3/2
(†)
instead of N( ) 1 as in [i], [ ].

32.9 Theorem: In [ 5i], there are elements 0

, 0
with 0
0 such that
N( 0 0
) N( 0
) for all [ 5i].

Proof: We choose 0, 0 in such a way that equality holds in (†) above.

This will be the case when x and y are half odd integers. So we set 0
=
1+ 5i, 0
= 2. Then, for any = a + b 5i [ 5i] (with a,b ), we
have
0 0 0 1+ 5i
N( 0 0
) = N( 0
)N( ) = N( 0
)N( ) = N( 0
)N ( (a +
0 0 2
b 5i))
1 1 3
= N( 0
) (
2 [ a)2+ 5(
2
b)2 ] N( 0
)[(1/2)2 + 5(1/2)2] = N( 0
)
2
N( 0
),

as claimed.

The integral domains on which there is a division algorithm are called

Euclidean domains. The formal definition is as follows.

32.10 Definition: Let D be an integral domain. D is called a Euclidean

domain if there is a function d: D\{0} {0} such that
(i) d( ) d( ) for all , D\{0},
(ii) for any , D\{0}, there are , D satisfying
= + and = 0 or d( ) d( ).

The first condition (i) assures that the d-value of a divisor of D\{0} is
less than or equal to the d-value of . It follows that d( ) = d( ´) when-
ever and ´ are associate. Using (ii) repeatedly, the analog of the
Euclidean algorithm is seen to be valid, and the last nonzero remainder

368
is a greatest common divisor. It will be a good exercise for the reader to
prove this result.

is a Euclidean domain, with the absolute value function working as the

function d of Definition 32.10. This follows from Theorem 5.3, with b
replaced by b . Also, [i] and [ ] are Euclidean domains, with the norm
function working as the function d of Definition 32.10, as Theorem 32.8
shows. On the other hand, we do not yet know whether [ 5i] is a
Euclidean domain. It does not follow from Theorem 32.9 that [ 5i] is
not Euclidean. From Theorem 32.9, it follows only that either [ 5i] is
not Euclidean, or [ 5i] is a Euclidean domain with a function d that is
necessarily distinct from the norm function.

In a Euclidean domain D, the sequence (s) terminates after a finite num-

ber of steps. We shall prove a more general statement (Theorem 32.14).
Recall that { D: D} = D , where D, is the principal ideal gene-
rated by (Example 30.6(h)).

32.11 Theorem: If D is a Euclidean domain, then every ideal of D is a

principal ideal.

Proof: Let D be a Euclidean domain, and let d be the function of Defini-

tion 32.10. For any ideal A of D, we must find an such that A = D . We
argue as in Theorem 5.4.

When A = {0}, we clearly have A = D0, and the claim is true. Assume
now A {0}. Then U = {d( ) {0}: A, 0} is a nonempty
subset of the set of nonnegative integers. Let m be the smallest integer
in U. Then m = d( ) for some A, 0; and d( ) d( ) for all A,
0.

We show that A = D . First we have D A, because A and A has the

"absorbing" property. To prove A D , take an arbitrary from A. There
are , D such that
= + , = 0 or d( ) d( ),
provided 0 (Definition 32.10). Now A, so A, and since A
as well, we see that A. Here d( ) d( ) is impossible, for then d( )
in U would be less than m, which is the smallest number in U. Hence

369
necessarily = 0 and = D . This shows D for all A, pro-
vided 0. Since 0 = 0 D as well, we get A D . Thus A = D .

32.12 Definition: An integral domain D is called a principal ideal

domain if every ideal of D is a principal ideal.

With this terminology, Theorem 32.11 can be reformulated as follows.

32.11 Theorem: Every Euclidean domain is a principal ideal domain.

In any integral domain, if and only if D D , and if and only if

D = D . Thus the sequence (s) gives rise to the chain
D =D 0
D 1
D 2
...
of principal ideals in D. The sequence (s) breaks down if and only if this
chain of ideals breaks down. For principal ideal domains, this is always
true.

32.13 Definition: Let D be an integral domain. D is said to satisfy the

ascending chain condition (ACC) if, for every chain
A0 A1 A2 A3 . . .
of ideals in D, there is an index k such that Am = Ak for all m k; or,
what is the same, every chain.

B0 B1 B2 B3 ...
of ideals in D consists of finitely many terms. An integral domain satis-
fying the ascending chain condition is also called a noetherian domain
(in honor of Emmy Noether (1882-1935)).

32.14 Theorem: Every principal ideal domain satisfies the ascending

chain condition (is noetherian).

Proof: Let D be a principal ideal domain and let

370
 A0 A1 A2 A3 . . .
be a chain of ideals of D.. We must show there is an integer k such that

Am = Ak for all m k. To this and, we put B := Ai. We claim B is an

i=1
ideal of D. Indeed, if , B, then Aj , Al for some indices j,l.
Assuming j l without loss of generality, we have Aj Al. Since Al is an
ideal of D, we have + Al, so + B. Also Al, so B. This
shows that B is a subgroup of D under addition.. Finally, if is an
arbitrary element of D, then Al, since Al is an ideal, so B.
Hence B is an ideal of D. .

Since D is a principal ideal domain, B = D for some D.. As =1 D

=B = Ai, we see Ak for some k. We claim Am = Ak for all m k.

i=1
We know that Ak Am for all m k because each ideal in the chain is
contained in the next one (the chain is acsending).. On the other hand,

for any m k, we have Am Ai = B = D Ak, because Ak and Ak

i=1
is an ideal of D. Thus Am = Ak for all m k and D satisfies the ascending
chain condition..

Using Theorem 32.14, we shall prove the analog of Theorem 5.13 for any
arbitrary principal ideal domain.

32.15 Theorem: Let D be a principal ideal domain. Then every element

expressed as a product of
of D that is neither zero nor a unit can be exressed
finitely many irreducible elements of D.

Proof: First we prove that every element in D, which is neither zero

nor a unit, has an irreducible divisor in D. Let D, 0, unit.
Arguing as on page 366, we get a sequence
= 0, 1, 2, . . . (s)
of elements in D, where i+1 is a proper divisor of i (i = 0,1,2, . . . ). In
particular, none of the i is a unit. This sequence gives rise to the
ascending chain
D =D 0
D 1
D 2
...

371
of ideals of D (here D i
D i+1
because i+1
is a proper divisor of i
).
Since D is noetherian (Theorem 32.14), this chain breaks off: the chain
consists only of the ideals
D =D 0 D 1 D 2 ... D k
say. Hence
= 0, 1, 2, . . . , k
are the only elements in the sequence (s). We claim that k is irreducible
in D. Otherwise, there would be proper divisors k+1 and k+1 of k with
k
= k+1 k+1, and the sequence (s) would contain the term k+1 after k,
and would not terminate with the term k, a contradiction. Hence k is
an irreducible divisor of .. We proved that every element in D, which
is neither zero nor a unit, has an irreducible divisor in D..

Let be an arbitrary nonzero, nonunit element in D.. We want to show

that . can be written as a product of finitely many irreducible elements
in D.. By what we proved above, we know that has an irreducible
divisor, 1 say. We put = 1 1. Here 1 0. If 1 is not a unit, then 1
has an irreducible divisor, 2 say. We put 1 = 2 2. Thus = 1 2 2. Here
2
0. If 2 is not a unit, then 2 has an irreducible divisor, 3 say. We
put 2 = 3 3. Thus = 1 2 3 3. Continuing in this way, we get a
sequence.
= 0, 1, 2, 3, . . .
of elements in D inducing a chain.
D =D 0 D 1 D 2 D 3 ...
of ideals of D. By Theorem 32.14, this chain is finite, for example
D =D 0 D 1 D 2 D 3 ... D k
We claim k is a unit. Otherwise k would have an irreducible divisor
k+1
and, when we put k = k+1 k+1, there would be, in the chain, an
additional ideal D k+1 containing D k properly, a contradiction. Thus k is
a unit.. Then
= 1 2 3 . . . k 1 k k = 1 2 3 . . . k 1 ( k k)
is a product of the irreducible elements 1, 2, 3, . . . , k 1, k k.

Having established the analog of Theorem 5.13, we proceed to work out

the counterpart of Euclid's lemma (Lemma 5.15). For this we need the
notion of greatest common divisor.

372
32.16 Definition: Let D be an arbitrary integral domain and let , D,
not both zero. An element of D is called a greatest common divisor of
and if
(i) and ,
(ii) for all 1 in D, if 1 and 1 , then 1 .

Notice that any associate of above satisfies the same conditions and
hence any associate of a greatest common divisor of and is also a
greatest common divisor of and . It is seen easily that any two great-
est common divisor of and , if and have a greatest common divi-
sor at all, are associates. So a greatest common divisor of and is not
uniquely determined and we have to say a greatest common divisor, not
the greatest common divisor.

We let ( , ) stand for any greatest common divisor of and . Thus ( , )

is determined uniquely to within ambiguity among associate elements.

Although we defined a greatest common divisor of two elements in an

integral domain, this does not mean, of course, that any two elements
(not both zero) in that domain do have a greatest common divisor.
Introducing a definition does not create the definiendum. Given two ele-
ments (not both zero) in an integral domain, we cannot assert that they
have a greatest common divisor. As a matter of fact, in an arbitrary
integral domain, not every pair of elements (not both zero) has a
greatest common divisor. For the special class of principal ideal domains,
however, the following theorem holds.

32.17 Theorem: Let D be a principal ideal domain and let , be arbit-

rary elements in D, not both of them being zero. Then there is a greatest
common divisor of and in D. Furthermore, if is a greatest common
divisor of and , then there are , D such that = + .

Proof: (cf. Theorem 5.4) As in the proof of Theorem 5.4, we consider the
set A := { + : , D}. A is a nonempty subset of D. We claim that A is
an ideal of D. To prove this, let 1, 2 be arbitrary elements of A. Then 1 =
1
+ 1, 2 = 2 + 2 for some 1, 2, 1, 2 D. Hence

373
 1
+ 2 = ( 1 + 1) + ( 2
+ 2) = ( 1 + 2
)+ ( 1
+ 2
) D
1
= ( 1 + 1) = ( 1
) + ( 1) D

and therefore A is a subgroup of D under addition. Also, for any D,

1
= ( 1
+ 1
)= ( 1
)+ ( 1
) D

and thus A has the "absorbing" property as well. So A is an ideal of D.

Since , are not both equal to zero, A {0}.. Now D is a principal ideal
domain, so A = D for some D, and A {0} implies 0.. Also, since
=1 D = A, there are 0, 0 D with = 0 + 0. We prove now that
is a greatest common divisor of and ..

(i) = 1+ 0 A = D , so = = for some D. Since

we have 0, we can write . Likewise .
(ii) If 1 D and 1 , 1 , then 1 0
+ 0, hence 1
.

Thus is a greatest common divisor of and , and = 0

+ 0
for some
,
0 0
D. The proof is complete.

In a principal ideal domain D, we see that D + D = D( , ) whenever

, D are not both zero. Either from this remark, or better from Defini-
tion 32.16, it follows that ( , ) = ( , ). When ( , ) 1, we say is
relatively prime to , or and are relatively prime. In this case, there
are , in D with + = 1.

32.18 Lemma: Let D be a principal ideal domain and , , , D.

(1) If and ( , ) 1, then .
(2) If is irreducible and , then ( , ) 1.

Proof: (1) If ( , ) 1, we have + = 1 for some , D. Hence +

= . Now and , so and , so + , so .

(2) Let be irreducible. Then 0. So ( , ) exists by Theorem 32.17. Let

be a greatest common divisor of and . Then . Since is irre-
ducible, either is associate to , or is a unit. In the first case , we

374
get (since ) against our hypothesis . Thus is a unit and 1,
as claimed.

32.19 Lemma: Let D be a principal ideal domain and , , D. If is

irreducible and , then or .

Proof: If , the lemma is true. If , then ( , ) 1 by Lemma

32.18(2) and so by Lemma 32.18(1), with in place of .

32.20 Definition: Let D be an arbitrary integral domain. If D is not

zero or a unit, and if has the property that
for all , D, or ,
then is called a prime element in D.

In an arbitrary integral domain, all prime elements are irreducible. In-

deed, let be prime. Then is not zero or a unit by definition. We show
that has no proper divisors. Suppose = . Then and therefore
or . Without restricting generality, let us assume . But as
well, so and is a unit. Thus admits no proper factorization and
is irreducible.

The converse of this remark is not true. That is to say, in an arbitrary

integral domain, there may be irreducible elements which are not prime
(see Ex. 13). Lemma 32.19 asserts that irreducible and prime elements
coincide in a principal ideal domain. This is the basic reason why there
turns out to be a unique factorization theorem in principal ideal do-
mains.

32.21 Lemma: Let D be an arbitrary ideal domain and 1

, 2, . . . , n
,
D. If is prime and 1 2
. . . n, then 1
or 2
or . . . or n
.

Proof: Omitted.

375
32.22 Theorem: Let D be a principal ideal domain. Every element of D,
which is not zero or a unit, can be expressed as a product of irreducible
elements of D in a unique way, apart from the order of the factors and
the ambiguity among associate elements.

Proof: (cf. Theorem 5.17.) Let D, 0, unit. By Theorem 32.15,

can be expressed as a product of irreducible elements of D. We must
show uniqueness. Given two decompositions

1 2
... r
= = 1 2
... s

of into irreducible elements, we must show r = s and 1, 2, . . . , r are, in

some order, associate to 1, 2, . . . , s. This will be proved by induction on r.

First assume r = 1. Then 1 = = 1 2. . . s, so is irreducible. This forces

s = 1 and 1= = 1. This proves the theorem when r = 1.

Now assume r 2 and that the theorem is proved for r 1. This means,
whenever we have an equation

1
´ 2
´. . . r 1
´ = 1
´ 2
´. . . t´

with irreducible ´, ´, there holds r 1 = t and 1

´, 2
´, . . . , ´ are, in
r 1
some order, associates of 1´, 2´, . . . , t´.

We have 1 2. . . r = = 1 2. . . s. So r . So r 1 2. . . s. Now r is prime

by Lemma 32.19, and so r j for some j {1,2, . . . ,s}. (Here we use the
fact that irreducible elements are prime in a principal ideal domain.. The
conclusion r j is not valid in an arbitrary integral domain.) Reordering
the 's if necessary, we may assume r s. Since s is irreducible, s has
no proper divisors. Hence the divisor r of s is either a unit or an
associate of s. But r is irreducible, so not a unit. Therefore r and s are
associate. So r = s
for some unit D. Then we obtain

1 2
. . . r 1( s
)= = 1 2
... s

1 2
...( r 1
)= 1 2
... s 1
and by induction, we get
r 1 = s 1,
1
, 2
, ..., ( r 1
) are, in some order, associates of 1
, 2
, ..., s 1
.

Hence r=s
and 1
, 2
, ..., r 1
are, in some order, associates of 1
, 2
, ..., s 1
;

376
and r
is associate to s
. This completes the proof.

32.23 Definition: Let D be an integral domain. If every element of D,

which is not zero or a unit, can be expressed as a product of finitely
many irreducible elements of D in a unique way, apart from the order of
the factors and the ambiguity among associate elements, then D is called
a unique factorization domain.

With this definition, Theorem 32.22 reads as follows.

32.22 Theorem: Every principal ideal domain is a unique factorization

domain. In particular, every Euclidean domain is a unique factorization
domain.

We generalize Lemma 32.19 to unique factorization domains.

32.24 Lemma: Let D be a unique factorization domain. Then every

irre-ducible element of D is prime.

Proof: Let be irreducible in D and , where , D. Thus there is a

D with = . Then

= 1 2
... ,
r
= ´ 1
´ 2
´. . . s
´, = ´´ 1
´´ 2
´´. . . t´´,

where , ´, ´´ are units and i, j ´, k´´ are irreducible elements in D.

From the uniqueness of the decomposition.

´´ 1
´´ 2
´´. . . t´´ = = = 1 2
... r
´ 1
´ 2
´. . . ´=
s
´ 1 2
... r 1
´ 2
´. . . s
´

we see that must be associate to one of the irreducible elements j

´ or
k
´´. Thus divides or . So is prime.

377
There is the following generalization of Theorem 32.22. If D is an
integral domain in which every nonzero, nonunit element can be written
as a product of finitely many irreducible elements, and if every
irreducible element in D is prime, then D is a unique factorization
domain. The proof of Theorem 32.22 is valid in this more general case.

In a unique factorization domain D, any two elements , (not both zero)

have a greatest common divisor. Clearly ( , ) if = 0 and ( , ) if
m1 m2
= 0; and if 0 , then = 1 2
. . . r and = ´ 1 2 . . . rnr
mr n1 n2

with suitable units , ´, irreducible elements 1, 2, . . . , r and nonnega-

tive integers mi, ni, and it is easily seen that = 1k1 2k2 . . . rkr, where ki =
min{mi, ni}, is a greatest common divisor of and . Thus ( , ) exists in
any unique factorization domain, provided only , are not both equal
to zero. However, in an arbitrary unique factorization domain, ( , ) can-
not, in general, be expressed in the form + .

There are unique factorization domains which are not principal ideal
domains and there are principal ideal domains which are not Euclidean
domains.

32.25 Theorem: Let D be a principal ideal domain and let D be a

nonzero, nonunit element of D. Then is irreducible if and only if the
factor ring D/D is a field.

Proof: D/D is a commutative ring with identity 1 + D (Example

30.9(c)). Suppose is irreducible. We are to show that every nonzero
element + D of D/D has an inverse in D/D . Let + D be distinct
from the zero element 0 + D = D of D/D . This means D , so .
Since is irreducible, we obtain ( , ) 1 from Lemma 32.18(2), and
there are therefore , in D such that + = 1. So 1 D and
( + D )( + D ) = 1 + D .
Thus + D is an inverse of + D . This proves that D/D is a field.

We now prove that, if is not irreducible, then D/D is not a field.

Indeed, if is not irreducible, then = for some , D, where
neither nor is a unit. Here and, in view of this, would imply
that ; then would be a unit, a contradiction. Hence and
likewise . So D and D , so + D 0+D + D , but

378
 ( + D )( + D ) = + D = + D = 0 + D = zero element of D/D .
Thus + D and + D are zero divisors in D/D and D/D cannot be a
field.

Exercises

1. Let D be an integral domain and D. Prove that is a prime element

of D if and only if D is a prime ideal of D (see §30, Ex. 11).

2. Let D be a principal ideal domain and D. Prove that is an irre-

ducible element of D if and only if D is a maximal ideal of D (see §30,
Ex. 12).

3. Show that [ d] := {a + b d : a,b } is a Euclidean domain when

d = 2,3,6.

4. Show that [ 2i] := {a + b 2i : a,b } is a Euclidean domain.

1+ 7i
5. Let = . Show that [ ] := {a + b : a,b } is a Euclidean
2
domain.

6. Let D be a Euclidean domain, with the function d as in Definition

32.10. Prove that D is a unit if and only if d( ) = d(1).

7. Find the decomposition into irreducible elements of 2 in [i] and of 3

in [ ].

8. Let p be an odd prime number. Prove that (i) p = p + 0i [i] is

2
prime in [i] in case x 1 (mod p) has no solution and (ii) p [i] is not
prime in [i], and in fact p = with a suitable prime element of [i],
2
in case x 1 (mod p) has a solution.

9. Let [i]. Show that [i]/ [i] has exactly N( ) elements.

10. Using the Euclidean algorithm, find a greatest common divisor of

3 + 5i and 2 + 3i; and of 14 + 23i and 11 + 44i in [i].

379
11. Prove: an integral domain is a principal ideal domain if and only if
there is a function d: D\{0} {0} satisfying
(i) d( ) d( ) for any , D\{0} with , and d( ) = d( ) if
and only if ;
(ii) for all , D\{0} with and , there are , , D
such that = + and d( ) min{d( ),d( )}.

1+ 19i
12. Let = . Show that [ ] := {a + b : a,b } is a principal
2
ideal domain, but not a Euclidean domain.

13. Prove that 2, 3, 1 + 5i, 1 5i are irreducible in [ 5i]. Show that

2,3 are not associate to 1 + 5i, 1 5i. Hence there are two essentially
distinct decompositions
2.3 = 6 = (1 + 5i)(1 5i)
of 6 [ 5i] and therefore [ 5i] is not a unique factorization domain.

380
 §33
Polynomial Rings

The reader is familiar with polynomials. In high school, it is taught that

expressions like

x2 + 2x + 5 x3 + 2x2 7x + 1

are polynomials. One learns how to add, subtract, multiply and divide
two polynomials. Although one acquires a working knowledge about
polynomials, a satisfactory definition of polynomials is hardly given. In
this paragraph, we give a rigorous definition of polynomials.

Polynomials are treated in the calculus as functions. For example,

x2 + 2x + 5 is considered to be the function (defined on , say) that maps
any x to x2 + 2x + 5. With this interpretation, a polynomial is a
function and x is a generic element in its domain. The equality of two
polynomials means then the equality of their domains and the equality
of the function values at any element in their domain.

This is a perfectly sound approach, but it will prove convenient to treat

polynomials differently in algebra. We propose to define the equality of
two polynomials as the equality of their corresponding coefficients. This
definition is motivated by the so-called comparison of coefficients. Note
that this definition of equality does not involve x at all. Whatever x may
be, it is not relevant to the definition of equality. Nor is it relevant to the
addition and multiplication of two polynomials. So we may forget about
x completely. We then deprive of a polynomial a0 + a1x + . . . + anxn of the
symbols xr. What remains is a finite number of coefficients and "+" signs.
The "+" signs can be thought of as connectives. Then a polynomial is
essentially a finite number of coefficients. This leads to the following
definition.

33.1 Definitions: Let R be a ring. A sequence

f = (a0, a1, a2, . . . )

381
of elements a0, a1, a2, . . . in R, where only finitely many of them are
distinct from the zero element of R, is called a polynomial over R. .

The terms a0, a1, a2, . . . are called the coefficients of the polynomial f =
(a0, a1, a2, . . . ). The term a0 will be referred to as the constant term of f.

Two polynomials f = (a0,a1,a2, . . . ) and g = (b0,b1,b2, . . . ) over R are

declared equal when they are equal as sequences of course,. that is to
say, when ai = bi for all i = 0,1,2, . . . . In this case, we write f = g. Other-
wise we put f g. .

If f = (a0, a1, a2, . . . ) is a polynomial over R, there is an index d such that

an = 0 R whenever n d. If the coefficients a0, a1, a2, . . . are not all
equal to zero, there is an index d, uniquely determined by f,. such that
ad 0 and an = 0 for all n d. This index d is called the degree of f. We
write then d = deg f. If d is the degree of f, then ad is said to be the
leading coefficient of f. It is the last nonzero coefficient of f.. If R happens
to be a ring with identity 1 . and if f is a polynomial over R with leading
coefficient equal to 1, then f is called a monic polynomial..

A polynomial of degree one is called a linear polynomial, one of degree

two is called a quadratic polynomial, one of degree three is called a cubic
polynomial, one of degree four is called a biquadratic or quartic
polynomial and one of degree five is called a quintic polynomial.

The polynomial 0* = (0,0,0, . . . ) over R, whose terms are all equal to the
zero element 0 R of R, is called the zero polynomial over R. The leading
coefficient and the degree of the zero polynomial are not defined. The
leading coefficient of any other polynomial is defined. The constant term
of the zero polynomial is defined, and is 0 R.

Notice that indexing begins with 0, not with 1. For example,

(1,0,2,5,0,0,0, . . . ) is a polynomial over of degree 3, not of degree 4. Its
constant term is 1 , leading coefficient is 5 .

33.2 Definition: Let R be a ring and let

382
 f = (a0,a1,a2, . . . ) and g = (b0,b1,b2, . . . )

be two polynomials over R. Then the sum of f and g, denoted by f + g, is

the sequence

f + g = (a0 + b0, a1 + b1, a2 + b2, . . . )

obtained by termwise addition of the coefficients. The product of f by g,

denoted by f.g or by fg, is the sequence

fg = (c0,c1,c2, . . . )

where the terms c R are given by

c0 = a0b0
c1 = a0b1 + a1b0
c2 = a0b2 + a1b1 + a2b0
c3 = a0b3 + a1b2 + a2b1 + a3b0
.....................
ck = a0bk + a 1bk 1 + a2bk 2 + . . . + a k 2b2 + a k 1b1 + akb0
..................... .

To find the k-th term ck in fg, we multiply all a's with all b's in such a
way that the sum of the indices is k, and add the results. We write ck =
k
∑ aibk i. The summation variable runs through different values for
i=0

different k's (through 0,1,2,3 for k = 3, through 0,1,2,3,4,5 for k = 5, etc.).

It will be convenient to write ck = ∑ aibj , it being understood that i and

i+ j=k

j run through nonnegative integers in such a way that their sum is k.

33.3 Lemma: Let R be a ring and let f = (a0,a1,a2,. . . ) and g = (b0,b1,b2,. . . )

be arbitrary polynomials over R. Let 0* = (0,0,0, . . . ) be the zero poly-
nomial over R.

(1) f + 0* = f and 0* + g = g. Also f0* = 0* and 0*g = 0*.

(2) The sum f + g is a polynomial over R. If deg f = m and deg g = n, then

383
 deg(f + g) = max{m,n} in case m n,
deg(f + g) m in case m = n and f + g 0*.
(3) The product fg is a polynomial over R. If deg f = m and deg g = n,
then
deg fg m+n in case fg 0*,
deg fg = m + n in case R has no zero divisors.

Proof: (1). The assertions f + 0* = f and 0* + g = g are immediate from

the definitions: f + 0* = (a0,a1,a2,. . . ) + (0,0,0, . . . ) = (a0 + 0,a1 + 0,a2 + 0,. . . ) =
(a0,a1,a2,. . . ) = f and similarly 0* + g = g. Also, the k-th coefficient of f0* is
a 0 + a 0 + a 0 + . . . + a 0 = 0 + 0 + 0 + . . . + 0 = 0 by Lemma 29.6, for any
0 1 2 k
k. This proves f0* = 0*. Likewise 0*g = 0*..

(2) We must show that f + g has only finitely many terms. distinct from
0. We proved it in part (1) when f = 0* or g = 0*.. Now we assume f 0*
g. Then f and g have degrees. Suppose def f = m and deg g = n,. so that
am 0, ar = 0 for all r m and bn 0, br = 0 for all r n.

If m n, then f + g = (a0 + b0, a1 + b1, . . . , am + bm, bm+1, . . . , bn, 0, 0, 0, . . . ).

So the n-th term in f + g is bn 0, and the later terms are ar + br = 0 + 0 =
0 for r n m. This shows that f + g is a nonzero polynomial and .
deg f + g = n = max{m,n}. .

If n m, then f + g = (a0 + b0, a1 + b1, . . . , an + bn, an+1, . . . , am, 0, 0, 0, . . . ).

So the m-th term in f + g is am 0, and the later terms are ar + br = 0 + 0
= 0 for r m n. This shows that f + g is a nonzero polynomial and .
deg f + g = m = max{m,n}.. [Question: why cannot we combine the two
cases m n and n m into a single one. by assuming m n without
loss of generality?] .

If m = n, then f + g = (a0 + b0, a1 + b1, . . . , am + bm, 0, 0, 0, . . . ). The r-th term

in f + g is ar + br = 0 for all r m. This shows that f + g is a polynomial.
Either it is the zero polynomial, or it is not the zero polynomial.. In the
latter case, the nonzero terms in f + g have indices m.. In particular,
the degree of f + g is m. (More exactly, deg f + g = m if am + bm 0, and
deg f + g m if am + bm = 0.)

(3) To prove that the product fg is a polynomial over R, we must show

that fg has only finitely many terms distinct from zero. We proved it in
part (1) when f = 0* or g = 0*.. Now we assume f 0* g. Then f and g

384
have degrees. Suppose def f = m and deg g = n,. so that am 0, ar = 0 for
all r m and bn 0, br = 0 for all r n.

The k-th term in fg = (c0,c1,c2,. . . ) is given by ck = ∑ aibj . Suppose now

i+ j=k

k m + n. If i + j = k, then either i m or j n . (for i m and j n

implies the contradiction k = i + j m+n k), so either ai = 0 on bj = 0

for each one of the summands aibj in ck = ∑ aibj . So each summand is

i+ j=k

either 0bj = 0 or ai0 = 0 by Lemma 29.6 and ck = 0 + 0 + . . . + 0 = 0. This

shows that ck = 0 for all k m + n. Hence fg has at most m + n terms
distinct from 0 and fg is a polynomial over R and. deg fg m + n in case
fg 0*. .

The (m + n)-th term cm+ n in fg is

cm+ n = a0bm+ n + a1bm+ n 1
+ a2bm+ n 2
+ . . . + a m 1bn+1
+ ambn
+ am+1bn 1
+ am+2bn 2
+ . . . + am+ n 1b1 + am+ nb0.
Here the summands in the first line are 0 since bm+ n,bm+ n 1,bm+ n 2, . . . ,bn+1
are 0 and the summands in the third line are 0 since am+1,am+2,. . . am+ n 1,
am+ n are 0. This gives cm+ n = ambn. If R has no zero divisors, then cm+ n =
a≠m0bn since am 0 and bn 0. So m + n is the greatest index k for which
the k-th term in fg is distinct from 0.. This proves that deg fg = m + n in
case R has no zero divisors. .

33.4 Remark: The last argument shows in fact that the leading coeffi-
cient of fg is the leading coefficient of f times the leading coefficient of g,
provided R has no zero divisors.

33.5 Theorem: Let R be a ring. The set of all polynomials over R is a

ring with respect to the operations + and . given in Definition 33.2 (called
the addition and multiplication of polynomials, respectively).

Proof: First of all, we must prove that + makes the set of all polynomial
over R into an abelian group. The closure property was shown in Lemma
33.3(2). The associativity and commutativity of addition of polynomials

385
follow from the associativity and commutativity of addition in R. The
zero polynomial 0* is the zero element (Lemma 33.3(1)) and each poly-
nomial (a0,a1,a2, . . . ) over R has an opposite ( a0, a1, a2, . . . ).. The details
are left to the reader..

Now the properties of multiplication in Definition 29.1. The closure of

the set of all polynomial over R under multiplication was shown in
Lemma 33.3(3). The associativity of multiplication is proved by
observing that the m-th term in (fg)h, where

f = (a0,a1,a2, . . . ), g = (b0,b1,b2, . . . ), h = (c0,c1,c2, . . . )

are arbitrary polynomials over R, is given by

∑(k-th term in fg)cl

k+ l=m
= ∑
k+ l=m
( ∑a b )c
i+ j=k
i j l
= ∑
i+ j+ l=m
(aibj )cl

and that the m-th term in f(gh) is given by

∑a (s-th term in gh)

i+ s=m
i
= ∑
i+ s=m
ai ( ∑b c )
j+ l=s
j l
= ∑
i+ j+ l=m
ai(bj cl).

Here we used the distributivity in R. Since (aibj )cl = ai(bj cl), the m-th
term in (fg)h and f(gh) are equal, and this for all m. So (fg)h = f(gh) for
all polynomials f,g,h over R and the multiplication is associative.

It remains to prove the distributivity laws. For any polynomials f =

(a0,a1,a2, . . . ), g = (b0,b1,b2, . . . ), h = (c0,c1,c2, . . . ) over R, we have

f(g + h) = (a0,a1,a2, . . . )(b0 + c0,b1 + c1,b2 + c2, . . . )

= polynomial whose k-th coefficient is ∑ ai(bj + cj )

i+ j=k

= polynomial whose k-th coefficient is ∑ (aibj + aicj )

i+ j=k

= polynomial whose k-th coefficient is ∑ aibj + ∑ aicj

i+ j=k i+ j=k

= (polynomial whose k-th coefficient is ∑ aibj )

i+ j=k

+ (polynomial whose k-th coefficient is ∑ aicj )

i+ j=k

386
 = fg + fh

and a similar argument proves (f + g)h = fh + gh for all polynomials f,g,h

over R. This completes the proof.

The ring of all polynomials over R will be denoted by R[x]. When f R[x],
we say f is a polynomial with coefficients in R.

We now want to simplify our notation. A polynomial f = (a0,a1,a2, . . . )

over R, for which an = 0 whenever, say, n d, can be written as

(a0,0,0,0, . . . ) + (0,a1,0,0, . . . ) + (0,0,a2,0, . . . ) + . . . + (0,0,. . . ,ad,0, . . . ).

Each one of the polynomials above has at most one nonzero coefficient. A
polynomial over R which has at most one nonzero coefficient will be
called a monomial over R. We can write monomials over R more com-
pactly as follows. If, for example, g is a monomial over R whose r-th
coefficient is a (the possibility a = 0 is not excluded) and whose other
coefficients are zero, then we can write g = (0,0,. . . ,a,0, . . . ) shortly as
(a,r). Here r denotes the index with the only the possibly nonzero
element, and a R is that possibly nonzero element in the r-th place.
.
Then our f would be written as (a0,0) + (a1,1) + (a2,2) + . . . + (ad,d). The
essential point is that a polynomial can be written as a sum of
monomials, and a monomial is determined as soon as the index r and the
possibly nonzero element a is given. We can choose other notations for
monomials, of course, as long as they display the index r and the
possibly nonzero element a. We prefer to write axr instead of (a,r) for
the monomial (0,0,. . . ,a,0, . . . ). In this notation, both the index r and the
element a are displayed. It should be noted that x does not have a
meaning by itself. It is like the comma in (a,r). In particular, xr is not the
r-th power of anything. r in axr is an index, a superscript showing where
the element a sits in. With this notation, our f is written as

f = a0x0 + a1x1 + a2x2 + . . . + adxd.

The product of two monomials axr and bxs is easily evaluated to be

abxr+ s. The multiplication of two polynomials can be carried out in the
familiar way by using this rule and the distributivity. The symbol x is a
convenient device that simplifies computations. x will be called an

387
indeterminate (over R). This does not mean that x fails to be determined
in some way. "Indeterminate" is just an odd name of a computational
device. Finally, we agree to write a0 for a0x0 and a1x for a1x1. In
particular, we write 0 for the zero polynomial 0*. This convention brings
f to the form

a0 + a1x + a2x2 + . . . + adxd.

With the convention of writing a0 for a0x0, we regard R as a subring of

R[x]. In particular, we can multiply polynomials by elements of R in the
natural way:
b(a0 + a1x + a2x2 + . . . + adxd) = ba0 + ba1x + ba2x2 + . . . + badxd,
(a + a x + a x2 + . . . + a xd)b = a b + a bx + a bx2 + . . . + a bxd.
0 1 2 d 0 1 2 d

If R is a ring with identity 1, then x can be interpreted in another way.

The rule [Link] = abxr+ s yields 1xr.1xs = 1xr+ s. Let p denote the
polynomial 1x = 1x1 = (0,1,0,0, . . . ). We calculate that p2 = 1x2, p3 = 1x3,
p4 = 1x4, etc. Our f can now be written as

f = a0p + a1p + a2p2 + . . . + adpd,

where this time the superscripts indicate the appropriate powers of p =

(0,1,0,0, . . . ), taken according to the definition of multiplication given in
Definition 33.2. So any polynomial over R can be written as a sum of
powers of p, and calculations are performed by using the distributivity.
Since x obeys the same rules as a computational device as p does as a
polynomial, we write the polynomial p = 1x as x. Then x is the polyno-
mial (0,1,0,0, . . . ) in R[x]. We emphasize again that this interpretation of
x as a polynomial is possible only when R has an identity. If R has no
identity, then x is not a polynomial in R[x].

The ring R[x] is said to be constructed by adjoining x to R. When we want

to examine several copies of R[x] at the same time, we use different
letters to denote the indeterminates of the copies of R[x]. Thus we may
have R[x], R[y], R[z], etc.

d
Whenever convenient, we shall write ∑ aixi for the polynomial
i=0

a0 + a1x + a2x2 + . . . + adxd.

388
33.6 Lemma: Let R be a ring.
(1) If R is commutative, then R[x] is commutative.
(2) If R has an identity, then R[x] has an identity.
(3) If R has no zero divisors, then R[x] has no zero divisors.
(4) If R is an integral domain, then R[x] is an integral domain.

m n
Proof: Let f = ∑ aixi and g = ∑ bjxj be arbitrary polynomials in R[x].
i=0 j=0

(1) If R is commutative, then aibj = bj ai for all i = 0,1, . . . ,m and j = 0,1, . . .

n. We have then
m+ n n+ m
fg = ∑
k=0
( ∑aibj )xk = ∑
i+ j=k k=0
( ∑b a )x
j+ i=k
j i
k
= gf

and R[x] is commutative.

(2) If R has an identity 1, then 1 = 1x0 = (1,0,0,0, . . . ) is a polynomial in

R[x] and
m m m
f.1 = ( ∑ aixi)1 = ∑ ai1xi = ∑ aixi = f,
i=0 i=0 i=0

m m m
1.f = 1 ( ∑ aixi) = ∑ 1aixi = ∑ aixi = f
i=0 i=0 i=0

for arbitrary f R[x]. Thus 1 is an identity element of R[x].

(3) Assume now R has no zero divisors.. Let us suppose also that f 0
and g 0. Without loss of generality, we may assume that am is the
leading coefficient of f and that bn is the leading coefficient of g. Then
am 0, bn 0. By remark 33.4, the leading coefficient of fg is ambn and
ambn 0 since R has no zero divisors. Thus fg has a nonzero coefficient,
namely the (m + n)-th coefficient and fg 0.. This shows that R[x] has no
zero divisors..

(4) An integral domain is a commutative ring with identity having no

zero divisors, distinct from the null ring. Now if R is an integral domain,
then R is not the null ring, and since R R[x], the polynomial ring R[x] is
not the null ring, either. The claim follows then immediately from
(1),(2), and (3).

389
33.7 Lemma: Let R and S be two rings and let : R S be a ring
homomorphism. Then the mapping : R[x] S[x], defined by
m m
( ∑ aixi)
i=0
= ∑ (ai
i=0
)xi

is also a ring homomorphism. Furthermore, Ker = (Ker )[x] and Im =

(Im )[x]. (Note: Ker and Im are rings by Theorem 30.13, so (Ker )[x]
and Im = (Im )[x] are meaningful.)

m n
Proof: Let f = ∑ aixi, g = ∑ bjxj be arbitrary polynomials in R[x]. We
i=0 j=0

show that preserves addition. Here we may assume m = n, for we may

add 0xm+1 + 0xm+2 + . . . + 0xn to f in case m n and 0xn+1 + 0xn+2 + . . . + 0xm
to g in case n m. We have
m n
(f + g) = ( ∑ aixi + ∑ bjxj)
i=0 j=0

m m
= ( ∑ aixi + ∑ bixi)
i=0 i=0

m
= ( ∑ (ai + bi)xi)
i=0

m
= ∑ [(ai + bi) ]xi
i=0

m
= ∑ (ai + bi )xi
i=0

m m
= ∑ (ai )xi + ∑ (bi )xi
i=0 i=0

f +g
and so preserves addition. As for multiplication (here we do not have
to assume m = n), we observe
m+ n
(fg) = [ ∑ ( ∑a b )x ]
k=0 i+ j=k
i j
k

m+ n
= ∑
k=0
[( ∑a b ) ]x
i+ j=k
i j
k

390
 m+ n
= ∑
k=0
( ∑(a b ) )x
i+ j=k
i j
k

m+ n
= ∑
k=0
( ∑a
i+ j=k
i
.b
j )x k

m n
= ( ∑ (ai
i=0
)xi )( ∑ (bj
j=0
)xj )
= f .g .
Thus preserves multiplication as well. So is a ring homomorphism.

m m
A polynomial ∑ aixi belongs to the kernel of
i=0
if and only if ( ∑ aixi)
i=0

m
= ∑ (ai )xi is the zero polynomial in S[x], so if and only if the coefficients
i=0

ai are all equal to 0 S (i = 0,1, . . . ,m), so if and only if ai Ker for all
m
i = 0,1, . . . ,m, so if and only if ∑ aixi (Ker )[x].
i=0

m m
A polynomial ∑ cixi S[x] belongs to the image of if and only if ∑ cixi
i=0 i=0

n n
= ( ∑ aixi)
i=0
for some ∑ aixi
i=0
R[x], so (assuming m = n without loss of

generality) if and only if, for each i = 0,1, . . . ,m, there is an ai R such
that ci = ai , so if and only if ci Im for all i = 0,1, . . . ,m, and so if and
m
only if ∑ cixi (Im )[x].
i=0

As an illustration of Lemma 33.7,. we consider the natural

homomorphism : 3
. Then the mapping : [x] 3
[x] is given by
reducing the coefficients modulo 3.. For example,
(5x3 4x2 + 2x + 1) = 2x3 + 2x2 + 2x + 1
(6x4 3x2 + x + 5) = 1x + 2.
The reader will easily verify that
(5x3 4x2 + 2x + 1)(6x4 3x2 + x + 5)
= 30x7 24x6 3x5 + 23x4 + 15x3 21x2 + 11x + 5,

391
whose image under is
= 30 x7 24 x6 3x5 + 23x4 + 15x3 21x2 + 11x + 5
= 2x4 + 2x + 2.
We have also (2x3 + 2x2 + 2x + 1)(1x + 2) = 2x4 + 2x + 2.

If : R S is an isomorphism, then Ker = 0 and Im = S. This gives the

following corollary to Lemma 33.7.

33.8 Theorem: If R and S are isomorphic rings, then R[x] and S[x] are
isomorphic.

Let R be a ring. Adjoining an indeterminate x to R, we get the ring R[x].

Now we can adjoin a new indeterminate y to R[x] and get the ring
m
(R[x])[y] =: R[x][y]. The elements of R[x][y] are of the form ∑ fiyi, where
i=0

fi R[x]. Similarly we can construct the ring R[y][x] := (R[y])[x]. We show

that they are isomorphic.

33.9 Lemma: Let R be a ring and let x,y be two indeterminates over R.
Then R[x][y] R[y][x].

Proof: We consider the mapping T: R[x][y] R[y][x], given by

m n n m
∑
i=0
( ∑aijxj)yi
j=0
∑
j=0
( ∑aijyi)xj,
i=0

which seems to be the only reasonable mapping from R[x][y] to R[y][x]. It

certainly preserves addition, for we have
m n r s
[∑ i=0
( ∑aijxj)yi
j=0
+ ∑
i=0
( ∑bijxj)yi]T
j=0

m n s
= [∑
i=0
( ∑aijxj + ∑bijxj)yi]T
j=0 j=0
(assuming r = m without loss of

generality)
m n
= [∑
i=0
( ∑(aij + bij)xj)yi]T
j=0
(assuming s = n without loss of generality)

392
 n m
= ∑
j=0
( ∑(aij + bij)yi)xj
i=0

n m m
= ∑
j=0
( ∑aijyi + ∑bijyi)xj
i=0 i=0

n m n m
= ∑
j=0
( ∑aijyi)xj
i=0
+ ∑
j=0
( ∑bijyi)xj
i=0

m n m n
= [∑
i=0
( ∑aijxj)yi]T
j=0
+ [∑ i=0
( ∑bijxj)yi]T
j=0

m n r s
for all ∑
i=0
( ∑aijxj)yi, ∑
j=0 i=0
( ∑bijxj)yi
j=0
R[x][y].

Secondly T preserves multiplication of polynomials of the form (axj )yi

(i.e., monomials over R[x], whose eventually nonzero coefficients in R[x]
are themselves monomials over R; they will be referred to as monomials
in R[x][y] over R). We indeed have

[(aijxj )yi. (brsxs)yr]T = [(aijxj )(brsxs)yi+ r]T (def. of multiplication in R[x][y])

= [(aijbrsxj+ s)yi+ r]T (def. of multiplication in R[x])
i+ r j+ s
= (aijbrsy )x
= [(aijy )(brsyr)]xj+ s
i

= (a yi)xj .(b yr)xs

ij rs
= [(aijx )y ]T. [(brsxs)yr]T
j i

for all monomials (aijxj )yi, (brsxs)yr in R[x][y].

Thirdly,. T preserves multiplication of arbitrary polynomials. Any poly-

nomial can be written as p + p + . . . + p , where p ,p , . . . ,p are suitable
1 2 t 1 2 t
monomials. Now for all polynomials p1 + p2 + . . . + pt, q1 + q2 + . . . + qu in
R[x][y], where p's and q's are monomials, we have.

[(p1 + p2 + . . . + pt)(q1 + q2 + . . . + qu)]T

= (∑ i,j
piqj T ) (by distributivity)

= ∑ (piqj )T (since T preserves addition)

i,j

393
 = ∑ [Link] T (since T preserves products of monomials)
i,j

= (p1T + p2T + . . . + ptT)(q1T + q2T + . . . + quT)

= (p + p + . . . + p )T.(q + q + . . . + q )T,
1 2 t 1 2 u

so T preserves arbitrary products. Hence T is a ring homomorphism.

m n
T is one-to-one, for if ∑
i=0
( ∑aijxj)yi
j=0
R[x][y] is in the kernel ofT, then

n m
its image ∑
j=0
( ∑aijyi)xj
i=0
is the zero polynomial in R[y][x], so all the

m
coefficients ∑aijyi are equal to the zero polynomial in R[y], so all
i=0

elements aij of R are equal to the zero element in R, so all polynomials

n m n
∑aijxj
j=0
are the zero polynomial in R[x], so ∑
i=0
( ∑aijxj)yi
j=0
is the zero

polynomial in R[x][y]. Thus Ker T consists of the zero polynomial and T is

one-to-one.

n m
Moreover, T is onto, for any polynomial ∑
j=0
( ∑aijyi)xj
i=0
in R[y][x] is the

m n
image of the polynomial ∑
i=0
( ∑aijxj)yi in R[x][y].
j=0

Hence T is an isomorphism from R[x][y] onto R[y][x].

In view of this result, we identify R[x][y] and R[y][x]. To simplify the

notation, we write R[x,y] for R[x][y]. The elements of R[x,y] are of the

form ∑ aijxiyj , where aij R and there are finitely many terms in the
i,j

sum. Multiplication is carried out in the customary way, using distribu-

tivity and collecting terms. We have R[x,y] = R[y,x].

394
 indeterminate
We can of course adjoin a new inteterminate z to R[x,y] and obtain
(R[x,y])[z] = (R[x][y])[z] =: R[x][y][z]. We see

R[x][y][z] = (R[x][y])[z] (definition)

(R[x][z])[y] (Lemma 33.9 with R[x],z in place of R,x)
(R[z][x])[y] (Lemma 33.9 and Theorem 33.8)
(R[z][y])[x] (Lemma 33.9 with R[z] in place of R)
(R[y][z])[x]
(R[y][x])[z].

We regard these six rings as identical and write R[x,y,z] for it. The
notations "R[x,y,z]", "R[x,z,y]", "R[z,x,y]", "R[z,y,x]", "R[y,z,x]", "R[y,x,z]" will
mean the same ring.

More generally, if x1,x2, . . . ,xn are indeterminates over a ring R, then

R[x1,x2, . . . ,xn] is defined to be the ring R[x1,x2, . . . ,xn 1][xn]. It is isomorphic
1 2 . . . n
to each one of the n! rings R[xi ,xi , . . . ,xi ], where i i . . .
1 2 n 1 2
( )
in runs
through the permutations in S n. These n! isomorphic rings will be
considered identical. Elements of R[x1,x2, . . . ,xn] are of the form

N1 N2 Nn
∑ ∑ ... ∑ aij...lx1ix2j . . . xnl, aij...l R.
i=0 j=0 l=0

The polynomials in R[x1,x2, . . . ,xn] of the form ax1ix2j . . . xnl will be called
monomials over R. It is customary to omit the indeterminates with
exponent zero in a monomial. For example, ax10x22x30x43 in R[x1,x2,x3,x4]
is written ax22x43. An exponent is dropped when it is equal to 1. If R
does not have an identity, the indeterminates x1,x2, . . . ,xn are not
elements of R[x1,x2, . . . ,xn] and the expressions x1ix2j . . . xnl are not
polynomials.

The degree of a nonzero monomial ax1ix2j . . . xnl is defined to be the

nonnegative integer i + j + . . . + l. The total degree of a polynomial f =

N1 N2 Nn
∑ ∑ . . . ∑ aij...lx1ix2j . . . xnl is defined to be the maximum of the
i=0 j=0 l=0
degrees of the monomials aij...lx1ix2j . . . xnl with aij...l 0. The total degree
of f will be denoted by deg f.. The degree of f, considered as an element
of R[x1, . . . ,xh 1,xh+1, . . . ,xn][xh] will be called the degree of f in xh; this will

395
be written deghf (h = 1,2, . . . ,n). The analog of Lemma 33.3 holds for
polynomials in n indeterminates,. both with the total degree and the
degree in xh in place of deg f.

We record a lemma that can be proved by induction on the number of

indeterminates.

33.10 Lemma: Let R be a ring and x1,x2, . . . ,xn indeterminates over R.

(1) If R is commutative, then R[x1,x2, . . . ,xn] is commutative.
(2) If R has an identity, then R[x1,x2, . . . ,xn] has an identity.
(3) If R has no zero divisors, then R[x1,x2, . . . ,xn] has no zero divisors.
(4) If R is an integral domain, then R[x1,x2, . . . ,xn]is an integral domain.

Exercises

1. Evaluate: (5x2 3x + 1)(7x3 + 6x 1) in 8

[x],
3 2
(3x + 4x + 1)(3x + 7x + 2) in 9
[x],

[(01 10)x4 + (10 20)x2 + (21 01)][(10 00)x2 (10 10)x + (11 1
1)] in
(Mat2( ))[x],
[(01 10)x3 + (10 32)x2 + (11 00)][(20 13)x2 + (12 50)x + (21 4
0)] in
(Mat2( 7))[x],
(we dropped the bars for ease of notation).

2. Let R, R1, R2 be rings. Prove that

(Mat2(R))[x] Mat2R[x] and (R1 R2)[x] R1[x] R2[x]
(see §29, Ex. 10).

3. Generalize Lemma 33.7 to polynomial rings in n indeterminates.

4. Let R be a commutative ring with identity and let anxn + an 1xn 1 + . . . + a0

be a zero divisor in R[x]. Show that there exists a nonzero b in R such
that ban = ban 1 = . . . = b a0 = 0.

396
 N1 N2 Nn
5. Let R be a ring and f = ∑ ∑ ... ∑ aij...lx1ix2j . . . xnl R[x1,x2, . . . ,xn].
i=0 j=0 l=0
Prove that deg1f is the largest i such that aij...l 0, deg2f is the largest j
such that aij...l 0, . . . , degnf is the largest l such that aij...l 0.

6. Extend Lemma 33.3 to polynomial rings in n indeterminates,. both

with total degree and the degree in xh in place of the degree of f.

397
 §34
Divisibility in Polynomial Domains

We learned in Lemma 33.6 that some properties of a ring R are trans-

ferred to the polynomial ring R[x]. In particular, if R is an integral
domain, so is R[x]. In any integral domain, we have a theory of divisi-
bility (§32). In this paragraph, we want to investigate the divisibility
properties of polynomials. Lemma 33.6 suggests the questions: Is R[x] a
Euclidean domain if R is a Euclidean domain? Is R[x] a principal ideal
domain if R is a principal ideal domain? Is R[x] a unique factorization
domain if R is a unique factorization domain? The answer to the first
two questions is 'no'. For example, [x] is not a principal ideal domain,
let alone a Euclidean domain, although is Euclidean. On the other hand,
receieves an affirmative answer: if R is a unique
the third question recieves
factorization domain, so is R[x]. This will be proved as Theorem 34.13.

Let us recollect the basic definitions. Assume D is an integral domain.

Then D[x] is an integral domain (Lemma 33.6). A polynomial f D[x] is
said to be divisible by a nonzero polynomial g D[x] if there is a poly-
nomial h in D[x] such that f = gh. We write then g f. Notice that the
coefficients of h are required to be in D. The notation g f does not merely
mean that f = gh for some arbitrary polynomial h. It means f = gh for
some polynomial h in D[x].

When f 0 and f = gh, we have deg f = deg gh = deg g + deg h deg g:

34.1 Lemma: Let D be an integral domain. If g,f D[x], g 0 f and g f,

then, deg g deg f.

A nonzero polynomial e D[x] is a unit of D[x] if eh = 1 for some h D[x],

or, equivalently, if e f for all f D[x]. In this case, Lemma 33.3 yields

0 = deg 1 = deg eh = deg e + deg h 0 + 0 = 0,

deg e = 0, deg h = 0,

397
 e D, h D,
eh = 1 holds in D,
e is a unit in D.
(e 0 h, because eh = 1 0 and D is an integral domain.) So a unit in
m
D[x] is a unit in D: if a polynomial e = ∑ aixi is a unit in D[x], then a0 D
i=0

is a unit in D and a1 = a2 = . . . = am = 0. Conversely, if e is a unit in D so

that eh = 1 for some h D, then of course e,h D[x] and e is a unit in
D[x]. We proved the following lemma.

34.2 Lemma: Let D be an integral domain. Then e D[x] is a unit in D[x]

if and only if e D and e is a unit in D. In symbols, D[x] = D .

Thus any unit in D[x] has degree 0 and the associates of a polynomial in
D[x] have the same degrees as the polynomial itself. Any proper divisor
of f D[x] is therefore of degree distinct from 0 and deg f.

A polynomial f in D[x]\{0} is irreducible if f is not a unit in D[x] and if, in

any factorization of f as f = gh in D[x], either g or h is a unit. This is
Definition 32.7. We paraphrase this as follows: f D[x]\{0} is irreducible
if deg f 0 and if there are no polynomials g,h in D[x] such that f = gh
and 0 deg g, deg h deg f. The phrase "in D[x]" is important. Suppose
D D1, where D1 is another integral domain. Then f D1[x], too.. Now it is
possible that.

there exist no g,h D[x] such that f = gh, 0 deg g deg f

and yet possibly

there exist some g,h D1[x] such that f = gh, 0 deg g deg f.

Then f is irreducible in D[x], but not in D1[x]. This shows that irreducibil-
ity of f is not an intrinsic property of f. It is a property of f relative to
the polynomial domain D[x]. For this reason, we have to mention the
domain D whenever we speak about irreducible polynomials. We say f is
irreducible over D when f is irreducible in D[x]. For example, x2 + 1

398
 [x] is irreducible over since x2 + 1 has no proper divisors in [x], but
x2 + 1 is reducible in [x] since x2 + 1 = (x i)(x + i), with x i, x + i [x]
2
and 0 1 = deg(x i) 2 = deg (x + 1).

We now compare the irreducibility of an element of D in D with its irre-

ducibility in D[x].

34.3 Lemma: Let D be an integral domain and let a be any nonzero

element of D D[x]. Then a is irreducible in D[x] if and only if a is irre-
ducible in D.

Proof: Suppose that a is irreducible in D. We prove that a is irreducible

in D[x]. First we must show that a is not a unit in D[x]. Since a is irre-
ducible in D, so not a unit in D, we have a D = D[x] (Lemma 34.2), so a
is not a unit in D[x]. Secondly we must show that a = bc, where b,c D[x],
implies either b or c is a unit in D[x]. Indeed, if a = bc, then 0 = deg a =
deg bc = deg b + deg c 0, so deg b = 0 = deg c. Then a = bc is an
equation in D. Since a is irreducible in D, either b or c is a unit in D, so, in
view of Lemma 34.2, either b or c is a unit in D[x]. This proves that a is
irreducible in D[x].

Now the converse. We suppose that a is irreducible in D[x] and show that
a is irreducible in D. First we must show that a is not a unit in D. Since a
is irreducible in D[x], so not a unit in D[x], we have a D[x] = D (Lemma
34.2), so a is not a unit in D. Secondly we must show that a = bc, where
b,c D, implies either b or c is a unit in D. We read a = bc as an equation
in D[x]. Since a is irreducible in D[x], either b or c is a unit in D[x], so, in
view of Lemma 34.2, either b or c is a unit in D. This proves that a is
irreducible in D.

We want to find the integral domains D such that D[x] is a unique

factorization domain. What conditions must be imposed on D? If D[x] is
to be a unique factorization domain, then each element of D[x]\{0} that is
not a unit in D[x], must be written as a product of irreducible elements
of D[x] in a unique way. In particular, each element of D\{0} that is not a
unit in D[x], must be written as a product of irreducible elements of D[x]
in a unique way. As any divisor in D[x] of an element in D belongs to D

399
by degree considerations, the last statement means (Lemma 34.2,
Lemma 34.3): each element of D\{0} that is not a unit in D, must be
written as a product of irreducible elements of D in a unique way. Thus
D must be a unique factorization domain. We shall prove conversely that
D[x] is a unique factorization domain whenever D is. The proof will make
use of the polynomial ring F[x], where F is the field of fractions of D
(§31). F[x] will turn out to be a Euclidean domain.

We show generally that K[x] is a Euclidean domain if K is a field. In order

to do that, let us remember, we must find a function d:K[x]\{0} {0}
such that d(f) d(fg) for all f,g K[x]\{0} and such that, for any nonzero
polynomials f,g in K[x], there are polynomials q,r K[x] with f = qg + r
and r = 0 or deg r deg g. The degree of polynomials will work as the
function d. First we prove a slightly more general theorem.

34.4 Theorem (Division algorithm): Let D be an integral domain and

let f,g be polynomials in D[x]. If the leading coefficient of g is a unit in D,
then there are unique polynomials q,r in D[x] such that
f = qg + r, r = 0 or deg r deg g.

Proof: First we prove the existence of q and r. This is nothing but the
long division of polynomials. Suppose we divide f = x5 2x4 + 3x3 + x2 x +
2 by g = x2 + x + 1. What do we do? We subtract x3 times g from f:

x5 2x4 + 3x3 + x2 x + 2 x2 + x + 1
x5 + x4 + x3 x3
3x4 + 2x3 + x2 x + 2

and get the polynomial f1 = 3x4 + 2x3 + x2 x + 2, whose degree is

smaller than the degree of f. Then we subtract 3x2 times g from f1 and
get a polynomial f2 = 5x3 + 4x2 x + 2, whose degree is smaller than the
degree of f1. We continue this process until we get a polynomial r whose
degree is smaller than the degree of g = x2 + x + 1:

400
 x5 2x4 + 3x3 + x2 x+2 x2 + x + 1
x5 + x4 + x3 x3 3x2 + 5x 1

3x4 + 2x3 + x2 x + 2
3x4 3x3 3x2

5x3 + 4x2 x + 2
5x3 + 5x2 + 5x

x2 6x + 2
x2 x 1

5x + 3.

Hence f = (x3 3x2 + 5x 1)g + ( 5x + 3). In general, we have

f g
m
ax g axm

f1 = f axmg

where a and m {0} are chosen appropriately, and deg f1 deg f.

Then, by induction on the degree of f, we can divide f1 (and hence f) by
g and get a remainder r. This is essentially the proof.

Now let f,g be nonzero polynomials in D[x] and suppose that the leading
coefficient of g is a unit in D. We prove the existence of q and r by
induction on deg f.

I. Induction begins at 0. Suppose deg f = 0. Then f D\{0}. Since

the leading coefficient of g is a unit in D by hypothesis, if g D, there is
1 1 1
ag D such that g g = 1, hence fg D and we can write
1
f = (fg )g + 0 .
If g D[x]\D, then deg g 1 and we can write
f = 0g + f.
This proves the existence of q and r with
q = fg 1, r=0 in case g D,
q = 0, r=f in case g D[x]\D.

II. Now the inductive step.. We use the principle of induction in the
form 4.5.. We assume that deg f = n 1 and that, for any nonzero

401
polynomial h with deg h n, there are polynomials q1 and r1 in D[x]
such that.
h = q1g + r1, r1 = 0 or deg r1 deg g.

In case deg g n, we have

f = 0g + f deg f = n deg g
and this proves the existence of q and r with
q = 0, r = f.

Having disposed of the case deg g n, we assume now deg g n. We

subtract a suitable multiple of g from f to get a polynomial of degree
smaller than n. If, say

f = anxn + a n 1xn 1 + . . . + a0, g = bmxm + bm 1xm 1 + . . . + b0,

bm is a unit in D,
bmbm 1 = 1 for some bm 1 D,
m n,
1 nm
then we put f1 := f anbm x the the existence
g. Here either f1 = 0 and the
of q and r is proved with q = anbm 1xn m, r = 0; or
f1 = f anbm 1xn mg
= (anxn + a n 1xn 1 + . . . + a0) anbm 1xn m(bmxm + bm 1xm 1 + . . . + b0)
is a polynomial in D[x] of degree n.. By the induction hypothesis, there
are polynomials q1, r1 in D[x] such that
f1 = q1g + r1, r1 = 0 or deg r1 deg g.
Hence f = f1 + anbm 1xn mg
= (q1g + r1) + (anbm 1xn mg)
= (q1 + anbm 1xn m)g + r1, r1 = 0 or deg r1 deg g
1 nm
and this proves the existence of q and r with q = q1 + anbm x , r = r1
and completes the proof of the inductive step.. The hypothesis that the
leading coefficient of g be a unit has been used to construct the f1 with
deg f1 deg f.

The uniqueness of q and r. Suppose

f = qg + r = q´g + r´; r = 0 or deg r deg g; r´ = 0 or deg r´ deg g.
Then (qg + r) (q´g + r´) = f f = 0,
(q q´)g = r´ r
and the assumption q q´ 0 leads to the contradiction
deg g deg (q q´) + deg g = deg (q q´)g

402
 = deg (r´ r) max{deg r´, deg r} deg g
by Lemma 33.3. This forces q q´ = 0, so q = q´, so r = f qg = f q´g = r.
Thus q and r are uniquely determined.

34.5 Theorem: Let K be a field.

(1) For any nonzero polynomials f,g in K[x], there are unique polynomials
q and r in K[x] such that
f = qg + r, r = 0 or deg r deg g.
(2) K[x] is a Euclidean domain.
(3) K[x] is a unique factorization domain.

Proof: (1) Since g 0, it has a leading coefficient, which is distinct from

0 K. Then the leading coefficient of g is a unit in K (Example 32.6(b)).
The assertion follows now from Theorem 34.4.

(2) We prove that deg: K[x]\{0} {0} satisfies the conditions in

Definition 32.10. Certainly deg f is a nonnegative integer by definition
and deg f deg fg for all f,g K[x]\{0} by Lemma 33.3. This proves the
condition (i) in Definition 32.13. The condition (ii) is proved in part (1).

(3) This follows from Theorem 32.22.

We record some consequences of Theorem 34.5.

34.6 Theorem: Let K be a field. Any two polynomials f,g in K[x], not
both zero, have a greatest common divisor d in K[x]. If d is a greatest
common divisor of f and g, then there are polynomials h and l in K[x]
such that d = hf + lg. Any two greatest common divisors of f and g are
associate. In particular, there is one and only one monic greatest
common divisor of f and g. (This unique monic greatest common divisor
of f and g is sometimes called the greatest common divisor of f and g).
Any irreducible polynomial in K[x] is prime in K[x] (Definition 32.20).

403
Theorem 34.5 is very satisfactory. If the underlying ring is a field, then
the polynomial domain is a unique factorization domain. We turn our
attention to polynomials with coefficients in a unique factorization
domain. Let D be a unique factorization domain and let F be the field of
fractions of D. We recall that the elements of F are fractions a/b of
element a,b D, b 0. We identify a D with a/1 F and thus regard D
as a subring of F. In this way, D[x] F[x]. (If you find this and the
following discussion too abstract, you may just assume D = and F = .)

Let f D[x] F[x]. Now, a priori, f may be irreducible over D and not ir-
reducible over F. See the comments preceding Lemma 34.3. In the case
where D is a unique factorization domain and F is the field of fractions of
D, it is in fact true that an irreducible polynomial in D[x] is also irre-
ducible in F[x]. After some preparation, this will be proved in Lemma
34.11. The hypothesis that D be a unique factorization domain is essen-
tial, for otherwise the following definition, which plays an important role
in the proof of Lemma 34.11, does not make sense.

34.7 Definition: Let D be a unique factorization domain and let f be

any nonzero polynomial in D[x]. A greatest common divisor of the
coefficients of f is called a content of f.

Since greatest common divisors are uniquely determined to within am-

biguity among associate elements, any two contents of f are associate.
We write C(f) for any content of f. Ignoring the distinction among associ-
ate elements, we sometimes call C(f) the content of f by abuse of lan-
guage.

The contents of f = 2x4 8x2 + 2x + 6 [x] and g = 6x2 9x + 18 [x]

are easily seen to be C(f) = 2 and C(g) = 3. The content of fg =
12x6 18x5 12x4 + 84x3 126x2 18x + 108 is C(fg) = 6 = 2.3 = C(f)C(g).
This is an example of a general phenomenon.

34.8 Lemma (Gauss' lemma): Let D be a unique factorization domain

and let f,g be arbitrary nonzero polynomials in D[x]. Then C(fg) C(f)C(g).

404
Proof: First we remark that we cannot write C(fg) = C(f)C(g), for
contents are unique only up to associate elements.

f and g can be written as f = C(f)f1 and g = C(g)g1, where f1 and g1 are

polynomials in D[x] with C(f1) 1 and C(g1) 1. Similarly fg = C(fg)h,
where h D[x] and C(h) 1. We have.
C(f)f1. C(g)g1 = fg = C(fg)h
C(f)C(g)f1g1 = C(fg)h.
Taking contents of both sides and observing C(al) aC(l) fora D\{0}
and l D[x]\{0}, we obtain
C(f)C(g)C(f1g1) C(fg)C(h)
C(f)C(g)C(f1g1) C(fg)
and the theorem will be proved if we can show C(f1g1) 1. Dropping the
subscripts, we must prove: .
if C(f) 1 and C(g) 1, then C(fg) 1.

Suppose now C(f) 1, C(g) 1 and C(fg) is not a unit. Then there is an
irreducible element in D with C(fg). Since C(f) 1 and C(g) 1 by
assumption, cannot divide all the coefficients of
f = anxn + a n 1xn 1 + . . . + a1x + a0
nor of
g = bmxm + bm 1xm 1 + . . . + b1x + b0,
say. Let ah be the coefficient of f with the largest index that is not
divisible by and let bk have a similar meaning for g. Then
an, a n 1, . . . , ah+1, ah
(1) bm, bm 1, . . . , bk+1, bk.
(2)
But divides the coefficient
(. . . + ah+2bk 2 + ah+1bk 1) + ahbk + [a h 1bk+1 + a h 2bk+2 + . . . ]
of xh+ k in fg. Because of (1) and (2),. divides the expressions in ( ) and
[ ]. So divides ahbk as well. Thus ah, bm and ahbk, which tells us
that is not a prime element in D.. On the other hand, D is a unique
factorization domain. and every irreducible element in D is prime
(Lemma 32.24),. hence is prime. This is a contradiction. We conclude
C(fg) 1. .

34.9 Lemma: Let D be a unique factorization domain and let F be the

field of fractions of D. Let f,g be any nonzero polynomials in D[x] with

405
C(f) C(g). Then f and g are associate in F[x] if and only if f and g are
associate in D[x].

Proof: By Lemma 34.2,

e is a unit in D[x] e is a unit in D,
u is a unit in F[x] u is a unit in F u F\{0}.

If f and g are associate in D[x], then f = eg for some unit e in D[x]. Then e
is a unit in D, so e is a nonzero element of D, so e is a nonzero element of
F, so e is a unit in F, so e is a unit in F[x], so f and g are associate in F[x].

If f and g are associate in F[x], then f = ug for some unit u in F[x]. Thus
u F\{0} and so u = a/b, where a,b D\{0}. So bf = ag. Thus
bC(f) C(bf) C(ag) aC(g) aC(f)
and b a in D. So a/b = u is a unit in D. Hence u is a unit in D[x] and f is
associate to g in D[x].

34.10 Lemma: Let D be a unique factorization domain and let F be the

field of fractions of D. Let f be a nonzero polynomial in D[x] with C(f) 1
and assume
f = g1g2. . . gr,
where g1, g2, . . . ,gr are polynomials in F[x]. Then there are polynomials
h1, h2, . . . ,hr in D[x] such that gi is associate to hi in F[x] and C(hi) 1 (for
all i = 1,2, . . . ,r) and
.
f = h1h2. . . hr.

Proof: The coefficients of g1,g2,. . . ,gr are fractions of elements from D. We

multiply each gi by an appropriate element ai in D, for example by the
product of the "denominators" in the coefficients of gi to get a polynomial
ki D[x]. Thus aigi = ki D[x]. We write ki = cihi, where ci C(ki) D and
hi is a polynomial in D[x] with C(hi) 1. We have
a a . . . a f = a g .a g . . . a g = k k . . . k = c c . . . c h h . . . h
1 2 r 1 1 2 2 r r 1 2 r 1 2 r 1 2 r
and, taking contents of both sides, and using Lemma 34.8 r 1 times, we
get
a1a2. . . arC(f) = c1c2. . . cr C(h1)C(h2). . . C(hr)

a1a2. . . ar c1c2. . . cr.

406
Thus e:= c1c2. . . cr/a1a2. . . ar is a unit in D and

f = (eh1)h2. . . hr.

Observe that hi = (ai/ci)gi is associate to gi in F[x], because ai/ci F\{0} is

a unit in F[x]. When we make a slight change of notation and write h1 for
eh1, the proof is complete (eh1 is also associate to g1 in F[x]).

34.11 Lemma: Let D be a unique factorization domain and let F be the

field of fractions of D. Let f be a nonzero polynomial in D[x] with C(f) 1.
Then f is irreducible in F[x] if and only if f is irreducible in D[x].

Proof: Assume first that f is irreducible in F[x]. Then f is not a unit in

F[x], hence deg f 1, hence f is not a unit in D[x]. Also, if g,h D[x] and
f = gh, we read this equation in F[x] and conclude that either g or h is
associate to f in F[x]. We know 1 C(f) C(gh) C(g)C(h), so C(g) 1
C(f) and C(h) 1 C(f). Using Lemma 34.9, we deduce that either g or h
is associate to f in D[x]. Thus f is not a unit in D[x] and has no proper
divisors in D[x]. This means f is irreducible in D[x].

Conversely, assume that f is irreducible in D[x]. Then f is not a unit in

D[x] and so not a unit in D. This gives deg f 1, for otherwise f C(f) 1
would be a unit in D. So deg f 1 and f is not a unit in F[x]. We now
want to show that f has no proper divisors in F[x]. Assume f = g1g2,
where g1,g2 F[x]. By Lemma 34.10, f = h1h2, where h1,h2 D[x], C(h1) 1
C(f), C(h2) 1 C(f) and g1,g2 are respectively associate to h1,h2 in F[x].
Since f is irreducible in D[x], either h1 or h2 is associate to f in D[x] and
thus, by Lemma 34.9, either h1 or h2 is associate to f in F[x], hence either
g1 or g2 is associate to f in F[x]. Thus f has no proper divisors in F[x] and f
is irreducible in F[x].

We need one more lemma to prove that D[x] is a unique factorization

domain whenever D is. It comprises the main argument.

407
34.12 Lemma: Let D be a unique factorization domain and let f be a
nonzero polynomial in D[x] such that C(f) 1 and deg f 1. Then f can
be written as a product of irreducible polynomials in a unique way.

Proof: Let F be the field of fractions of D. We will use the fact that F[x] is
a unique factorization domain and the fact that irreducibility in D[x] and
in F[x] coincide (Theorem 34.5, Lemma 34.11).

Consider f as a polynomial in F[x]. By Theorem 34.5,

f = g1g2. . . gr, g1, g2, . . . ,gr F[x]

where g1, g2, . . . ,gr are irreducible in F[x]. According to Lemma 34.10,

f = h1h2. . . hr, h1, h2, . . . ,hr D[x]

for some polynomials hi in D[x] with C(hi) 1 and hi is associate to gi in

F[x] (i = 1,2, . . . ,r). Hence hi is irreducible in F[x] and, by Lemma 34.11, hi
is also irreducible in D[x]. We proved that f can be written as a product
of irreducible polynomials in D[x].

Now uniqueness (up to the order of factors and ambiguity among

associate polynomials). Let f D[x] with C(f) 1 and deg f 1, and let

f = p1p2. . . pr = q1q2. . . qs pi, qj D[x]

(1)

be two representations of f as a product of irreducible polynomials.

p1, p2, . . . ,pr, q1, q2, . . . ,qs in D[x]. Taking contents and using Lemma 34.8,
we get
C(p1)C(p2). . . C(pr) C(f) 1 C(q1)C(q2). . . C(qs)
so that C(pi) and C(qs) are units in D. By Lemma 34.11, the polynomials
pi, qj are irreducible in F[x]. Since F[x] is a unique factorization domain,
we deduce from (1). that r = s and, eventually after reindexing the
polynomials, pi is associate to qi in F[x]. Since C(pi) C(qi), Lemma 34.9
tells us that pi is associate to qi in D[x] (i = 1,2, . . . ,r). This completes the
proof.

408
34.13 Theorem: If D is a unique factorization domain, then D[x] is a
unique factorization domain.

Proof: Given any nonzero polynomial f in D[x] which is not a unit in D[x],
we have to show that f can be written as a product of irreducible poly-
nomials in D[x], and that this representation is unique up to the order of
factors and ambiguity between associate polynomials.

Now let f D[x], f 0, f unit in D[x]. If deg f = 0, then f D and, since D

is a unique factorization domain,. f can be written as a product of irre-
ducible elements p1, p2, . . . ,pr of D. These elements are uniquely deter-
mined, and they are irreducible also in D[x] . (Lemma 34.3). So f can be
written. as a product of irreducible elements in a unique way if deg f = 0.

Suppose next deg f 1. We write f = cf1, where c C(f) D and f1 D[x]

with C(f1) 1, deg f1 1. Here c and f1 are uniquely determined up to a
unit in D. Now c D can be written as a product of irreducible elements
in D, which are also irreducible in D[x]:

c = a1a2. . . ar ai are irreducible in D[x],

and ai are uniquely determined. By Lemma 34.12, f1 can be written as a

product of irreducible polynomials in D[x]:

f1 = q1q2. . . qs qj are irreducible in D[x]

and qi are uniquely determined. Hence

f = a1a2. . . arq1q2. . . qs

is a product of the irreducible polynomials ai,qj in D[x], which are unique

up to the order of factors and ambiguity between associate elements.

By repeated application of Theorem 34.13, we get

34.14 Theorem: If D is a unique factorization domain, then D[x1,x2,. . .

,xn] is a unique factorization domain.

409
In particular,

34.15 Theorem: If K is a field, then K[x1,x2,. . . ,xn] is a unique factoriza-

tion domain.

Exercises

1. Prove that x4+ 1 [x] is irreducible over by comparing the

coefficients of both sides in a hypothetical factorization x24 + 1 = fg and
deriving a contradiction from it. Investigate the cases deg f =1, deg g = 3
and deg f = 2 = deg g separately.

2. Do Ex. 1 for x4 + 2 and x4 + 3 [x].

3. Show that x4 + 4 is reducible over .

4. Show that x4 + 1 2
[x] is reducible over 2
.

[Link] that x4 + 1 ( [ 2])[x] is reducible over [ 2] (see §32, Ex. 3).

6. Find a content of

(a) 65x4 + 26x2 9x + 143 [x]

(b) (5 + i)x3 + ( 1 + 5i)x + ( 4 + 7i) ( [i])[x]
(c) (1 + )x4 + ( 1 + 2 )x3 + (1 2 )x2 + 3x + (2 + 3 )
( [ ])[x]
(d) 8x4 + 24x3 32x2 48x + 56 [x]
(e) 3x2 + 5x + 7 97
[x].

7. Let D be a unique factorization domain and let F be the field of

fractions of D. Let f D[x] be a nonzero polynomial whose leading
coefficient is a unit in D. Suppose that g,h F[x] and f = gh. Prove that
then g D[x] and h D[x].

8. Let D be a unique factorization domain and let f,g D[x]\D. Prove that
a greatest common divisor of f and g has degree 1 if and only if there
are polynomials h,k in D[x] satisfying deg h deg g and deg k deg f
such that fh = gk.

410
 §35
Substitution and Differentiation

In this paragraph, we study the divisibility of polynomials by those of

the first degree. We prove the familiar remainder theorem. Roots of
polynomials are introduced and multiple roots are examined.

Everything in this paragraph is based on the substitution homomorph-

ism which we now define.

m
35.1 Definition: Let R be a ring and let f = ∑ aixi be an arbitrary
i=0

polynomial in R[x]. Let S be a ring containing R. For any s S, the

m
element ∑ aisi of S is called the value of f at s. The value of f at s is said
i=0

to be obtained by substituting s for x or by evaluating f at s. The value

m
∑ aisi of f at s will be denoted by f(s).
i=0

In many cases, S is taken to be R, and then f(s) R.

S. In fact, we may al-
ways assume S = R by taking f as a polynomial in S[x]. However, if R S
and s S\R, then f(s) need not belong to R.

35.2 Examples: (a) Let g = 4x2 + 6x + 8 E[x], where E is the ring of

even integers; so E . Now 1 and g(1) = 4.12 + 6.1 + 8 = 18 .

(b) Let h = 3x3 + 4x2 + x 1 [x]. Here is a ring that contains and
2 2 2 3 2 2 2 29
. We have h(5 ) = 3(5 ) + 4(5 ) + (5 ) 1 = 125 .
5

411
(c) Let f = (01 10)x2 + (10 11)x + ( 21 00) (Mat2( ))[x]. Now Mat2( ) is a
01 0 1
ring containing Mat2( ) and (1 0) Mat2( ). Then f((1 0 ))
01 01 2 11 01 10 02
= (1 0)(1 0) + (0 1)(1 0) + ( 2 0) = (4 0) Mat2( ).

m
(d) Let R be a ring with identity and f = ∑ aixi R[x]. Then R R[x] and
i=0

m
x R[x]. The value of f at x R[x] is f(x) = ∑ aixi = f, so f(x) = f R[x].
i=0

From now on, the notations f and f(x) for a polynomial in R[x] will be
interchangeably.
used interchangably.

m
(e) Again let R be a ring with identity and f = ∑ aixi R[x] be a
i=0

polynomial with coefficients in R. Let y be an indeterminate distinct

from x. Then R is contained in R[y] and y R[y]. The value of f at y is
m
f(y) = ∑ aiyi R[y].
i=0

(f) Let p = x3 x + 1 [x]. Now [x], x + 1 [x] and

p(x + 1)= (x + 1)3 (x + 1) + 1 = x3 + 3x2 + 2x + 1 [x]. Similarly x2
[x] and p(x2) = (x2)3 (x2) + 1 = x6 x2 + 1 [x].

(g) Let R be a ring. For any f R[x], the value of f at g R[x] can be
found as in the last example, and it is a polynomial f(g(x)) in R[x].

(h) Let f = 3x2 5x + 2 12

[x]. The value f(1) of f at 1 is not
defined, for does not contain 12.

(i) Let q = x2 + x + 2 and r = x3 + x + 3 [x]. We put

t = qr = x5 + x4 + 3x3 + 4x2 + 5x + 6 [x]. One checks easily that q(2) = 8,
r(2) = 13, t(2) = 104. Notice t(2) = 8.13 = q(2).r(2). This is explained in
the next lemma.

35.3 Lemma: Let R be a ring, S a ring that contains R, and s an element

of S. If S is commutative, then the mapping

412
 Ts: R[x] S
f f(s)

is a ring homomorphism (called the substitution or evaluation homo-

morphism).

m n
Proof: For any f = ∑ aixi, g = ∑ bjxj in R[x], we have
i=0 j=0

m n
(f + g)Ts = ( ∑ aixi + ∑ bjxj)Ts
i=0 j=0

m
= ( ∑ (ai + bi)xi)Ts (assuming n = m without loss of generality)
i=0

m
= ∑ (ai + bi)si
i=0

m m
= ∑ aisi + ∑ bisi
i=0 i=0

= f(s) + g(s)
= fTs + gTs,

and further
m+ n m+ n
(fg)Ts = [∑ k=0
( ∑aibj )xk]Ts = ∑
i+ j=k k=0
( ∑a b )s ,
i+ j=k
i j
k

m n m n
(fTs)(gTs) = ( ∑ aixi)Ts. ( ∑ bjxj)Ts = ( ∑ aisi).( ∑ bjsj)
i=0 j=0 i=0 j=0

= ∑ aisibj sj
i,j

= ∑ aibj si+ j (using commutativity of S)

i,j

m+ n
= ∑
k=0
( ∑a b )s
i+ j=k
i j
k

= (fg)Ts.

Hence Ts preserves sums and products, and is therefore a ring homo-

morphism.

413
In the proof of Lemma 35.3,. the commutativity of S is used in a crucial
way. If S is not commutative, then Ts is not a homomorphism. For
example, .
10 01 01
Ix2 (0 1) = [Ix + (1 0)][Ix (1 0)] in (Mat2( ))[x]
11
but substituting (0 0) for x does not preserve sums and products:

(10 10)2 (10 01) [(10 10) + (01 10)][(10 10) (01 10)].

The substitution homomorphism is closely related to the division algo-

rithm in an integral domain.

35.4 Theorem (Remainder theorem): Let D be an integral domain,

f D[x] and a D. There is a unique polynomial q in D[x] such that
f(x) = q(x)(x a) + f(a).

Proof: We divide f by (x a). This is possible by Theorem 34.4, because

the leading coefficient of x a is a unit in D (in fact = 1). Thus there are
unique polynomials q and r such that
f(x) = q(x)(x a) + r(x) r = 0 or deg r deg (x a) = 1.
So r is an element of D (zero or not). To find r, we substitute a for x;
since substitution is a homomorphism by Lemma 35.3, we get
f(a) = q(a)(a a) + r(a)
f(a) = r.
This completes the proof.

35.5 Definition: Let R be a ring, S a commutative ring that contains R

and let f be a polynomial in R[x]. An element a of S is called a root or
zero of f if f(a) = 0.

35.6 Theorem (Factor theorem): Let D be an integral domain, and let

f be an arbitrary polynomial in D[x]. Let E be an integral domain contain-
ing D and let a E. Then a is a root of f if and only if (x a) f in E[x].

414
Proof: By the remainder theorem (with E in place of D), there is a
polynomial q in E[x] such that f(x) = q(x)(x a) + f(a). If a is a root of f,
then f(a) = 0, so f(x) = q(x)(x a) and (x a) f(x) in E[x]. Conversely, if
(x a) f(x) in E[x], then (x a) [f(x) q(x)(x a)] in E[x], so (x a) f(a) in
E[x]. Thus f(x) = u(x)(x a) for some u(x) E[x]. Substituting a for x, we
get f(a) = u(a)(a a) = 0. So a is a root of f.

The factor theorem puts an upper bound to the number of roots of poly-
nomials over integral domains, in particular of those over fields.

35.7 Theorem: Let D be an integral domain, f a nonzero polynomial in

D[x] and let E be an integral domain containing D. Then there are at most
deg f distinct roots of f in E.

Proof: We make induction on the degree of f. Polynomials of degree 0

are just the nonzero elements of D, and they have no roots in E (zero
roots). So the theorem is true when deg f = 0. Assume now deg = 1, so
that f = cx + d, where c,d D and c 0. If f had more then one roots in E,
say if a1, a2 were roots of f in E and a1 a2, we would get.

ca1 + d = f(a1) = 0 = f(a2) = ca2 + d

ca1 = ca2
c(a1 a2) = 0 c 0
a1 a2 = 0,
contrary to a1 a2. Thus cx + d has either no roots in E or one and only
one root in E, and the theorem is proved when deg f = 1. .

Suppose now n 2, deg f = n and that, for all integral domains D´, any
polynomial of degree n 1 in D´[x] has at most n 1 distinct roots in any
integral domain E´ that contains D´. If f has no roots in E, the theorem is
.
true. If f has a root a0 in E, we have
f(x) = q(x)(x a0) for some q(x) E[x]
by the factor theorem. Here q(x) is of degree n 1 by Lemma 33.3(3). By
our induction hypothesis, q(x) has at most n 1 distinct roots in E. Now
let A be the set of all distinct roots of q(x) in E (possibly A = ) so that
A n 1.

415
If b E is any root of f, then f(b) = 0, so q(b)(b a0) = 0, so q(b) = 0 or
b = a0, so b A or b = a0. Hence B A {a0}, where B is the set of all
distinct roots of f(x) in E. Thus B A +1 (n 1) + 1 = n and f has at
most n = deg f distinct roots in E. This completes the proof.

Theorem 35.7 may be false if the underlying ring is not commutative or

if it has zero divisors. For example, x2+ 1 H[x] of degree two over the
noncommutative ring H of Ex. 9 in §29 has infinitely many roots in H.
Also, the polynomial x2 1 = 1x2 1 over 8, which has zero divisors,
possesses four distinct roots 1, 3, 5, 7 in 8.

We give two applications of Theorem 35.7. In these applications, the

underlying integral domain is a field.

35.8 Theorem (Lagrange's interpolation formula):. Let K be a field

and a0,a1, . . . ,an be distinct elements of K. Let b0,b1, . . . ,bn be arbitrary
elements of K (not necessarily distinct).. Then there is a unique poly-
nomial in K[x] such that f(a0) = b0, f(a1) = b1, . . . , f(an) = bn and such that
deg f n (one less than the number of a's or b's) or f = 0.. This poly-
nomial is given explicitly by the formula.
n (x a0). . . (x a i 1)(x ai+1). . . (x a0n)
f= ∑ (ai a0). . . (ai a i 1)(ai ai+1). . . (ai a0n )
b i.
i=0

Proof: The i-th summand fi :=

(x a0). . . (x a i 1)(x ai+1). . . (x a0n)

bi
(ai a0). . . (ai a i 1)(ai ai+1). . . (ai a0n )

in the formula is 0 K[x] (when bi = 0) or a polynomial in K[x] of degree

n (when bi 0). Here fi(ai) = bi and fi(aj ) = 0 for i j. So f := f1 + f2 + . . . + fn
0 1
is either the zero polynomial or a polynomial. of degree at most n such
that f(a ) = f (a ) + f (a ) + . . . + f (a ) = 0 + . . . + f (a ) + 0 + . . . + 0 = b for all
i 1 i 2 i n i i i i
i = 1,2, . . . ,n. . This proves the existence of a polynomial with the
properties stated in the theorem,. namely the one given explicitly above.

The uniqueness of f follows from Theorem 35.7. If g is a polynomial in

K[x] with deg g n, and if g(a1) = b1, g(a2) = b2, . . . , g(an) = bn,. then the

416
polynomial h = f g has at least n + 1 roots a0, a1, . . . ,an in K, and, if h 0,
then h has degree at most equal to n (Lemma 33.3(2)). This is not
compatible with Theorem 35.7, so h = 0 and g = f. Therefore f is the
unique polynomial satisfying the conditions above.

The formula for f is easy to remember. We have f = f1 + f2 + . . . + fn,

where fi(ai) = bi and fi(aj ) = 0 for i j. The second condition leads to fi
= (x a0). . . (x a i 1)(x ai+1). . . (x a0)ci for some c i K, and ci must as in
the formula if fi(ai) is to be equal to bi.

35.9 Theorem (Wilson's theorem): If p is a prime number, then

(p 1)! + 1 0 (mod p).

Proof (Lagrange): Fermat's theorem (Theorem 12.6) states that

a p 1 1 (mod p) for any integer a with (a,p) = 1. We can write this as

ap 1 1=0 in p
if a 0.

Thus the polynomial f = xp 1 1 = 1xp 1 1 p

[x] has p 1 distinct roots
in p, namely 1, 2, . . . , p 1. The polynomial
g = (x 1)(x 2). . . (x p 1)
has the same roots. Hence the polynomial

h=f g = ( 1xp 1 1) (x 1)(x 2). . . (x p 1) = (xp 1 1) (xp 1 + . . . )

over p has at least p 1 roots 1, 2, . . . , p 1 in p. If h were not the

zero polynomial in p[x], its degree would be less than p 1. This
contradicts Theorem 35.7. So h is the zero polynomial in p[x]: each
coefficient of h is equal to 0 p
. In particular,

0 = coefficient of x0 in h
= (coefficient of x0 in f) (coefficient of x0 in g)
= ( 1) (( 1)( 2). . . ( (p 1))
= 1 ( 1)p 1(p 1)!
= ((p 1)! + 1) in p

417
provided p is odd. Hence (p 1)! + 1 0 (mod p) when p is an odd prime
number. But this congruence holds also when p = 2. This completes the
proof.

The next theorem will be familiar to the reader in the case of D = , F=

under the name of "rational root theorem".

35.10 Theorem: Let D be a unique factorization domain and let F be

the field of fractions of D. Let f = anxn + a n 1xn 1 + . . . + a1x + a0 D[x] be
b
an arbitrary polynomial in D[x]. If a = F is a root of f, where b,c D
c
and (b,c) 1, then
c an and b a0 in D.
In particular, if the leading coefficient of f is a unit in D, then any root of
f in F is actually in D.

b
Proof: By hypothesis, a = is a root of f so that
c
bn bn 1 b
an n + a n 1 n 1 + . . . + a1 + a0 = 0.
c c c
Multiplying both sides by c n, we obtain
anbn + (a n 1bn 1c + . . . + a1bcn 1 + a0c n) = 0,
[a bn + a bn 1c + . . . + a bcn 1] + a c n = 0.
n n 1 1 0
n
c divides the expression in ( ), so c anb . As (b,c) 1, we have (bn,c) 1.
n n
From (b ,c) 1 and c anb , we conclude c an. Likewise, b divides the
expression in [ ], so b a0c n. As (b,c) 1, we have (b,c n) 1. From (b,c n) 1
n
and b a0c , we conclude b a0. In particular, if an is a unit in D, then c is
1
also a unit in D since c an, so there is a c D such that cc 1 = 1 and the
b bc 1 bc 1
root a = = = = bc 1 D.
c cc 1 1

35.11 Example: As an illustration of Theorem 35.10, we prove that the

real number 2 is irrational. Let f(x) = x2 2 [x]. Since is a unique
factorization domain and the leading coefficient of f is a unit in (f is in

418
fact a monic polynomial), any root of f in must be actually in by
Theorem 35.10. But

f(0) = 2 0; f( 1) = 1 0;

f( m) = m2 2 2, so f( m) 0 for m 2;

so f has no integer roots, and consequently no rational roots, as claimed.

Next we discuss the multiplicity of roots.. Let D be an integral domain

and f a nonzero polynomial in D[x].. If a D is a root of f, then we have
f(x) = (x a)q1(x) for some q1(x) D[x] by the factor theorem (Theorem
35.6). Either a is not a root of q1(x), or we have q1(x) = (x a)q2(x) and
therefore f(x) = (x a)2q2(x) for some q2(x) D[x]. In the latter case,
either a is not a root of q2(x), or we have q2(x) = (x a)q3(x) and
therefore f(x) = (x a)3q3(x) for some q3(x) D[x]. We repeat this
argument. Since the degrees of q1(x), q2(x), q3(x), . . . get smaller and
smaller, we will reach a polynomial qm(x) with
f(x) = (x a)mqm(x), qm(a) 0.

35.12 Definition: Let D be an integral domain and f a nonzero poly-

nomial in D[x]. Suppose a D and f(a) = 0. The uniquely determined
integer m 1 such that

f(x) = (x a)mqm(x), qm(x) D[x], qm(a) 0,

that is, the uniquely determined integer m 1 such that

(x a)m f(x), (x a)m+1 f(x) in D[x]

is called the multiplicity of the root a of f. The root a of f is called a

simple root when m = 1 and a multiple root when m 1.

This definition makes sense also when a is a root of f in E,. where E is an

integral domain containing D:. we need only regard f as a polynomial
over E and use the definition with E in place of D. When E1 and E2 are
two integral domains containing D and a root a of f is both in E1 and E2,
we have, say,.

419
 f(x) = (x a)m1 q1(x), q1(x) E1[x], q1(a) 0,
f(x) = (x a)m2 q2(x), q2(x) E2[x], q2(a) 0,
f(x) = (x a)m0 q0(x), q0(x) (E1 E2)[x], q0(a) 0,

as the equations defining the multiplicity of a as a root in E1, E2, E1 E2.

Then
(x a)m1 q1(x) = (x a)m0 q0(x) in E1[x]

and the assumption m1 m0 or m1 m0 leads to the contradiction

(x a)m1 m0 q1(x) = q0(x) or q1(x) = (x a)m0 m1 q0(x),

0 = q0(a) or q1(a) = 0.

Hence m1 = m0. Likewise m2 = m0 and therefore m1 = m2: the multiplicity

of a root of f D[x] is independent of the integral domain to which the
root belongs.

In order to find out whether a polynomial has multiple roots, we take

derivatives.

In analysis, the derivative of a real-valued function u of a real variable

x is defined by
u(x + h) u(x)
u´(x) = lim .
h 0 h

This definition cannot be extended to polynomials over a ring. For one

thing, polynomials are not functions. Second, what should
u(x + h) u(x)
mean in a ring? Third, we did not define limits in a
h
ring. In fact, in many rings, a reasonable limit process cannot be
introduced at all. But we know from analysis that the derivative of the
m m
function x ∑ akxk is the function x ∑ kakxk 1. This suggests the
k=0 k=1

following definition.

420
 m
35.13 Definition: Let R be an arbitrary ring and let f = ∑ akxk be an
k=0

arbitrary polynomial in R[x]. The derivative of f is defined as the poly-

nomial
m m1
f´ = f´(x) = ∑ kakxk 1= ∑ (k+1)akxk 1 R[x].
k=1 k=0

kaak means of course ak +ak + . . . + ak in R (k times). This definition has

nothing to do with limits. Taking the derivative of a polynomial is called
differentiation.

35.14 Examples: (a) Let f (x) = x4 3x2 + x + 10 [x]. Then

f´(x) = 4x3 6x + 1 [x].

1 5 1 4 2 3 4
(b) Let g(x) = x + x + x + x 3 [x]. Then
3 7 5 3
5 4 6 4
g´(x) = x4 + x3 + x2 + [x].
3 7 5 3

12 0 1 12 00
(c) Let h(x) = (3 4)x3 + ( 1 1)x2 + (0 3)x + (1 0) (Mat2( ))[x]. Then
12 0 1 12
h´(x) = 3(3 4)x2 + 2( 1 1)x + 1(0 3)
3 6 0 2 12
= (9 12)x2 + ( 2 2)x + (0 3) (Mat2( ))[x].

(d) Let k(x) = 2x4 + 4x2 + 3x + 5 8

[x]. Then
k´(x) = 4.2x3 + 2.4 + 1.3 = 3 [x].
8

(e) Let l(x) = x125 + x25 + 2x5 + 3 5

[x]. Then
l´(x) = 125. 1x 124
+ 25.1x + 5.2x = 0
24 4
5
[x].

The familiar rules of differentiation hold in any polynomial ring.

35.15 Lemma: Let R be a ring, c R, and let f,g R[x]. Then

(f + g)´ = f´ + g´, (cf)´ = cf´, (fg)´ = f´g + fg´.

421
 m n
Proof: Let f = ∑ akxk and g = ∑ bjxj. We have
k=0 j=0

m n
(f + g)´= ( ∑ akxk
k=0
+ ∑ bjxj)´
j=0

m m
= ( ∑ akxk
k=0
+ ∑ bkxk)´(assuming
k=0
n = m without loss of

generality)
m
= ( ∑ (ak + bk)xk)´
k=0

m
= ∑ k(ak + bk)xk 1
k=1

m
= ∑ (kak + kbk)xk 1
k=1

m m
= ∑ kakxk 1 + ∑ kbkxk 1
k=1 k=1

= f´ + g´,

m m m m
(cf)´ = (c ∑ a x )´= ( ∑ ca x )´= ∑ kca x
k=0
k
k
k=0
k
k
k=1
k
k1
= c ∑ kakxk 1 = cf´
k=1

Next we find (fg)´ and f´g + fg´. We have

m n
(fg)´ = [( ∑ a x )( ∑ b x )]´
k=0
k
k
j=0
j
j

m+ n
= [ ∑ ( ∑a b )x ]´
s=0 k+ j=s
k j
s

m+ n
= ∑
s=1
s ( ∑a b )x
k+ j=s
k j
s1
,

(1)
m n m n
f´g + fg´ = ( ∑ akxk)´( ∑ bjxj)
k=0 j=0
+ ( ∑ akxk)( ∑ bjxj)´
k=0 j=0

m n m n
= ( ∑ kakxk 1)( ∑ bjxj)
k=1 j=0
+ ( ∑ akxk)( ∑ jbjxj 1)
k=0 j=1

422
 m+ n m+ n
=
s=1
∑ ( ∑kakbj )xs 1
k+ j=s
+ ∑
s=1
( ∑ja b )x
k+ j=s
k j
s1

m+ n
=
s=1
∑ ( ∑ka b + ja b )x
k+ j=s
k j k j
s1

m+ n
= ∑
s=1
s ( ∑a b )x
k+ j=s
k j
s1
.

(2)

From (1) and (2), we conclude (fg)´ = f´g + fg´. This completes the proof.

35.16 Lemma:Let LetR Rbebe

a commutative
a ring andring,let f1,f2, . . . ,fn,f,g R[x].
(1) (f + f + . . . + f )´ = f ´ + f ´ + . . . + f ´.
1 2 n 1 2 n
(2) (f1f2. . . fn)´ = f1´f2. . . fn + f1f2´. . . fn + . . . + f1f2. . . fn´.
(3) (g n)´ = ngn 1g´.
(4) [f(g(x))]´==f´f(g(x))g´(x).
Proof: (1) and (2) follow from Lemma 35.16 by induction on n. (3) is a
special case of (2), with f1 = f2 = . . . = fn = g. We now prove (4). Let
m m
f = ∑ akxk. Then f(g(x)) = ∑ akg k R[x] and, by (1) and (3), the
k=0 k=0

derivative of f(g(x)) is
m ´ m m m
( ∑ akg k)
k=0
= ∑ ak(g k)´ = ∑ ak(g k)´ = ∑ kakg k 1g´
k=0 k=1 k=1

m
= ( ∑ kakg k 1)g´ = f´(g)g´.
k=1

We are now in a position to determine which roots are multiple roots.

35.17 Theorem: Let D be an integral domain, and E an integral domain

that contains D. Let c E and let f be a nonzero polynomial in D[x]. Then
c is a multiple root of f if and only if c is a root of both f and f´.

423
Proof: Suppose c is a multiple root of f. Then it is a root of f. We wish to
show that c is a root of f´ as well. We have f(x) = (x c)2g(x) for some
g(x) E[x]. Differentiating and substituting c for x, we obtain
f´(x) = 2(x c)g(x) + (x c)2g´(x)
f´(c) = 2(c c)g(c) + (c c)2g´(c) = 0
and c is indeed a root of f´.

Conversely, suppose c is a root of f and f´. We write f(x) = (x c)h(x),

where h(x) E[x]. We want to show that c is a root of h. Since
f´(x) = h(x) + (x c)h´(x)
f´(c) = h(c) + (c c)h´(c)
0 = h(c) + 0,
h(c) = 0 and c is a multiple root of f.

35.18 Theorem: Let K be a field and E an integral domain that contains

K. Let f(x), g(x) be arbitrary nonzero polynomials in K[x].
(1) If f and g are relatively prime, then f and g have no common root in
E.
(2) If f and f´ are relatively prime, then f has no multiple roots in E.
(3) If f is irreducible in K[x], then either f and g are relatively prime or
f g in K[x].
(4) If f is irreducible in K[x] and deg f deg g, then f and g have no
common root in E.
(5) If f is irreducible in K[x] and f´ 0, then there is no root of f in E
which is a multiple root.
(6) If f is irreducible in K[x] and if f has a root in E which is not a
multiple root of f, then f´ 0.

Proof: (1) Suppose f and g are relatively prime in K[x]. By Theorem

34.6, there are polynomials h,l in K[x] such that
1 = h(x)f(x) + l(x)g(x),
where 1 is the identity element of K. If f and g had a root c E in
common, we would have
1 = h(c)f(c) + l(c)g(c) = h(c)0 + l(c)0 = 0 + 0 = 0,
a contradiction. So f and g have no common root in E.

(2) Assume f and f´ are relatively prime. If f has no root in E, then

certainly f has no multiple root in E. Now we suppose f has a root c in E

424
and prove that c is not a multiple root of f. Indeed, since f and f´ are
relatively prime, f and f´ have no common root by part (1), so f´(c) 0
and c is not a multiple root of f by Theorem 35.17.

(3) Suppose f is irreducible in K[x] and let d K[x] be a greatest common

divisor of f and g. Since d f and f is irreducible, d is either a unit in K[x]
or an associate of f. In the first case, f and g are relatively prime, in the
second case, f d and d g yields f g.

(4) Suppose f is irreducible in K[x] and deg g deg f, then f cannot

divide g, so f and g are relatively prime by part (3). By part (1), f and g
have no common root in E.

(5) Suppose f is irreducible in K[x] and f´ 0. Then deg f´ deg f. Since f

is irreducible, f and f´ have no common root in E by part (4). Now if f has
no root in E, then f has certainly no multiple root in E. If f has a root c in
E, then c is not a root of f´, so c is not a multiple root of f by Theorem
35.17. In any case, f has no multiple root in E.

(6) Suppose f is irreducible in K[x] and suppose c E is a simple root of f

in E. If we had f´ = 0, we would have f(c) = 0 and f´(c) = 0 and c would be
a multiple root of f by Theorem 35.17, a contradiction. Thus, if there are
roots in E and if they are all simple, then f´ 0.

We finish this paragraph with a brief discussion of successive substitu-

tions.

35.19 Definition: Let R be a ring and let

N1 N2 N n-1 N n
f= ∑ ∑ ... ∑ ∑ aij...klx1ix2j . . . xnk1xnl
i=0 j=0 k=0 l=0

be a polynomial in R[x1,x2, . . . ,xn 1,xn]. Let S be a ring that contains R and

let c1,c2, . . . ,c n 1,cn be elements of S. The element

N1 N2 N n-1 N n
∑ ∑ ... ∑ ∑ aij...klc1ic2j . . . cnk1cnl
i=0 j=0 k=0 l=0

of S is called the value of f at (c1,c2, . . . ,c n 1,cn). It will be denoted by

f(c1,c2, . . . ,c n 1,cn).

425
 N1 N2 N n-1 N n
With the foregoing notation, f = ∑
i=0
(∑ j=0
... ∑ ∑
k=0 l=0
)
aij...klx1ix2j . . . xnk1 xnl

is a polynomial in R[x1,x2, . . . ,xn 1][xn]. Substituting cn for xn in the sense

of Definition 35.1 (with S[x1,x2, . . . ,xn 1], R[x1,x2, . . . ,xn 1], xn, cn in place of
S, R, x, c, respectively), we get an element of S[x1,x2, . . . ,xn 1], namely

N1 N2 N n-1 Nn
∑ ∑
i=0 j=0
... ∑
k=0
(∑ l=0
)
cnlaij...kl x1ix2j . . . xnk1 S[x1,x2, . . . ,xn 2][xn 1].

Substituting cn 1 for xn 1 in this polynomial over S[x1,x2, . . . ,xn 2], we get a

polynomial in S[x1,x2, . . . ,xn 2], namely

N1 N2 N n-2 N n-1 N n
∑ ∑
i=0 j=0
... ∑
j´=0
(∑k=0 l=0
∑ )
c nk1cnlaij...j´kl x1ix2j . . . xnj´ 2.

We continue in this way. If S is commutative, we obtain f(c1,c2, . . . ,c n 1,cn)

after n substitutions. Thus

f(c1,c2, . . . ,c n 1,cn) = fTc Tc . . . Tc Tc ,

n n-1 2 1

where Tc : R[x1,x2, . . . ,xn 1,xn] S[x1,x2, . . . ,xn 1]

n
Tc : S[x1,x2, . . . ,xh 1,xh] S[x1,x2, . . . ,xh 1] (h = 2, . . . ,n 1)
h
and Tc : S[x1] S
1

are the substitution homomorphisms in the sense of Definition 35.1.

Since the composition of homomorphisms is a homomorphism (Theorem
30.12), we obtain the following lemma.

35.20 Lemma: Let R be a ring, S a ring that contains R, and

c1,c2, . . . ,c n 1,cn elements of S. If S is commutative, then the mapping

T(c ,c2 , . . . ,cn-1,cn ): R[x1,x2, . . . ,xn 1,xn] S

1
f f(c1,c2, . . . ,c n 1,cn)

is a ring homomorphism (called the evaluation or substitution homo-

morphism).

426
 Exercises

1. Let f = x3 + ax2 + bx + c [x]. Prove that f is reducible over if and

only if f has an integer root.

2. Find a polynomial f [x] with deg f 4 satisfying

f( 2) = 9, f( 1) = 2, f(0) = 1, f(1) = 4, f(2) = 25.

3. Let p be a prime number of the form 4k + 1. Using Wilson's theorem,

show that p-1 ! is a root of x2 + 1 p
[x].
2

4. Let R be a ring and f = ∑ aijkxiyj zk R[x,y,z]. The derivative of f,

i,j ,k

when f is regarded as a polynomial in R[y,z][x], is called the derivative of

f . f
f with respect to x and is written Thus = ∑ iaijkxi 1yj zk. The
x x i,j ,k
i 1

derivatives with respect to y and z are defined similarly.. f is said to be

homogeneous of degree m if i + j + k = m for all i,j,k with aijk 0. Prove
the following assertions..
(a) Let t be an indeterminate over R[x,y,z]. If f(x,y,z) R[x,y,z] is a
homogeneous polynomial of degree m, then
f(tx,ty,tz) = tmf(x,y,z) R[x,y,z,t]. (*)
(b) Let t be an indeterminate over R[x,y,z] and f(x,y,z) R[x,y,z]. If
(*) holds in R[x,y,z,t], then f(x,y,z) is a homogeneous polynomial of
degree m.
(c) If f(x,y,z) R[x,y,z] is a homogeneous polynomial of degree m,
then
f(rx,ry,rz) = rmf(x,y,z)
for all r R.
(d) If f(x,y,z) [x,y,z] and f(rx,ry,rz) = rmf(x,y,z) for all r , then
f(x,y,z) is a homogeneous polynomial of degree m.
(e) Find a polynomial f(x,y,z) 5
[x,y,z] such that.
f(rx,ry,rz) = rmf(x,y,z) for all r 5
and which is not homogeneous of degree m.
(f) If f(x,y,z) R[x,y,z] is homogeneous of degree m, then
f f f
x +y +z = mf.
x y y

427
5. Let R be a ring and f R[x]. The derivative of f´ is called the second
derivative of f, and is written as f´´ or as f(2). More generally, the (n+1)-
st derivative of f is defined recursively as the derivative of the n-th
derivative f(n) of f, and is written as f(n+1). Thus f(n+1) = (f(n))´. We write
f(1) for f´ and f(0) = f. Prove that, for any f,g R[x], any c R, any n

(f + g)(n) = f(n) + g (n), (cf)(n) = cf(n),

n n
(fg)(n) = ∑ (k)f(n k)g (k).
k=0

6. Let K be a field, f a nonzero polynomial of degree n in K[x] and assume

that (n!)1K 0, where 1K is the identity of K. Show that
n f(k)(x) k
f(x + y) = ∑ k!
y
k=0
f(k)(x)
in K[x,y], where, of course, means [(k!)1K ] 1f(x).
k!

7. Let p be a prime number and f p

[x]. Show that f´ = 0 if and only if
f(x) = g(xp) for some g p
[x].

8. Let K be a field. We put M = Mat2(K) for brevity. Let us recall that the
a b
determinant of (c d) M is ad bc and that A M is a unit in M if and

only if det A is a unit in K.

Let A(x), B(x) M[x] be nonzero polynomials and assume that the
leading coefficient of B(x) has a nonzero determinant. Show that there
are uniquely determined polynomials Q(x), R(x), Q†(x), R†(x) in M[x] such
that A(x) = Q(x)B(x) + R(x), R(x) = 0 or deg R(x) deg B(x).
and A(x) = B(x)Q†(x) + R†(x), R†(x) = 0 or deg R†(x) deg B(x).
Q(x) and R(x) are called the right quotient and right remainder, Q†(x) and
R†(x) are called the left quotient and left remainder when A(x) is divided
by B(x).

If F(x) = Fnxn + Fn 1xn 1 + . . . + F1x + F0

M[x] and A M, then
F(A) := FnAn + Fn 1An 1 + . . . + F1A + F0 M
is called the right value of F(x) at A and
F†(A) := AnFn + An 1Fn 1 + . . . + AF1+ F0 M

428
is called the left value of F(x) at A. Prove that the right (resp. left)
remainder of F(x) M[x], when F(x) is divided by Ix A, is equal to F(A)
(resp. F†(A)).
9. Let R be a ring and Di : R[x] R[x] be functions (i = 1,2) such that

Di(f + g) = Di f + Di g Di(cf) = c Di f, Di(fg) = (Di f)g + fDi(g)

for all f,g R[x]. Define D : R[x] R[x] by

Df = D1(D2f) D2(D1f).
Prove that
D(f + g) = Df + Dg D(cf) = c Df, D(fg) = (Df)g + fD(g)

for all f,g R[x].

429
 §36
Fields of Rational Functions

The reader might have missed the familiar quotient rule (\f(f,g))´ =
f´g fg´ f
2 in Lemma 35.15. It was missing because is not a polynomial.
g g
f
We now introduce these quotients .
g

36.1 Definition: Let D be an integral domain and x, x1,x2, . . . ,xn indeter-

minates over D. Then D[x] and D[x1,x2, . . . ,xn] are integral domains
(Lemma 33.6, Lemma 33.10).. An element in the the field of fractions of
D[x] is called a rational function (in x) over D.. The field of fractions of
D[x] will be called the field of rational functions over D (in x). and will be
denoted by D(x).. An element in the the field of fractions of D[x1,x2, . . . ,xn]
is called a rational function (in x1,x2, . . . ,xn) over D. The field of fractions
of D[x1,x2, . . . ,xn] will be called the field of rational functions over D (in
x1,x2, . . . ,xn) and will be denoted by D(x1,x2, . . . ,xn).

f
Thus a rational function over D is a fraction of two polynomials over D,
g
f1 f2
with g 0. Two rational functions and are equal if and only if the
g1 g2
f1 f2
polynomials f1g2 and g1f2 are equal. Two rational functions and are
g1 g2
added and multiplied according to the rules

f1 f2 f1g2 + g1f2 f1 f2 f1f2

+ = , = .
g1 g2 g1g2 g1 g2 g1g2

Here g1 and g2 are distinct from the zero polynomial over D.

This terminology is unfortunate and misleading, because a rational

function is not a function in the sense of Definition 3.1. A rational
function is not a function of the 'rational' kind, whatever that might
mean. The technical term we defined is rational function, a term
consisting of two words "rational" and "function". The meaning of the

430
words "rational" and "function" do not play any role in Definition 36.1. A
rational function is a fraction of polynomials over D. The reader should
exercise caution about this point. One should not conclude that
x2 1 x+1
and in (x)
x 1 1
are different rational functions, on grounds that that their domains are
different, since the domain of the first one does not contain 1, whereas 1
is in the domain of the second one. Neither of them has a domain, for
neither of them is a function. And these rational functions are equal
because the polynomials (x2 1)1 and (x 1)(x + 1) in [x] are equal.

36.2 Lemma: Let D be an integral domain and F the field of fractions of

D. Let x be an indeterminate over D. Then D(x) = F(x).

a
Proof: F consists of the fractions , where a,b D and b 0; and D(x)
b
consists of the fractions

anxn + a n 1xn 1 + . . . + a1x + a0

,
bmxm + bm 1xm 1 + . . . + b1x + b0

where an,a n 1, . . . ,a1,a0,bm,bm 1, . . . ,b1,b0 D and the denominator is

distinct from the zero polynomial in D[x]. Finally, F(x) consists of the
fractions
cnxn + c n 1xn 1 + . . . + c1x + c0
,
d xm + dm
xm 1 + . . . + d x + d
m 1 1 0

where cn,c n 1, . . . ,c1,c0,dm,dm 1, . . . ,d1,d0 F and the denominator is distinct

from the zero polynomial in F[x].

a
An element of D is identified with the fraction in F (Theorem 31.5),
1
f(x)
whence D F. Thus D[x] F[x] as sets. Note that two elements and
g(x)
p(x)
of D(x) are equal in D(x) if and only if f(x)q(x) = g(x)p(x) in D[x], and
q(x)
f(x)
this holds if and only if f(x)q(x) = g(x)p(x) in F[x], so if and only if
g(x)

431
 p(x)
and are equal in F(x). Thus every element of D(x) is in F(x) and
q(x)
equality in D(x) coincides with equality in F(x). So D(x) F(x).

p(x)
Next we show F(x) D(x). Let F(x), with p(x), q(x) F[x], q(x) 0.
q(x)
n ai m cj
Then p(x) = ∑ xi , q(x) = ∑ xj , where ai,bi,cj ,dj D, bi 0, dj 0 for
i=0 bi j=0 dj

all i,j and not all of cj are equal to 0 D. We put b = b0b1. . . bn 1bn and d =

d0d1. . . dm 1dm. Then dbp(x) and dbq(x) are polynomials in D[x], and hence
p(x) dbp(x)
= D(x). So F(x) D(x). This proves D(x) = F(x).
q(x) dbq(x)

2 2 1 1
x x +
As an illustration of Lemma 36.2, observe that 3 7 4 (x)
2 2 1 1
x + x
5 3 2
2
5(56x 12x + 21)
is equal to the rational function in [x].
2
14(12x + 10x 15)

36.3 Remark: Let D be an integral domain and F the field of fractions

of D. Then
D(x1,x2, . . . ,xn) = field of fractions of D[x1,x2, . . . ,xn]
= field of fractions of D[x1,x2, . . . ,xn 1][xn]
= D[x1,x2, . . . ,xn 1](xn)
= D(x1,x2, . . . ,xn 1)(xn)
by Lemma 36.2, with D[x1,x2, . . . ,xn 1], D(x1,x2, . . . ,xn 1), xn in place of D,F,x,
respectively.

Also, we have D(x1,x2, . . . ,xn) = F(x1,x2, . . . ,xn), for this is true when n = 1
(Lemma 36.2) and, when it is true for n = k, so that D(x1,x2, . . . ,xk) =
F(x1,x2, . . . ,xk), it is also true for n = k + 1:
D(x1,x2, . . . ,xk,xk+1) = D(x1,x2, . . . ,xk)(xk+1)
= F(x1,x2, . . . ,xk)(xk+1)
= F(x1,x2, . . . ,xk,xk+1),
the last equation by the remark above, with F in place of D and k + 1 in
place of n.

432
In the remainder of this paragraph, we discuss partial fraction
expansions of ratinonal functions.

36.4 Lemma: Let K be a field and let f(x) be a nonzero polynomial in

K[x]. Let q(x), r(x) be two nonzero, relatively prime polynomials of posi-
tive degree in K[x]. Suppose deg f(x) deg q(x)r(x) and suppose that
f(x) is relatively prime to q(x)r(x). Then there are uniquely determined
nonzero polynomials a(x), b(x) in K[x] such that
a(x)r(x) + b(x)q(x) = f(x), deg a(x) deg q(x), deg b(x) deg r(x).

Proof: We first prove the existence of a(x) and b(x). Since q(x), r(x) are
relatively prime, there are polynomials h(x), k(x) in K[x] with

h(x)r(x) + k(x)q(x) = 1.

Multiplying both sides of this equation by f(x) and putting A(x) =

f(x)h(x), B(x) = f(x)k(x), we obtain

A(x)r(x) + B(x)q(x) = f(x).

We now divide A(x) by q(x) and B(x) by r(x):

A(x) = s(x)q(x) + a(x), a(x) = 0 or deg a(x) deg q(x),

B(x) = u(x)r(x) + b(x), b(x) = 0 or deg b(x) deg r(x).

Thus a(x)r(x) + b(x)q(x) = (A(x) s(x)q(x))r(x) + (B(x) u(x)r(x))q(x)

= (A(x)r(x) + B(x)q(x)) (s(x) + u(x))q(x)r(x)
= f(x) (s(x) + u(x))q(x)r(x).

We claim s(x) + u(x) is the zero polynomial in K[x]. Otherwise, we would

have deg (s(x) + u(x)) 0,
deg (s(x) + u(x))q(x)r(x) deg q(x)r(x),
and since by hypothesis deg f(x) deg q(x)r(x),
deg f(x) (s(x) + u(x))q(x)r(x) deg q(x)r(x),

so that a(x)r(x) + b(x)q(x) 0; in particular, both a(x) and b(x) cannot be

zero. Assume, without loss of generality, that a(x) 0 in case one of a(x),
b(x) is zero and that deg a(x)r(x) deg b(x)q(x) in case neither of them
is zero. Then we get the contradiction

deg [f(x) (s(x) + u(x))q(x)r(x)] = deg (a(x)r(x) + b(x)q(x))

433
 deg a(x)r(x)
= deg a(x) + deg r(x)
deg q(x) + deg r(x)
= deg q(x)r(x).
Thus s(x) + u(x), and consequently (s(x) + u(x))q(x)r(x) is the zero poly-
nomial in K[x]. This gives a(x)r(x) + b(x)q(x) = f(x). It remains to show
that a(x) and b(x) are distinct from the the zero polynomial in K[x]. Both
of them cannot be 0, for then f(x) would be also 0, which it is not by hy-
pothesis. If one of them is 0, say if a(x) = 0, then b(x) 0 and f(x) =
b(x)q(x) would not be relatively prime to q(x)r(x) (because q(x) is of
positive degree, so not a unit in K[x]), against the hypothesis. This proves
the existence of a(x), b(x).

It remains to show the uniqueness of a(x) and b(x). If we have also.

a1(x)r(x) + b1(x)q(x) = f(x), deg a1(x) deg q(x), deg b1(x) deg r(x),
we obtain 0 = f(x) f(x) = (a1(x)r(x) + b1(x)q(x))
(a(x)r(x) + b(x)q(x))
= (a(x) a1(x))r(x) (b1(x) b(x))q(x),
so (a(x) a1(x))r(x) = (b1(x) b(x))q(x). (*)
Hence
r(x) (b1(x) b(x))q(x) in K[x]
r(x) b1(x) b(x) in K[x] as r(x) and are q(x) relatively prime.
Now b(x) b1(x) implies b(x) b1(x) 0 and this gives
deg r(x) deg (b1(x) b(x)) max{deg b1(x), deg b(x)} deg r(x),
a contradiction. Thus b(x) = b1(x) and we get then a(x) = a1(x) from (*).
So a(x) and b(x) are uniquely determined.

f(x)
36.5 Lemma: Let K be a field and let be a nonzero rational function
g(x)
in K(x),with deg f(x) deg g(x). Suppose that f(x) and g(x) are both
monic and that f(x) is relatively prime to g(x). Assume g(x) = q(x)r(x),
where q(x)r(x) are two relatively prime polynomials of positive degree
in K[x]. Then there are uniquely determined nonzero polynomials a(x),
b(x) in K[x] such that
f(x) f(x) a(x) b(x)
= = +
g(x) q(x)r(x) q(x) r(x)

and deg a(x) deg q(x), deg b(x) deg r(x).

434
 f(x)
Proof: If is a nonzero rational function in K(x), then f(x) is a nonzero
g(x)
polynomial in K[x], and f(x) is relatively prime to g(x) = q(x)r(x). As f(x)
and g(x) are monic, these conditions determine f(x) and g(x) uniquely.
The polynomials q(x), r(x) are relatively prime and deg f(x) is smaller
than deg q(x)r(x). So the hypotheses of Lemma 36.4 are satisfied and
therefore there are uniquely determined nonzero polynomials a(x),b(x)
in K[x] such that
f(x) = a(x)r(x) + b(x)q(x),
and deg a(x) deg q(x), deg b(x) deg r(x).
Dividing both sides of the equation above by g(x) = q(x)r(x), we see that
there are uniquely determined nonzero polynomials a(x),b(x) in K[x]
such that
f(x) f(x) a(x) b(x)
= = +
g(x) q(x)r(x) q(x) r(x)

and deg a(x) deg q(x), deg b(x) deg r(x).

By induction on m, we obtain the following lemma.

f(x)
36.6 Lemma: Let K be a field and let be a nonzero rational
g(x)
function in K(x),with deg f(x) deg g(x). Suppose that f(x) and g(x) are
both monic and that f(x) is relatively prime to g(x). Assume g(x) =
q1(x)q2(x). . . qm(x), where q1(x), q2(x), . . . ,qm(x). are pairwise relatively
prime monic polynomials of positive degree in K[x].. Then there are
uniquely determined nonzero polynomials a1(x), a2(x), . . . ,am(x) in K[x]
such that .
f(x) f(x) a 1
(x) a 2
(x) a m
(x)
= = + + ... +
g(x) q1(x)q2(x). . .qm(x) q1(x) q2(x) qm(x)

and deg ai(x) deg qi(x) for all i = 1,2, . . . ,m.

36.7 Lemma: Let K be a field and x an indeterminate over K.. Let g(x)
be a polynomial in K[x] of degree 1. Then, for any f(x) K[x],. there
are uniquely determined polynomials r0(x), r1(x), r2(x), . . . ,rn(x) such that

435
 f(x) = r0(x) + r1(x)g(x) + r2(x)g(x)2 + . . . + rn(x)g(x)n
and
ri(x) = 0 or deg ri(x) deg g(x) for all i = 1,2, . . . ,n.

Proof: From deg g 1, we know that g 0.. So we may divide f by g

and obtain f = q0g + r0, where q0, r0 K[x], with r0 = 0 or deg r0 deg g.
Here q0 and r0 are uniquely determined by f and g (Theorem 34.4) and
we have f = r0 + q0g. If q0 = 0, we are done (with n = 0). Otherwise, since
f = q0g + r0, deg g 1 and r0 = 0 or deg r0 deg g, we have deg q0
deg f (Lemma 33.3). We now divide q0 by g and obtain q0 = q1g + r1,
where q1, r1 K[x], with r1 = 0 or deg r1 deg g. Here q1 and r1 are
uniquely determined by q0 and g (hence by f and g) and f = r0 + r1g +
q1g 2. If q1 = 0, we are done. Otherwise, deg q1 deg q0. We then divide
q1 by g and obtain q1 = q2g + r2, where q2, r2 K[x], with r2 = 0 ordeg r2
deg g. Here q2 and r2 are uniquely determined by q1 and g (hence by f
and g) and f = r0 + r1g + r2g 2 + q2g 3. If q2 = 0, we are done. Otherwise, we
have deg q2 deg q1. We continue this process. As the degrees of q0, q1,
q2, . . . get smaller and smaller, this process cannot go on indefinitely..
Sooner or later, we will meet a qn equal to 0 K[x]. Then, with uniquely
determined r ,r ,r , . . . r , we have f = r + r g + r g 2 + . . . + r g n, where
0 1 2 n 0 1 2 n
ri(x) = 0 or deg ri deg g for all i = 1,2, . . . ,n.

In the situation of Lemma 36.7, the unique expression

f = r0 + r1g + r2g 2 + . . . + rng n
of f(x), where ri(x) = 0 or deg ri deg g for all i = 1,2, . . . ,n, is called the
g-adic expansion of f.

p(x)
36.8 Theorem: Let K be a field and a nonzero rational function in
q(x)
K(x), where p(x),q(x) K[x] are relatively prime in K[x]. Let u be the
leading coefficient of q(x) and let q(x) = ug1(x)m1 g2(x)m2 . . . gt(x)mt be the
decomposition of q(x) into polynomials irreducible over K, where gi(x)
are monic. Then there are uniquely determined polynomials G(x),

436
a1(1)(x), a2(1)(x), . . . ,am (1)
(x),a1(2)(x), a2(2)(x), . . . ,am (2)
(x),. . . ,a1(t)(x), a2(t)(x),
1 2

. . . ,am (t)(x) in K[x] such that

t

a1(1)(x) a2(1)(x) am (1)(x)

p(x) 1
= G(x) + 1 + 2 + ... +
q(x) g1 (x) g1 (x) g1m1 (x)
(2)
a1(2)(x) a2(2)(x) am (x)
2
+ + + ... +
g21(x) g22(x) g2m2 (x)
+ ......
a1(t)(x) a2(t)(x) am (t)(x)
t
+ 1 + 2 + ... +
gt (x) gt (x) gtmt(x)
and deg ai(k)(x) deg gk(x) or ai(k)(x) = 0 for all i and k.

Proof: We divide p(x) by q(x) and find unique polynomials G(x), H(x) in
K[x] with p(x) = q(x)G(x) + H(x), deg H(x) deg q(x) or H(x) = 0. In the
(k)
latter case, everything is proved (ai (x) = 0 for all i and k). If H(x) 0,
let v be the leading coefficient of H(x) and put c = v/u. Then H(x) and
q(x) are relatively prime (since p(x) and q(x) are). We have H(x) = vh(x),
where h(x) is monic, relatively prime to q(x) and

p(x) h(x)
= G(x) + c
q(x) q(x)

with deg h(x) deg q(x).. We may use Lemma 36.6 and get uniquely
determined nonzero polynomials b1(x), b2(x), . . . ,bt(x) in K[x] such that

h(x) b1(x) b2(x) b (x)

= + + ... + t
q(x) g (x)m1 g (x)m2 gt(x)mt
1 2

and deg bk(x) deg gk(x)mk for all k = 1,2,. . . ,t. We put fk(x) = cbk(x).
Then

p(x) f1(x) f2(x) f (x)

= G(x) + + + ... + t
q(x) g1(x)m1 g2(x)m2 gt(x)mt
and, since c is uniquely determined by p(x) and q(x),. the polynomials
fk(x) are also uniquely determined. Since
deg fk(x) = deg bk(x) deg gk(x)mk,
in the gk(x)-adic expansion
fk(x) = r0(x) + r1(x)gk(x) + r2(x)gk(x)2 + . . . + rn(x)gk(x)n

437
of fk(x), the polynomials rs(x) = 0 for s mk. So let

fk(x) = a1(k)(x)gk(x)mk 1 + a2(k)(x)gk(x)mk 2 + . . . + a(k)

m 1
(x)gk(x) + am (k)(x)
k k

be the gk(x)-adic expansion of fk(x). The polynomials a1(k),a2(k), . . . ,am (k)

k
(k) (k)
in K[x] are uniquely determined and deg ai deg gk(x) or ai = 0 for
all i = 1,2, . . . ,mk. Hence, for all k = 1,2, . . . ,t, there holds
fk(x) a1(k)(x) a2(k)(x) am (k)(x)
k
mk = 1 + 2 + ... +
gk(x) gk (x) gk (x) gkmk(x)

and this completes the proof.

a1(1)(x) a2(1)(x) am (1)(x)

p(x) 1
The equation = G(x) + 1 + 2 + ... +
q(x) g1 (x) g1 (x) g1m1 (x)
(2)
a1(2)(x) a2(2)(x) am (x)
2
+ + + ... +
g21(x) g22(x) g2m2 (x)
+ ......
a1(t)(x) a2(t)(x) am (t)(x)
t
+ 1 + 2 + ... +
gt (x) gt (x) gtmt(x)
p(x)
in Theorem 36.8 is known as the expansion of in partial fractions.
q(x)

Exercises

f
1. Let K be a field. For any nonzero rational function in K(x), we
g
f f f
define the degree of , denoted by deg , by deg = deg f deg g.
g g g
Prove that the degree of a rational function is well defined. Can you
extend the degree assertions in Lemma 33.3 to rational functions?

f
2. Let K be a field. For any rational function in K(x), we define the
g
f f
derivative of , denoted by ( )´, by declaring
g g

438
 (gf )´ = f´g
2
fg´ .
g
f a
Prove that differentiation is well defined, i.e., prove that = implies
g b
(gf )´ = (ab )´.

3. Extend Lemma 35.15 and Lemma 35.16 to derivatives of rational

functions in one indeterminate over a field.

2x3 + 3x2 + 8x + 6
4. Expand (x) and
(x3 + 3x + 3)(x2 + 2x + 3)

4x3 + 3x2 + x + 2
(x)
x5 + 4x4 + 4x3 + 2x + 2 5

in partial fractions.

5. Let K be a field and let a1,a2, . . . ,am be pairwise distinct elements in K.

Put g(x) = (x a1)(x a2). . . (x am) and let f(x) be a nonzero polynomial
in K[x] with deg f(x) m. Show that
f(x) m f(ai)/g´(ai)
= ∑ .
g(x) i=1
x a i

439
 §37
Irreducibility Criteria

In this paragraph, we develop some sufficient conditions for a

polynomial to be irreducible. In general, given a specific polynomial, it is
extremely difficult to determine whether it is irreducible. This is not
surprising when we remember that it is also exceedingly difficult to
determine whether a given specific integer is prime.

We start with Eisenstein's criterion, which is very simple to use (G.

Eisenstein, a German mathematician (1823-1852)).

37.1 Lemma (Eisenstein's criterion): Let D be a unique factorization

domain and let
f(x) = anxn + a n 1xn 1 + . . . + a1x + a0
be a nonzero polynomial in D[x] with C(f) 1. If there is a prime
(irreducible) element p in D such that

p an,
p a n 1,. . . . . . . . . , p a 1, p a 0,
p2 a0,
then f is irreducible over D.

Proof: Suppose, by way of contradiction, that f(x) is reducible over D.

Then its proper factors must have degrees 0, because C(f) 1. Assume
f(x) = g(x)h(x), where

g(x) = bmxm + bm 1xm 1 + . . . + b1x + b0 (bm 0, m 1)

h(x) = c xk + c xk 1 + . . . + c x + c
k k 1 1 0
(ck 0, k 1)

are polynomials in D[x].

Then a0 = b0c0. Since p a 0 and so p b0c0 by hypothesis and p is prime, we

see p b0 or p c 0. Here both p b0 and p c 0 cannot be simultaneously true,
for then we would have p2 b0c0, so p2 a 0, against our hypothesis. Thus
one and only one of p b0, p c 0 is true. Let us assume, without loss of
generality, that p b0 and p c 0.

440
Also an = bmck. Since p an and so p bmck by hypothesis, we have p bm.
Thus p b0 and p bm. Let r be the smallest index for which the coefficient
br in g(x) is not divisible by p, so that .
p b0, p b1, . . . , p br 1, p br (*)
(possibly r = 1 or r = m).

Now ar = (b0cr + b1c r 1 + . . . + br 1c1) + brc0, and r m m + k = n. So p a r

by hypothesis and p divides the expression in ( ) by (*), so p brc0. Then,
since p is prime, this forces p br or p c 0, whereas p br and p c 0. This
contradiction completes the proof..

37.2 Examples: (a) x5 + 5x + 5 [x] is irreducible over , because its

content is 1 and 5 1,
5 0, 5 0, 5 0, 5 5, 5 5,
52 5.

(b) Let D = [i] and f(x) = 3x3 + 2x2 + (4 2i)x + (1 + i) D[x]. Then D is a
unique factorization domain and C(f) 1. Moreover 1 + i D is a prime
element in D and
1+i 3
1 + i 2, 1 + i 4 2i, 1 + i 1 + i,
(1 + i)2 1 + i.
Hence f(x) is irreducible over D.

(c) Let D be a unique factorization domain and g(x,y) = xn y (D[y])[x].

The content of g is 1 D[y], since g is in fact a monic polynomial. Also, y
is irreducible in D[y] and
y 1
y 0, y 0, . . . , y 0, y y,
y2 y,
hence g(x,y) = xn + 0xn 1 + 0xn 2 + . . . + 0x y (D[y])[x] is irreducible
over D[y].

(d) Let p be a prime number and p(x) = xp 1 + xp 2 + . . . + x + 1

[x]. The polynomial p(x) is known as the p-th cyclotomic polynomial.
We show that p(x) is irreducible over . Eisenstein's criterion is not
directly applicable, but we observe that .
(x 1) p
(x) = xp 1,

441
and, when we substitute x + 1 for x in both sides of this equation, we get

p1
x p
(x + 1) = (x + 1)p 1= ∑ (pk)xp k
k=0

by the binomial theorem (Theorem 29.16), so

p p p
(x + 1) = xp 1 + (1 )xp 2 + (2 )xp 3 + . . . + (p-1 )
p

and we will try to apply Eisenstein's criterion to this polynomial. We

p
note p p!, so p (p k)!k!(k). Since p is relatively prime to (p k)! k!
p
when 1 k p 1, Theorem 5.12 gives p (k) for k = 1,2, . . . ,p 1. So
p 1,
p p p
p (1 ), p (2 ), . . . , p (p-1 ),
p
p2 (p-1 ),
and the content of p
(x + 1) = 1. Hence p
(x + 1) is irreducible over .

This implies that p(x) is also irreducible over , since p(x) is clearly
not a unit in [x] and any factorization p(x) = f(x)g(x) of p(x) into
nonunit polynomials f(x), g(x) [x] would give a factorization p(x + 1)
= f(x + 1)g(x + 1) = f1(x)g1(x) of p(x + 1) into nonunit polynomials f1(x),
g1(x) in [x], contrary to the irreducibility of p(x + 1) over .

The argument in the last example can be generalized.

37.3 Lemma: Let D be an integral domain, a unit in D and let be an

arbitrary element of D.
(1) The mapping T: D[x] D[x] is a ring isomorphism such that T =
f(x) f( x + )
for all D.
(2) deg f( x + ) = deg f(x) for any f(x) D[x]\{0} (that is, T preserves
degrees of polynomials).
(3) f(x) is irreducible over D if and only if f( x + ) is irreducible over D.
(4) If, in addition, D is a unique factorization domain, then C(f(x))
C(f( x + )) for any f(x) D[x]\{0} (that is, T preserves contents of poly-
nomials).

442
Proof: (1) The mapping T: f(x) f( x + ) is just the substitution
homomorphism T x+ (Lemma 35.3 with D, D[x], x + in place of R, S, s,
respectively). We are to show that T is one-to-one and onto. To this end,
we need only find an inverse of T (Theorem 3.17(2)). This is quite easy.
We are tempted to substitute (x )/ for x. This idea is correct, but we
must formulate it properly. Since is a unit in D, there is an inverse 1
of in D, and we put S: D[x] D[x]. Then we have
1
f(x) f( (x ))

f(x)TS = f( x + )S = f( ( 1
(x )) + ) = f(x)
f(x)ST = f( 1
(x ))T = f( 1
(( x + ) )) = f(x)

for all f(x) D[x]. Hence TS = D[x]

= ST and T is therefore an isomorphism.
Finally, polynomials of degree 0 and the polynomial 0 D[x] are not
effected by the substitution x x + and so T = for all D.

(2) For any f(x) D[x]\{0}, if deg f = n and

f(x) = anxn + a n 1xn 1 + . . . + a1x + a0
with an 0, we have
f( x + ) = an( x + )n + a n 1( x + )n 1 + . . . + a1( x + ) + a0
n n
= an x + terms of lower degree,
n
with an 0 as the leading coefficient. So deg f( x + ) = n, as claimed.

(3) If f(x) D[x]\{0} is not irreducible over D, then either f(x) is a unit in
D[x], hence f(x) D is a unit in D and f( x + ) = f(x) (by part (1)) is also
a unit in D and in D[x]; or f(x) = g(x)h(x) for some polynomials g(x), h(x)
in D[x] with 1 deg g(x) deg f(x), and then f( x + ) = g( x + )h( x +
) with g( x + ), h( x + ) D[x] and 1 deg g(x) = deg g( x + ) = deg
g(x) deg f(x) = deg f( x + ) (by part (2)), and thus f( x + ) has a
proper divisor. In either case, f( x + ) is not irreducible over D.

1
Repeating the same argument for the substitution x (x ), we
conclude: if f( x + ) is not irreducible over D, then f(x) is not irreducible
over D.

(4) Suppose now that D is a unique factorization domain, that f(x) =

anxn + a n 1xn 1 + . . . + a1x + a0, and that C(f(x)) . Then

n
f( x + ) = ( 0 )an n n
x + ((n1 )a n
n1 n
+ ( 0 )a n 1
n1
)x n1

443
 + ((n2 )an
n2 2 n
+ ( 1 )a n 1
n1 n
+ ( 0 )a n 2
n2
)x n2
+ ... .

A content of f( x + ) divides (n0 )an n

, hence an ( and n
is a unit);

and divides the coefficient of xn 1, hence (n0 )a n 1 n 1, hence a n 1;and

divides the coefficient of xn 2 , hence (n0 )a n 2 n 2, hence a n 2; etc.

Proceeding in this way, we see that divides all the coefficients of f(x).
Since C(f(x)), we obtain . The same argument with f( x + ), f(x), T 1
in place of f(x), f( x + ), T shows that . Thus , as was to be proved.

When C(f(x)) 1 but the divisibility conditions in Eisenstein's criterion

are not satisfied, we might attempt to find a unit and an element so
that f( x + ) will satisfy the divisibility conditions. If we succeed in
finding such , , then f( x + ) will be irreducible by Eisenstein's
criterion (as C(f( x + )) 1 by Lemma 37.3(4)) and f(x) will be
irreducible, too (by Lemma 37.3(3)). This is what we did in Example
37.2(d).

Eisenstein's criterion is a sufficient condition for irreducibility. It is not

necessary even if we extend it using Lemma 37.3(3). That is to say, f(x)
necesary,
may be irreducible and yet, for all units in D and for all elements in
D, the polynomial f( x + ) may fail to satisfy the divisibility conditions
in Eisenstein's criterion. In fact, a closer study of its proof reveals that
we are essentially reading the polynomials mod Dp, i.e., we are taking
the images of polynomials in D[x] under the mapping : D[x] (D/Dp)[x]
(see Lemma 33.7).

37.4 Lemma: Let D be an integral domain and let K be a field. Let

:D K be a ring homomorphism and let : D K be the homomorphism
of Lemma 33.7.
(1) If f D[x] and f = gh with g,h D[x], then f = g h .
(2) If f D[x]\D, deg f = deg f and f is irreducible in K[x], then f has no
divisors g in D[x] such that 0 deg g deg f.

Proof: (1) This follows from the fact that is a homomorphism.

444
(2) Suppose, on the contrary, that f = gh in D[x], with 0 deg g deg f.
Then f = g h by (1). Since f is irreducible in K[x], f 0, so g 0
h and either deg g = 0 or deg h = 0. We get then
deg f = deg g h = deg g + deg h
deg g + deg h deg g + deg h
deg g + deg h = deg gh = deg f = deg f ,
which forces deg g = deg g and deg h = deg h. Thus either deg g = 0 or
deg h = 0, and so either 0 = deg g or deg g = deg f, against our hypothesis
0 deg g deg f.

In Lemma 37.4, we relaxed the hypothesis on C(f) that was imposed in

Eisenstein's criterion. We pay for it, of course. Notice we did not claim
that f is irreducible over D. We claimed only that f has no proper factor
of positive degree less than deg f. Here f may have proper divisors, but
any factorization of f in D[x] has the form f = f1, where D and . deg f1
= deg f. .

37.5 Examples: (a) Let q(x) = x3 + x + 1 = 1x3 + 1x + 1 2

[x]. If q(x)
were reducible in 2[x], it would have a factor of degree 3/2, so a
factor of degree 1. So q(x) would have a root in 2 = {0,1} by the factor
theorem (Theorem 35.6). But q(0) = 1 0 and q(1) = 1 0,. so q(x) is
irreducible in 2[x].

Let f(x) = x3 + 2x2 + x + 7 [x]. Under the mapping : [x] 2

[x],
where : 2
is the natural homomorphism, we have
f = 1x3 + 2x2 + 1x + 7 = x3 + x + 1 = q(x) 2
[x],
and so f is irreducible over 2. By Lemma 37.4(2), f has no polynomial
divisors of degree 1, nor of degree 2. Since f does not have any divisors
of degree 0 either (C(f) 1), f is irreducible over .

(b) Lemma 37.4 can be useful even if f is not irreducible. The factori-
zation of f in K[x] gives us information about possible factors of f in D[x]
and restricts their number drastically.

445
As an illustration,. consider f(x) = x5 + 5x4 + 4x3 + 16x2 + 8x + 1 [x].
Under : [x] 3
[x], where : 3
is the natural homomorphism, we
have. (we drop the bars for ease of notation)
f = x5 + 2x4 + x3 + x2 + 2x + 1 3
[x]
= (x2 + 2x + 1)(x3 + 1)
= (x + 1)2(x + 1)(x2 x + 1)
= (x + 1)2(x + 1)(x2 + 2x + 1)
= (x + 1)5,
so any monic factor g of f in [x] with 1 deg g 2 satisfies
2
g =x+1 3
[x] or g = (x + 1) 3
[x]
( 3[x] is a unique factorization domain).

Does f [x] have a divisor of degree one? If it had, it would have a

rational root, and that root would be 1 or 1 by Theorem 35.10. Since
f(1) = 35 0 and f( 1) = 9 0, f has no rational root, and f has no divisor
of degree one.

Does f [x] have a divisor of degree two? If f has a monic divisor g =

2
g(x) =ax + bx + c [x] of degree two, then g = x2 + 2x + 1 3
[x], and
so a 1, b 2, c 1 (mod 3). Besides, a divides the leading coefficient of
f, and c divides the constant term in f: thus a 1 and c 1. So a = 1 and c =
1. Without restricting generality, we may assume a = 1. The possible
monic factors of f of second degree are therefore to be found among

gm(x) = x2 + (3m + 2)x + 1, hm(x) = x2 + (3m + 2)x 1 (m ).

We check if any gm or hm divides f. Supposing gm(x) f(x) in [x], we get

gm(1) f(1) in
3m + 4 35
3m + 4 {1,5,7,35, 1, 5, 7, 35}
3m + 4 = 1,7, 5, 35
3m + 2 = 1,5, 7, 37
gm(x) = x2 x + 1 or x2 + 5x + 1 or x2 + 7x + 1 or x2 + 37x + 1.

Testing these four polynomials in turn, we find x2 x + 1 does not divide

f(x), and x2 + 5x + 1 divides f(x); in fact f(x) = (x2 + 5x + 1)(x3 + 3x + 1). [If
none of the four polynomials divided f(x), we would repeat the argu-
ment with hm. In this way, we would find a divisor of f(x) or we would
show that f(x) is irreducible.] .

446
(c) Lemma 37.4 gives a very elegant proof of Eisenstein's criterion. in
case the underlying ring is a principal ideal domain. Suppose D is a
principal ideal domain and
f(x) = anxn + a n 1xn 1 + . . . + a1x + a0
is a nonzero polynomial in D[x] with C(f) 1 and p is a prime element D
such that

p an,
p a n 1,. . . . . . . . . , p a 1, p a 0,
p2 a0.
Since p is irreducible, the factor ring D/Dp is a field (Theorem 32.25). We
can use Lemma 37.4 with the natural homomorphism : D D/Dp. The
divisibility conditions on the coefficients of f imply
f = (an )xn, an D/Dp, an 0.
If f had a proper factorization f = gh in D[x], where 0 deg g n, we
would get
g h = f = (an )xn
hence g = b xr, h = c xs with 0 r n, 0 s n and b c = an .
Then the constant terms of g and h would be divisible by p, and p2
would be divide their product a0, contrary to the hypothesis.. Hence f is
irreducible over D..

The idea (that gm(x) f(x) gm(1) f(1) ) in Example 37.5(b) has been ex-
ploited by L. Kronecker (1823-1891). Let D be an integral domain and
let f(x) be an arbitrary nonzero polynomial in D[x]. To find out whether f
is irreducible over D, one must check whether g f or g f holds for all
polynomials g with deg g deg f. If D happens to be finite (and thus a
field; Theorem 31.1), there are finitely many g's with deg g deg f; and
the question whether f is irreducible over D can be decided by checking
g f for these the finitely many g's. If D is not finite, this argument does
not work, and we must, so it seems, check if g f for infinitely many
polynomials g D[x]. Kronecker showed that, if D is a unique
factorization do-main which possesses a finite number of units and if we
have a method for finding the irreducible factors of any given nonzero
element of D, then, to find out whether a given nonzero polynomial is
irreducible or not, we need check g f for only a finite number of
polynomials g in D[x].

447
His idea is that, if g(x) f(x) in D[x], then g(a) f(a) in D for any a D, and
that a polynomial g is determined uniquely if its values are known at
more than deg g elements of D (Lagrange's interpolation formula).

Let D be an infinite unique factorization domain. Asume there are

finitely many units in D, and assume that there is a method for finding
the irreducible factors of any given nonzero element of D. Let f be a
nonzero polynomial in D[x] of degree n. If n = 0, then f D and we can
.
find the irreducible factors of f in D by assumption. If n = 1, then f = cf1,
where c C(f) and f1 is an irreducible polynomial in D[x]. The irreducible
factors of c D can be found by assumption, and thus the irreducible
factors of f, too, can be found effectively. If n 2 and f is reducible,
there is a factor g D[x] of f with deg g n/2 (Lemma 33.3(3)). We put
m := [n/2]. We take m + 1 distinct elements a0,a1,a2, . . . ,am from D and
evaluate f(a0),f(a1),f(a2), . . . ,f(am) D. If any f(ai) happens to be 0 D,
then x ai is a factor of f (Theorem 35.6). Therefore we may assume that
f(a0),f(a1),f(a2), . . . ,f (am) are all distinct from zero. Each one of them has
finitely many divisors in D, because D is a unique factorization domain
assumed to be a method of finding
and D has finitely many units. There is asumed
these divisors. Let Ni be the number of factors of f(ai). A factor g of f
D[x] with deg g m satisfies one of the N0N1N2. . . Nm systems of
equations
g(a0) = c0, g(a1) = c1, g(a2) = c2, . . . , g(am) = cm, (†)
where c0,c1,c2, . . . ,cm run independently over the divisors of the elements
f(a0),f(a1),f(a2), . . . ,f (am), respectively. For each one of these N0N1N2. . . Nm
choices of c0,c1,c2, . . . ,cm, we build the unique polynomial g satisfying (†).
This is done by Lagrange's interpolation formula; but this formula re-
quires that the underlying ring be in fact a field. Thus Lagrange's inter-
polation formula gives us a list of N0N1N2. . . Nm polynomials g in F[x],
where F is the field of fractions of D, one for each choice c0,c1,c2, . . . ,cm of
the divisors of f(a0),f(a1),f(a2), . . . ,f (am).

From this list of polynomials, we delete those which are not in D[x]. If
any polynomial g remains, we divide f by g in F[x]. Then f = qg + r, with
q,r F[x]. If r 0 or r = 0 but q D[x], we delete g from our list. We
delete g from our list also the the polynomials which are units in D. If
any polynomial g survives, it is a factor of f. Otherwise, f is irreducible
over D.

448
When a proper divisor g of f is found in this way, the same procedure
can be applied to g and f/g. Repeating this process, we can find all irre-
ducible factors of f.

satisfies the conditions imposed on D in Kronecker's method. Thus the

irreducibility of a polynomial in [x] can be determined effectively. This
in turn implies that the irreducibility of a polynomial in [x][y] can be
determined effctively. By repeated application of Kronecker's method,
we can always decide . whether a given polynomial in [x1,x2, . . . ,xn] is
irreducible or reducible.. The same holds for polynomials in the rings
[i][x1,x2, . . . ,xn] and [ ][x1,x2, . . . ,xn].

Kronecker's method is very long and very cumbersome in any specific

case. However, it is important philosophically, because it assures that the
irreducibility or reducibility of a polynomial can be determined
effectively in a finite number of steps.

Exercises

1. Using Eisenstein's criterion, show that the following polynomials are

irreducible over the rings indicated:
x4 6x3 + 24x2 30x + 14 over ,
x4 + 6x3 42x2 + 57x + 78 over ,
3x5 + (21 i)x4 + (14 5i)x3 + ( 10 + 11i) over [i],
x5 7x4 + (3 + 2 )x3 + (2 )x + (1 4 ) over [ ].

2. Let f = x6 2x5 + 3x4 2x3 + 3x2 2x + 2 [x]. Either prove that f is

irreducible over or find all irreducible factors of f in [x].

3. Do Ex. 2 for the polynomials x4 2x3 2x2 + 15x + 30 and

x5 + 8x4 + 25x3 + 39x2 + 30x + 7 in [x].

449
 §38
Symmetric Polynomials

Let D be an integral domain and let f(x1,x2, . . . ,xm) D[x1,x2, . . . ,xm]. For
1 2 . . . m
any permutation = (i i . . . i ) in S m, the value of f at (xi ,xi , . . . ,xi )
1 2 m 1 2 m

is a polynomial f(xi ,xi , . . . ,xi ) in D[x1,x2, . . . ,xm], which we can shortly

1 2 m

denote by f (Definition 35.19). For example, if f(x,y,z) = x2 + y2 xz in

2 2 2 3
[x,y,z], then f(z,x,y) = z + x zy; and if g(x,y) = x xy + y in [x,y],
2 3
then g(y,x) = y yx + x [x,y]. In general, f(xi ,xi , . . . ,xi ) will be a
1 2 m
polynomial distinct from f(x1,x2, . . . ,xm).

38.1 Definition: Let D be an integral domain and let f(x1,x2, . . . ,xm) be a

polynomial in D[x1,x2, . . . ,xm]. If f(xi ,xi , . . . ,xi ) = f(x1,x2, . . . ,xm) for all
1 2 m
1 2 . . . m
permutations = (i i . . . i ) in S m, then f = f(x1,x2, . . . ,xm) is called a
1 2 m
symmetric polynomial in D[x1,x2, . . . ,xm]. We also say that f(x1,x2, . . . ,xm) is
symmetric in the indeterminates x1,x2, . . . ,xm.

The polynomials x + y, xy, x2 + y2, x3 + y3 are symmetric polynomials in

D[x,y]. Also, the polynomials x2 + y2 + z2 and xy + yz + zx are symmetric
polynomials in D[x,y,z].

The sum, difference and product of symmetric polynomials are

symmetric polynomials. Indeed, if f(x1,x2, . . . ,xm) and g(x1,x2, . . . ,xm) are
symmetric polynomials in D[x1,x2, . . . ,xm], and if
h(x1,x2, . . . ,xm) = f(x1,x2, . . . ,xm) + g(x1,x2, . . . ,xm)
1 2 . . . m
is their sum, then, for any permutation (i i . . . i ) in S m, we have
1 2 m
h(xi ,xi , . . . ,xi ) = f(xi ,xi , . . . ,xi ) + g(xi ,xi , . . . ,xi )
1 2 m 1 2 m 1 2 m
= f(x1,x2, . . . ,xm) + g(x1,x2, . . . ,xm)
= h(x1,x2, . . . ,xm),

450
and so h(x1,x2, . . . ,xm) is a symmetric polynomial. The same argument
works also when h = f g and h = fg. This proves

38.2 Lemma: Let D be an integral domain.. The symmetric polynomials

in D[x1,x2, . . . ,xm] form a subring of D[x1,x2, . . . ,xm].

We introduce a new indeterminate t and consider the polynomial

f(t) = (t x1)(t x2). . . (t xm) in D[x1,x2, . . . ,xm][t].

We see that x1,x2, . . . ,xm D[x1,x2, . . . ,xm] are the roots of f(t). We have

f(t) = tm 1
(x1,x2,. . . ,xm)tm 1 + 2
(x1,x2,. . . ,xm)tm 2 + . . . + ( 1)m m
(x1,x2,. . . ,xm)

for some 1
, 2
, ..., m
in D[x1,x2, . . . ,xm]. Since

f(t) = (t xi )(t xi ). . . (t xi )
1 2 m

= tm (x ,x ,. . . ,xi )tm 1 +
1 i i
(x ,x ,. . . ,xi )tm 2 + . . . + ( 1)m
2 i i m
(xi ,xi ,. . . ,xi )
1 2 m 1 2 m 1 2 m
1 2 . . . m
for any permutation (i i . . . i ) in S m, we have
1 2 m
(x ,x
j i i
,. . . ,xi ) = (x ,x
j 1 2
,. . . ,xm) for all j = 1,2, . . . ,m.
1 2 m

Thus 1
, 2
, ..., m
are symmetric polynomials in D[x1,x2, . . . ,xm].

38.3 Definition: Let D be an integral domain and let.

(t x1)(t x2). . . (t xm)
=t m
(x ,x ,. . . ,x )t
1 1
m1
+ (x ,x ,. . . ,x )tm 2 + . . . + ( 1)m
2 m 2 1 2 m
(x1,x2,. . . ,xm).
m
The symmetric polynomials 1, 2, . . . , m
are called the elementary
symmetric polynomials in D[x1,x2, . . . ,xm].

By routine computation, we find the elementary symmetric polynomials

in explicitly. For example,

1
= x + y, 2
= xy in D[x,y]

451
 1
= x + y + z, 2
= xy + yz + zx, 3
= xyz in D[x,y,z]

1
= x + y + z + u, 2
= xy + xz + xu + yz + yu + zu,
3
= xyz + xyu + xzu + yzu, 4
= xyzu in D[x,y,z,u]

are the elementary symmetric polynomials.

Notice that (t x1)(t x2). . . (t xm), when multiplied out, is a sum of

certain terms a1a2. . . am, where each ai is either t or one of x1, x2, . . . , xm.
The term ( 1)j j (x1,x2, . . . ,xm)tm j is the sum of those a1a2. . . am's for which
exactly m j of the a's are equal to t. Hence ( 1)j j (x1,x2, . . . ,xm) is the sum
of all products b1b2. . . bj , where b1,b2, . . . ,bj run independently over the

set { x1, x2, . . . , xm}. In other words, j

(x1,x2, . . . ,xm) is the sum of all (mj)
products of x1,x2, . . . ,xm, taken j at a time. Thus

1
= ∑ xi

2
= ∑ xixj

3
= ∑ xixj xk
..........................
m
= x1x2. . . xm.

Note that " j " stands for many polynomials. j in D[x1,x2, . . . ,xm] is distinct
from j in D[x1,x2, . . . ,xn] when m n. This ambiguity in notation will not
cause any confusion. if we pay attention to the number of indeterminates.
When confusion is likely, we write j (x1,x2, . . . ,xm) instead of j .

Now 1, 2, . . . , m are symmetric polynomials in D[x1,x2, . . . ,xm], and, by

reapeated application of Lemma 38.2, we conclude that g( 1, 2, . . . , m) is
also a symmetric polynomial,. where g is any polynomial in m indeter-
minates. Hence the set {g( 1, 2, . . . , m) : g D[u1,u2, . . . ,um]} consist only of
symmetric polynomials.. We will prove conversely that every symmetric
polynomial is in this set. (the subring of symmetric polynomials in
D[x1,x2, . . . ,xm] is the subring of D[x1,x2, . . . ,xm] generated by 1, 2, . . . , m).

38.4 Theorem. (Fundamendal theorem on symmetric polynomi-

als): Let D be an integral domain and f(x1,x2, . . . ,xm) a symmetric poly-

452
nomial in D[x1,x2, . . . ,xm]. Then there is a unique polynomial g(u1,u2,. . . ,um)
in D[u1,u2, . . . ,um] such that f is the value of g at ( 1, 2, . . . , m):

f(x1,x2, . . . ,xm) = g( 1, 2
, ..., m
) D[x1,x2, . . . ,xm].

Loosely speaking,. every symmetric polynomial is a polynomial in the

elementary symmetric polynomials 1, 2, . . . , m. We introduced new in-
determinates u1,u2, . . . ,um in order to distinguish clearly between g and
g( 1, 2, . . . , m).

For example, f(x,y) = x2 + y2 [x,y] is a symmetric polynomial, and we

2 2 2
have x + y = (x + y) 2xy = 12 2 2. Hence f(x,y) = g( 1, 2), where
g(u,v) = u2 2v [u,v]. Likewise, if f(x,y,z) is the symmetric polynomial
x y + xy + x z + xz + y2z + yz2 in [x,y,z], we have
2 2 2 2

f(x,y,z) = (x + y + z)(xy + yz + zx) 3xyz = 1 2 3

.. Thus f(x,y,z) =
g( 1, 2, 3), where g(u,v,w) = uv 3w [u,v,w].

The proof of the fundemental theorem requires some preparation.. First

we need an ordering of m-tuples. Given any two m-tuples (r1,r2, . . . ,rm),
(s1,s2, . . . ,sm) of nonnegative integers, we will say (r1,r2, . . . ,rm) is higher
than (s1,s2, . . . ,sm), or (s1,s2, . . . ,sm) is lower than (r1,r2, . . . ,rm) when r1 s1.
If r1 = s1, we will say (r1,r2, . . . ,rm) is higher than (s1,s2, . . . ,sm), or
(s1,s2, . . . ,sm) is lower than (r1,r2, . . . ,rm) when r2 s2. If r1 = s1 and r2 = s2,
we will compare r3 and s3, etc. This is very much like the ordering of
words alphabetically, and. will be referred to as the alphabetical or
lexigographical ordering of m-tuples. Stated differently, (r1,r2, . . . ,rm) is
higher than (s1,s2, . . . ,sm) if and only if the first nonzero difference
among.
r1 s1, r2 s2, . . . , rm sm
is positive. Clearly, if (r1,r2, . . . ,rm) is higher than (s1,s2, . . . ,sm) and
(s1,s2, . . . ,sm) is higher than (t1,t2, . . . ,tm), then (r1,r2, . . . ,rm) is higher than
(t1,t2, . . . ,tm).

Now let f be a polynomial in D[x1,x2, . . . ,xm]. So f is a sum of monomials

ax1k1 x2k2 . . . xmkm, where a D and (k1,k2, . . . ,km) is an m-tuple of nonnega-
tive integers. Here there may be several monomials ax1k1 x2k2 . . . xmkm,
bx1k1 x2k2 . . . xmkm, cx1k1 x2k2 . . . xmkm, etc. with the same exponent system
(k1,k2, . . . ,km). In this case, we collect these monomials into a single one

453
(a + b + c + . . . )x1k1 x2k2 . . . xmkm. We assume this has been done for each of
the exponent systems, so that each m-tuple (k1,k2, . . . ,km) occurs as an
exponent system of a monomial at most once. If, after this collection
process, a monomial ax1k1 x2k2 . . . xmkm occuring in f has a nonzero coeffi-
cient a D, we will say that a appears in f.

Let us now assume f 0. We order the monomials appearing in f by the

alphabetical ordering of their exponent systems. First we write the
monomial appearing in f whose exponent system is highest (i.e., higher
than the exponent systems of all other monomials appearing in f).
Among the remaining monomials appearing in f, we find the one with
the highest exponent system and write it in the second place. Among the
remaining monomials appearing in f, the one with the highest exponent
system will be written it in the third place, and so on. In this ordering of
monomials, the one that is written in the first place, that is to say, the
one with the highest exponent system will be called the leading mono-
mial of the nonzero polynomial f D[x1,x2, . . . ,xm].. Note that the coeffi-
cients of monomials play no role in this ordering. Only the exponent
systems are relevant.

For instance, f(x,y,z) = xz5 + z7 + 2x3 + 5x2y + 100x2y2 x2y2z [x,y,z]

3 2 2 2 2 2 5 7
will be written as 2x x y z + 100x y + 5x y + xz + z when we order
the monomials in the described manner. The leading monomial of f(x,y,z)
is 2x3.

38.5 Lemma: Let D be an integral domain and f,g D[x1,x2, . . . ,xm]\{0}.

k1 k2 km
If ax1 x2 . . . xm is the leading monomial of f and bx1 x2n2 . . . xmnm is the
n1

leading monomial of g, then abx1k1 + n1 x2k2 + n2 . . . xmkm+ nm is the leading

monomial of fg.

Proof: By hypothesis, a 0, b 0, so ab 0. Now fg 0 and fg is the sum

of all products (cx1r1 x2r2 . . . xmrm)(dx1s1 x2s2 . . . xmsm), where cx1r1 x2r2 . . . xmrm and
dx1s1 x2s2 . . . xmsm run through all monomials appearing in f and g,
respectively. We contend that, among all these products, the highest
exponent system is (k1 + n1,k2 + n2, . . . ,km + nm), and that this exponent

454
system arises only from the product (ax1k1 x2k2 . . . xmkm)(bx1n1 x2n2 . . . xmnm).
This will imply

fg = abx1k1 + n1 x2k2 + n2 . . . xmkm+ n

+ [a sum of monomials, each with an exponent
system lower than (k1 + n1,k2 + n2, . . . ,km + nm)],
and, since ab 0, the leading monomial of fg will be equal to
abx1k1 + n1 x2k2 + n2 . . . xmkm+ nm.

To prove our contention, let cx1r1 x2r2 . . . xmrm be a monomial appearing in f

and let dx1s1 x2s2 . . . xmsm be one appearing in g, but assume that either
cx1r1 x2r2 . . . xmrm is distinct from ax1k1 x2k2 . . . xmkm or dx1s1 x2s2 . . . xmsm is
distinct from bx1n1 x2n2 . . . xmnm. We are to show that the exponent system
(r1 + s1,r2 + s2, . . . ,rm + sm) is lower than (k1 + n1,k2 + n2, . . . ,km + nm). Now
(r1,r2, . . . ,rm) is lower than (k1,k2, . . . ,km) or equal to it, and (s1,s2, . . . ,sm) is
lower than (n1,n2, . . . ,nm) or equal to it, but the case of simultaneous
equality is excluded. Hence the first nonzero integer in
k1 r1, k2 r2, . . . , km rm
is positive, or (k1,k2, . . . ,km) = (r1,r2, . . . ,rm), and the first nonzero integer
in n1 s1, n2 s2, . . . , nm sm
is positive, or (n1,n2, . . . ,nm) = (s1,s2, . . . ,sm). Since simultaneous equality is
excluded, there are nonzero integers in
(k1 r1) + (n1 s1), (k2 r2) + (n2 s2), . . . , (km rm) + (nm sm)
and the first of them, being a sum of two positive integers or a sum of a
positive integer and zero, is certainly positive. This means that
(k1 + n1,k2 + n2, . . . ,km + nm) is higher than (r1 + s1,r2 + s2, . . . ,rm + sm).

Since the exponent system (k1 + n1,k2 + n2, . . . ,km + nm) does arise from
the product (ax1k1 x2k2 . . . xmkm)(bx1n1 x2n2 . . . xmnm), it is indeed the highest
exponent system of all the products (cx1r1 x2r2 . . . xmrm)(dx1s1 x2s2 . . . xmsm)
where cx1r1 x2r2 . . . xmrm and dx1s1 x2s2 . . . xmsm run through all monomials
appearing in f and g, respectively. This proves our contention, and also
the lemma.

By induction, we obtain

455
38.6 Lemma: Let D be an integral domain and f1,f2, . . . ,ft be nonzero
polynomials in D[x1,x2, . . . ,xm]. Then the leading monomial of f1f2. . . ft is
the product of the leading monomials of f1,f2, . . . ,ft.
38.7 Lemma: Let D be an integral domain, a D\{0}, and let 1, 2, . . . , m
be the elementary symmetric polynomials in D[x1,x2, . . . ,xm].
If k1 k2 k3 ... km 0 are integers, then the leading monomial
k1 k2 k2 k3
of a 1 2
. . . mkm-1
1
km km
m
is ax1k1 x2k2 . . . xkmm-11xmkm.

Proof: The leading monomials of 1

, 2
, 3
, 4
, ..., m
are respectively x1,

x1x2, x1x2x3, x1x2x3x4, . . . , x1x2. . . xm, because j

is a sum of (mj) monomials,
each of which is a product of j indeterminates from x1,x2, . . . ,xm. In view
k1 k2 k2 k3
of Lemma 38.6, the leading monomial of a 1 2
. . . mkm-1
1
km km
m
is

a(x1)k1 k2 (x1x2)k2 k3 (x1x2x3)k3 k4 . . . (x1x2x3. . . xm 1)km-1 km(x1x2x3. . . xm 1xm)km

= ax1k1 x2k2 . . . xkmm-11xmkm.

We need one more lemma for the proof of the fundamental theorem.

38.8 Lemma: Let D be an integral domain and let f(x1,x2, . . . ,xm) be a

nonzero symmetric polynomial in D[x1,x2, . . . ,xm]. Let ax1k1 x2k2 . . .xmkm be
the leading monomial of f (here a D, a 0 and k1,k2, . . . ,km are nonne-
gative integers).
(1) We have k1 k2 ... km km.
1
(2) If bx1r1 x2r2 . . .xmrm is a monomial appearing in f, then
k1 r1, k1 r2, . . . , k1 rm.

Proof: Let be any permutation in S m and let be the inverse of .

(1) As ax1k1 x2k2 . . .xmkm appears in f(x1,x2, . . . ,xm),
k1 k2 km
ax1 x2 . . .xm appears in f(x1 ,x2 , . . . ,xm ) = f = f = f(x1,x2, . . . ,xm),
ax1k1 x2k2 . .xmkm appears in f(x1,x2, . . . ,xm),
and, since ax1k1 x2k2 . . .xmkm is the leading monomial of f, we obtain:

for all S m, (k1,k2, . . . ,km) is higher than or equal to (k1 ,k2 , . . . ,km ).

Using this with = (12) S m, we see (k1,k2, . . . ,km) is higher than or

equal to (k2,k1, . . . ,km), so k1 k2. And = (23) yields that (k1,k2,k3 . . .

456
,km) is higher than or equal to (k1,k3,k2, . . . ,km), so k2 k3. In like
manner, when we choose = (34), . . . , (m 1,m) S m, we get k3 k4, . . .
,km 1 km. This proves (1)..

(2) As bx1r1 x2r2 . . .xmrm appears in f(x1,x2, . . . ,xm),

r1 r2 rm
bx1 x2 . . .xm appears in f(x1 ,x2 , . . . ,xm ) = f = f = f(x1,x2, . . . ,xm),
bx1r1 x2r2 . . .xmrm appears in f(x1,x2, . . . ,xm),
and so:

for all S m, (k1,k2, . . . ,km) is higher than or equal to (r1 ,r2 , . . . ,rm ).

Thus k1 r1 for all S m. Here 1 assumes all values 1,2, . . . ,m as

runs through S m, and hence k1 r1, k1 r2, . . . , k1 rm.

Proof of the fundamental theorem: Throughout the proof, the num-

ber m of the indeterminates will be fixed. We make induction on the
exponent system of the leading monomial of the symmetric polynomial.
This will be explained shortly.

Let f be a nonzero symmetric polynomial in D[x1,x2, . . . ,xm] and let

ax1k1 x2k2 . . .xmkm be its leading monomial.

First we claim: if (k1,k2, . . . ,km) = (0,0, . . . ,0), then there is a polynomial g

in m indeterminates u1,u2, . . . ,um over D such that f(x1,x2, . . . ,xm) is equal
to g( 1, 2, . . . , m). This is very easy to prove. Indeed, if (k1,k2, . . . ,km) =
(0,0, . . . ,0), then, by Lemma 38.2(2),. the exponent system of any mono-
mial appearing in f is (0,0, . . . ,0),. so f is the constant polynomial a in
D[x1,x2, . . . ,xm]. Then of course f(x1,x2, . . . ,xm) = g( 1, 2, . . . , m), where g is
the constant polynomial a in D[u1,u2, . . . ,um].

Now suppose that (k1,k2, . . . ,km) is higher than (0,0, . . . ,0) and that, for
any nonzero symmetric polynomial f1 D[x1,x2, . . . ,xm] whose leading
monomial has a lower exponent system than (k1,k2, . . . ,km), there is a
polynomial g1 in D[u1,u2, . . . ,um] such that f1(x1,x2, . . . ,xm) = g1( 1, 2, . . . , m).
Under this assumption,. we will prove the existence of a polynomial g in
D[u1,u2, . . . ,um] with f(x1,x2, . . . ,xm) = g( 1, 2, . . . , m). This will establish the
fundamental theorem. because (0,0, . . . ,0) is the lowest possible exponent
system and the theorem has been proved in this case above.. Moreover,

457
as there are only a finite number of m-tuples lower than (k1,k2, . . . ,km),
the method of proof can be used. effectively to find the polynomial g ex-
plicitly in concrete cases. [Basicly, we write the m-tuples L1,L2,L3, . . . in
alphabetical order and prove that . (1) the theorem is true for all nonzero
symmetric polynomials. whose leading monomials have the exponent
system L1 = (0,0, . . . ,0) and that (2) for any s 1, if the theorem is true
for all nonzero symmetric polynomials. whose leading monomials have
exponent systems equal to one of L1,L2, . . . Ls 1, then the theorem is also
true for all nonzero symmetric polynomials. whose leading monomials
have the exponent system Ls. Once the leading monomial of a symmetric
polynomial is given, there can be only a finite number of exponent
systems of monomials appearing in that symmetric polynomial (Lemma
38.8(2).]

By Lemma 38.8(1), the integers k1 k2, k2 k3, . . . , km km 1, km are non-

k1 k2 k2 k3 km-1 km km
negative and, by Lemma 38.7, the polynomial a 1 2
. .. m 1 m
k1 k2 k2 k3 km-1 km km
has the same leading monomial as f. Let f1= f a .. 1 2
. m 1 m
.
Thus f1 is a symmetric polynomial in D[x1,x2, . . . ,xm]. If f1 = 0, then f =
k1 k2 k2 k3
a 1 2
. . . mkm-1
1
km km
m
and f = g( 1, 2, . . . , m), where g =
k1 k2 k2 k3 km-1 km km
au1 u2 . . . um 1 um D[u1,u2, . . . ,um], and the proof
is completed in
this case. If f1 0, then f1 has a leading monomial. The exponent system
of this leading monomial of f1 is the exponent system of a monomial ap-
pearing in f or in a k11 k2 k22 k3 . . . mkm-1
1
km km
m
(or in both). This exponent
system is distinct from (k1,k2, . . . ,km). Since it arises from a monomial
k1 k2 k2 k3
appearing in f or in a 1 2
. . . mkm-1
1
km km
m
, it is lower than the common
exponent system (k1,k2, . . . ,km) of the leading monomials of f and
a k11 k2 k22 k3 . . . mkm-1
1
km km
m
. By hypothesis, there is a polynomial g1 in
D[u1,u2, . . . ,um] such that f1(x1,x2, . . . ,xm) = g1( 1, 2, . . . , m). Hence
k1 k2 k2 k3
f = f1 + a 1 2
. . . mkm-1
1
km km
m
k1 k2 k2 k3
= g1( 1, 2
, . . . , m) + a 1 2
. . . mkm-1
1
km km
m
and there is a polynomial g in D[u1,u2, . . . ,um], namely
g1 + auk11 k2 u2k2 k3 . . . ukmm-11 km um
km
,
such that f(x1,x2, . . . ,xm) = g( 1, 2, . . . , m).

This completes the proof of the existence of g.. It remains to show the
uniqueness of g.. Suppose now f is a nonzero symmetric polynomial in
D[x1,x2, . . . ,xm] and assume that g,h D[u1,u2, . . . ,um] with g( 1, 2, . . . , m) =
f(x1,x2, . . . ,xm) = h( 1, 2, . . . , m). If g were distinct from h, then g h 0

458
would have a leading monomial. which we may write in the form
u1s1 s2 u2s2 s3 . . . umsm-1 sm
umsm , where s1 s2 ... sm 1 sm. Then 0 = f f
1
= g( 1, 2, . . . , m) h( 1, 2, . . . , m) in D[x1,x2, . . . ,xm] would have a leading
monomial bx1s1 x2s2 . . .xsmm-11xmsm, a contradiction. Hence g = h, as was to be
proved.

The fundamental theorem can be summarized by saying that the

substitution mapping
T: D[x1,x2, . . . ,xm] S
g(u1,u2, . . . ,um) g( 1, 2, . . . , m)
is a ring isomorphism, where S is the subring of D[x1,x2, . . . ,xm] consisting
of the symmetric polynomials in D[x1,x2, . . . ,xm].

38.9 Examples: (a) We express the polynomial

f(x,y,z) = 5xyz + x2y + xy2 + xz2 + yz2 + y2z + x2z [x,y,z]
in terms of 1, 2, 3.
We first arrange the monomials appearing in f in the alphabetical order
of their exponent systems:
f(x,y,z) = x2y + x2z + xy2 + 5xyz + xz2 + y2z + yz2.
The leading monomial of f is 1x2y1z0. We therefore subtract 1 12 1 21 0 30
from f and get
f 1 2
= (x2y + x2z + xy2 + 5xyz + xz2 + y2z + yz2) (x + y + z)(xy + yz + zx)
= 2xyz.
The leading monomial of f 1 2
is 2x1y1z1. So we subtract 2 1
11
2
11
3
1

from f 1 2
and get
(f 1 2
) 2 3
= 2xyz 2xyz = 0.
Hence f(x,y,z) = 1 2 + 2 3.
(b) We express
f(x,y,z,w) = x3 + y3 + z3 + w3 [x,y,z]
in terms of 1, 2, 3, 4. The monomials are in alphabetical order, and the
leading monomial of f is 1x3y0z0w0. So we subtract 1 1
30
2
00
3
00
4
0

from f and get

3
f 1
= (x3 + y3 + z3 + w3) (x + y + z + w)3
= ......
= 3x2y 3xy2 3x2z 3xz2 3x2w 3xw2 3y2z 3yz2
3y2w 3yw2 3z2w 3zw2 6xyz 6xyw 6xzw 6yzw.

459
 3
The leading monomial of f 1
is 3x2y = 3x2y1z0w0. We therefore
21 10 00 0 3
subtract 3 1 2 3 4
from f 1
and get
3 3
(f 1
) ( 3 1 2
) = (f ) + 3(x + y + z + w)(xy + xz + xw + yz + yw + zw)
1
= ......
= 3xyz + 3xyw + 3xzw + 3yzw
= 3 3.
3
Hence f(x,y,z,w) = 1
3 1 2
+3 3
.

We now derive formulas connecting the sum of the k-th powers of

x1,x2, . . . ,xm with the elementary symmetric polynomials.. These formulas
are due to I. Newton (1642-1727).

38.10 Theorem (Newton): Let D be an integral domain and x1,x2, . . .

,xm indeterminates over D. For k = 1,2,3, . . . , we put sk = x1k + x2k + . . . +
xmk, so that sk D[x1,x2, . . . ,xm]. Then
0 = s1 1
0 = s2 s +2 2
1 1
0 = s3 s + 2s1 3 3
1 2
............................................................
0 = sm 1
s
1 m 2
+ 2sm 3 + . . . + ( 1)m 2 m 2s1 + ( 1)m 1(m 1) m 1

and

0 = sm s
1 m 1
+ s
2 m 2
+ . . . + ( 1)m 2 s + ( 1)m 1
m 2 2
s + ( 1)mm
m 1 1 m

0 = sm+1 s +
1 m
s
2 m 1
+ . . . + ( 1)m 2 s + ( 1)m 1
m 2 3
s + ( 1)m
m 1 2
s
m 1

0 = sm+2 s
1 m+1
+ 2 m
s + ... + ( 1)m 2 s + ( 1)m 1
m 2 4
s + ( 1)m
m 1 3
s
m 2

0 = sm+3 s
1 m+2
+ s
2 m+1
+ . . . + ( 1)m 2 s + ( 1)m 1
m 2 5
s + ( 1)m
m 1 4
s
m 3
............................................................ .

Proof: We make use of the polynomial f(t) = (t x1)(t x2). . . (t xm). We

know that

f(t) = tm tm 1 + tm 2 . . . + ( 1)m 1 t + ( 1)m

1 2 m 1 m

460
and that x1,x2, . . . ,xm are the roots of f(t) D[x1,x2, . . . ,xm]. Hence

0 = xim x m 1+ xm2 . . . + ( 1)m 1 x + ( 1)m

1 i 2 i m 1 i m

for all i = 1,2, . . . ,m. Multiplying both sides of this equation by xij , where
j = 0,1,2,3, . . . , we get
0 = xim+ j x m+ j 1 + x m+ j 2 . . . + ( 1)m 1 x j+1 + ( 1)m xj
1 i 2 i m 1 i m i

for all i = 1,2, . . . ,m. Adding these m equations side by side, we obtain 0
=

m m m m
∑ xim+ j x m+ j 1
1∑ i
+ x m+ j 2
2∑ i
+ . . . + ( 1)m 1 x j+1
m 1∑ i
+ (
i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1

m
1)m xj
m∑ i
i=1

i.e.,

0 = sm+ j s
1 m+ j 1
+ s
2 m+ j 2
+ . . . + ( 1)m 2 s
m 2 j+2
+ ( 1)m 1 s
m 1 j+1
+ (
m
1) s.
m j

This establishes all the equations except the first m 1 of them. The first
m 1 equations will be established by a similar reasoning. This time we
make use of the derivative of f(t). By Lemma 35.16(2), we have

f´(t) = (t x2)(t x3). . . (t xm) + (t x1)(t x3). . . (t xm) + . . . + (t x1)(t x2). . . (t xm 1)

f(t) + f(t) + . . . + f(t) .

=
t x1 t x2 t xm

For i = 1,2, . . . ,m, we put

f(t)
= qm(i)1tm 1 + qm(i)2tm 2 + . . . + q(i)
1
t + q(i)
0
.
t xi

Hence mtm 1 (m 1) 1tm 2 + (m 2) 2tm 3 + . . . + ( 1)m 1 m 1

= f´(t)
m f(t) m
= ∑ t xi
= ∑ (qm(i)1tm 1 + qm(i)2tm 2 + . . . + q(i)
1
t + q(i)
0 )
i=1 i=1
m m m m
= ( ∑ qm(i)1)tm 1 + ( ∑ qm(i)2)tm 2 + . . . + ( ∑ q(i)
1 )
t + ( ∑ q(i)
0 )
,
i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1

so that

461
 m m m
m= ∑ qm(i)1, (m 1) 1
= ∑ qm(i)2, . . . , ( 1)m 22 m 2
= ∑ q(i)
1
,
i=1 i=1 i=1
m
( 1)m 1 m 1
= ∑ q(i)
0
. (*)
i=1

On the other hand, tm 2

tm 2 + . . . + ( 1)m 1 m 1t + ( 1)m m
1
tm 1 +
= f(t) = (t xi)(qm(i)1tm 1 + qm(i)2tm 2 + . . . + q(i)
1
t + q(i)
0
)
= qm(i)1tm + qm(i)2tm 1 + qm(i)3tm 2 + . . . + q(i)
1
t2 + q(i) 0
t
qm(i)1xitm 1 qm(i)2xitm 2 . . . q(i) x t2
2 i
q(i)
1 i
x t q(i)
0 i
x.
Comparing the coefficients of powers of t on both sides, we get

1 = qm(i)1

1
= qm(i)2 qm(i)1xi
+ 2
= qm(i)3 qm(i)2xi

3
= qm(i)4 qm(i)3xi
............
m1
( 1) m 1
= q(i)
0
q(i)x
1 i
m
( 1) m
= q(i)
0 i
x,

which may be written

qm(i)1 = 1
qm(i)2 = 1
+ qm(i)1xi
qm(i)3 = + 2
+ qm(i)2xi
qm(i)4 = 3
+ qm(i)3xi
............
q(i)
0
= ( 1)m 1 m 1
+ q(i)
1 i
x
0 = ( 1)m m
+ q(i)
0 i
x.

So, for each i = 1,2, . . . ,m,

qm(i)2 = 1
+ xi
(1)
qm(i)3 = + 2
+( 1
+ xi)xi = 2
x + xi2
1 i
(2)
qm(i)4 = 3
+( 2 1 i
x + xi2)xi = 3
+ x
2 i
x 2 + xi3
1 i
(3)
..............................
q(i)
0
= ( 1)m 1 m 1 + (( 1)m 2 m 2
+ ( 1)m 3 x + . . . + ( 1)
m 3 i 1 i
x m 3 + xim 2)xi

462
 = ( 1)m 1 m 1
+ ( 1)m 2 m 2 i
x + ( 1)m 3 m 3 i
x 2 + . . . + ( 1) x m 2 + xim.
1 i
(m
1)

We now the m equations (1), the m equations (2), the m equations (3),. . .
, the m equations (m 1) (for i = 1,2, . . . ,m). Using (*), we get

(m 1) 1
= m 1
+ s1

+(m 2) 2
= +m 2 1 1
s + s2

(m 3) 3
= m 3
+ 2 1
s 1 2
s + s3
.............................

( 1)m 1 m 1
= ( 1)m 1m m1
+( 1)m 2 m2 1
s +( 1)m 3 m3 2
s + . . . + ( 1) 1sm 2 + sm 1,

which are equivalent to

s1 1
=0
s2 s +2 2=0
1 1
s3 s + 2s1 3
1 2 3
=0
........................
sm 1
s
1 m 2
+ 2sm 3 + . . . + ( 1)m 2 m 2 1
s + ( 1)m 1(m 1) m 1
= 0.

This completes the proof.

Newton's formulas express sk recursively in terms of s1,s2, . . . ,sk 1 and of

, , . . . , m. We can eliminate s1,s2, . . . ,sk 1 and write sk solely in terms of
1 2
, , . . . , m. For instance:
1 2

s1 = 1
2
s2 = 1 1
s 2 2
= 1 1
2 2
= 1
2 2
2 3
s3 = 1 2
s 2 1
s +3 3
= 1
( 1
2 2
) 2 1
+3 3
= 1
3 1 2
+3 3
3 2
s4 = 1 3
s 2 2
s + 3 1
s 4 4
= 1
( 1
3 1 2
+3 3
) 2
( 1
2 2
)+ 3 1
4 4
4 2 2
= 1 4 1 2
+4 1 3
+2 2
4 4
(here j
should be replaced by 0 when j m).

Now let D,E be integral domains and D E. Let

p(t) = c0tm + c1tm 1 + . . . + c m 1t + cm
be a nonzero polynomial of degree m in D[t],. and assume that there are
exactly m roots a1,a2, . . . ,am of p in E (counted with multiplicities). Then

463
 p(t) = c0(t a1)(t a2). . . (t am) in E[t].
Hence p(t) E[t] is obtained from.
c0f(t) = c0(t x1)(t x2). . . (t xm) D[x1,x2, . . . ,xm][t]
by substituting ai for xi (i = 1,2, . . . ,m). Now c0f(t) =
c0(tm 1
(x1,x2, . . . ,xm)tm 1 + 2
(x1,x2, . . . ,xm)tm 2 + . . . + ( 1)m m
(x1,x2, . . . ,xm))
and, since substitution is a homomorphism (Lemma 35.20), we have
p(t) =
c0(t m
(a ,a , . . . ,am)tm 1 + 2(a1,a2, . . . ,am)tm 2 + . . . + ( 1)m m(a1,a2, . . .
1 1 2
,am)).

Therefore c1 = c0 1
(a1,a2, . . . ,am)
c2 = +c0 (a ,a , . . . ,am)
2 1 2
c3 = c0 (a ,a , . . . ,am)
3 1 2
...............
cm 1
= ( 1)m 1 m 1(a1,a2, . . . ,am)
cm = ( 1)m m(a1,a2, . . . ,am);
in words: the values. of the elementary symmetric polynomials at the
roots of a polynomial. are equal to the coefficients of that polynomial,
except for a factor c0, where c0 is the leading coefficient of the poly-
nomial. The equations above tell us that (i) i(a1,a2, . . . ,am) belong to D if
c0 is a unit in D; (ii) i(a1,a2, . . . ,am) belong to the field of fractions of D in
any case; (iii) in particular, i(a1,a2, . . . ,am) belong to D if D is a field.
Moreover, if h(x1,x2, . . . ,xm) D[x1,x2, . . . ,xm] is a symmetric polynomial,
then h(x1,x2, . . . ,xm) = g( 1, 2, . . . , m) for some polynomial in m
indeterminates over D, and substitution yields.
h(a1,a2, . . . ,am) = g ( 1(a1,a2, . . . ,am), 2(a1,a2, . . . ,am), . . . , m(a1,a2, . . . ,am))
so that (i) h(a1,a2, . . . ,am) belongs to D if c0 is a unit in D; (ii) h(a1,a2, . . . ,am)
belongs to the field of fractions of D in any case; (iii) h(a1,a2, . . . ,am) belongs
to D if D is a field. We summarize this discussion in the next theorem..

38.11 Theorem: Let D be an integral domain and let

p(t) = c0tm + c1tm 1 + . . . + c m 1t + cm a polynomial over D. Assume that p(t)
has exactly m roots a1,a2, . . . ,am in an integral domain containing D.

(1) ci = ( 1)i m
(a1,a2, . . . ,am) for i = 1,2, . . . ,m.

464
(2) If h is any symmetric polynomial in m indeterminates over D,. then
h(a1,a2, . . . ,am), which is an element of the integral domain containing the
roots of p(t), is in fact an element of the field of fractions of D. .
(3) If, in addition, the leading coefficient of p(t) is a unit in D,. then
h(a1,a2, . . . ,am) belongs to D.
(4) If, in particular, D is a field, then h(a1,a2, . . . ,am) belongs to D.

It is true that any nonzero polynomial of degree m over an integral do-

main D has exactly m roots in some integral domain containing D. This
will be proved later (Theorem 53.6). In the following examples, we will
assume that the polynomials have as many roots as their degrees in
some integral domain.

Examples: (a) Let us evaluate a 2b2 + a 2c 2 + a 2d2 + b2c 2 + b2d2 + c 2d2,

where a,b,c,d are the roots of t4 t2 + 1 [t]. To this end, we express
the symmetric polynomial x2y2 + x2z2 + x2u2 + y2z2 + y2u2 + z2u2 in terms
of 1, 2, 3, 4. Subtracting 1 21 2 22 0 03 0 04 from this polynomial, we get

(x2y2 + . . . + z2u2) 2
2
= 2x2yz ... 6xyzu,
and (x2y2 + . . . + z2u2) 2
2
( 221 11 10 0
1 2 3 4
)= . . . = 0,
so x2y2 + x2z2 + x2u2 + y z + 2 2
y2u2 + z2u2 = 22 1 3
.
Then a 2b2 + a 2c 2 + a 2d2 + b2c 2 + b d + c d 2 2 2 2

= (ab + ac + ad + bc + bd + cd)2 2(a + b + c + d)(abc + abd + acd + bcd).

Here a,b,c,d are the roots of t4 t2 + 1, so
a + b + c + d = 0, ab + ac + ad + bc + bd + cd = +( 1),
abc + abd + acd + bcd = 0, abcd = +1
and therefore a 2b2 + a 2c 2 + a 2d2 + b2c 2 + b2d2 + c 2d2 = ( 1)2 2(0)(0) = 1.

(b) We find a polynomial of degree three in [t] whose roots are the
cubes of the roots of t3 + 2t2 + 3t + 4 [t]. Let us denote the roots of
this polynomial by a,b,c, so that a + b + c = 2, ab + ac + bc = 3, abc = 4.
We put t3 + q1t2 + q2t + q3 = (t a 3)(t b3)(t c 3).
From Theorem 38.11, we know that
q1 = a 3 + b3 + c 3, q2 = a 3b3 + a 3c 3 + b3c 3, q3 = a 3b3c 3.
3
Since s3 = 1
3 1 2
+3 3
, we conclude
q1 = a 3 + b + c 3
3

465
 = (a + b + c)3 3(a + b + c)(ab + ac + bc) + 3(abc)
= ( 2)3 3( 2)(3) + 3( 4)
= 2.
We find easily that x3y3 + x3z3 + y3z3 = 23 3 1 2 3 + 3 32; hence
q2 = a 3b3 + a 3c 3 + b3c 3
= (ab + ac + bc)3 3(a + b + c )(ab + ac + bc)(abc) + 3(abc)2
= (3)3 3( 2)(3)( 4) + 3( 4)2
= 3.
Finally, q3 = a 3b3c 3
= (abc)3
= ( 4)3
= 64.
Thus
t3 ( 2)t2 + (3)t ( 64) = t3 + 2t2 + 3t + 64 [x]
is a polynomial whose roots are the cubes of the roots of t + 2t2 + 3t + 4.
3

Exercises

1. Express the following symmetric polynomials over in terms of the

elementary symmetric polynomials:
(a) x3y2 + x2y3 + x3z2 + x2z3 + y3z2 + y2z3;
(b) x2y2 + x2z2 + x2u2 + y2z2 + y2u2 + z2u2;
(c) x5 + y5 + x5 + x4y + y4x + x4z + z4x + y4z + z4y.

2. Find a polynomial over whose roots are the

(a) squares of the roots of t3 + 5t2 + 7t + 1 [t];
5 4 3 2
(b) squares of the roots of t + 5t 6t + t 7t 4 [t];
4 3 2
(c) cubes of the roots of t 3t + 2t + 2 [t].

f(x1,x2, . . . ,xm)
3. Let K be a field. A rational function in K[x1,x2, . . . ,xm]
g(x1,x2, . . . ,xm)
symmetric rational function over K if
is said to be a symmetic
f(x1 ,x2 , . . . ,xm ) f(x1,x2, . . . ,xm)
=
g(x1 ,x2 , . . . ,xm ) g(x1,x2, . . . ,xm)
for all symmetric rational function over K can be
Sn. Prove that a symmetic
symmetric polynomials over K. Conclude
expressed as a fraction of two symmetic
symmetric rational function over K can be written as
that any symmetic

466
 p( 1, 2, . . . , m)
q( 1, 2, . . . , m)
with suitable polynomials p,q in K[u1,u2, . . . ,um]. (Loosely speaking, any
symmetric rational function is a rational function of the elementary
symmetic
symmetric polynomials.)

4. Express the following rational functions over in terms of the

elementary symmetric polynomials:
x y x z y z
(a) + + + + + ;
y x z x z y
x 2 y2 z 2
(b) + + ;
yz xz xy
1 1 1 .
(c) + +
1 x 1 y 1 z

5. Prove: for any symmetric polynomial f(x1,x2, . . . ,xm) over , there is a

polynomial h(u1,u2, . . . ,um) in [u1,u2, . . . ,um] such that f(x1,x2, . . . ,xm) =
h(s1,s2, . . . ,sm), where sj are the power sums of xi.

6. Write the symmetric polynomials in Ex. 1 as polynomials in sj over .

467