Simple Question on Polynomial Rings

R$ is actually the ring $\mathbb{Z}$ does not then change.In summary, when we write F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] where F is a field, this means the set of all possible polynomials in x_1, x_2, ..., x_n with coefficients in F. To determine if a polynomial belongs to this set, we just need to check that the coefficients belong to F and that the indeterminates only contain x_1, x_2, ..., x_n. This is not an ambiguous convention and does not change once the field is specified, similar to how the notation R stands for different structures depending on
  • #1
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
3,998
48
When we write [TEX] F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] [/TEX] where F is, say, a field, do we necessarily mean the set of all possible polynomials in x_1, x_2, ... ... x_n with coefficients in F? [In this case, essentially all that is required to determine whether a polynomial belongs to [TEX] F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] [/TEX] is to check that the co-efficients belong to F and the indeterminates only contain [TEX] x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n [/TEX].]

OR

when e write [TEX] F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] [/TEX] do we mean to include possible cases such as the set of polynomials with even coefficients - that is we may be talking about the set of polynomials with even co-efficients - so we cannot be sure what ring of polynomials we are talking about when we write [TEX] F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] [/TEX] until we specify the exact nature of ring of polynomials we are talking about further.If the latter is the case when given [TEX] F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] [/TEX] we can not reason about whether particular polynomials belong to [TEX] F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] [/TEX] until you know the exact nature of the ring [TEX] F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] [/TEX]

I very much suspect that the former is the case but ... ... Can someone please confirm or clarify this?

Peter

[This is also posted on MHF]
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Re: Simple question on polynomial ringsWhen we write [TEX] F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] [/TEX] where F

Peter said:
When we write [TEX] F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] [/TEX] where F is, say, a field, do we necessarily mean the set of all possible polynomials in x_1, x_2, ... ... x_n with coefficients in F? [In this case, essentially all that is required to determine whether a polynomial belongs to [TEX] F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] [/TEX] is to check that the co-efficients belong to F and the indeterminates only contain [TEX] x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n [/TEX].]

OR

when e write [TEX] F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] [/TEX] do we mean to include possible cases such as the set of polynomials with even coefficients - that is we may be talking about the set of polynomials with even co-efficients - so we cannot be sure what ring of polynomials we are talking about when we write [TEX] F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] [/TEX] until we specify the exact nature of ring of polynomials we are talking about further.If the latter is the case when given [TEX] F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] [/TEX] we can not reason about whether particular polynomials belong to [TEX] F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] [/TEX] until you know the exact nature of the ring [TEX] F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] [/TEX]

I very much suspect that the former is the case but ... ... Can someone please confirm or clarify this?

Peter

[This is also posted on MHF]

Hey Peter!

I am pretty sure that the former is the case.

Lets take a very simple non-polynomial ring example. When we write $\mathbb R$ we mean the set of all reals, not some specific type of them, like say irrationals or something. There is no reason that mathematicians would choose to use a different and quite ambiguous convention for more complicated structures. :)
 
  • #3
Re: Simple question on polynomial ringsWhen we write [TEX] F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] [/TEX] where F

caffeinemachine said:
Hey Peter!

I am pretty sure that the former is the case.

Lets take a very simple non-polynomial ring example. When we write $\mathbb R$ we mean the set of all reals, not some specific type of them, like say irrationals or something. There is no reason that mathematicians would choose to use a different and quite ambiguous convention for more complicated structures. :)

Thanks caffeinemachine,

You write "There is no reason that mathematicians would choose to use a different and quite ambiguous convention for more complicated structures."

I was more thinking that maybe [TEX] F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] [/TEX]would stand for a set of possible structures in the same way that when we say, a ring R., it can stand for many structures ... in the same way, I was thinking that maybe [TEX] F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] [/TEX] could stand for a number of different polynomial rings.

Mind you, I think you are correct anyway :)

Peter
 
  • #4
Re: Simple question on polynomial ringsWhen we write [TEX] F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] [/TEX] where F

Peter said:
I was more thinking that maybe [TEX] F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] [/TEX]would stand for a set of possible structures in the same way that when we say, a ring R., it can stand for many structures ... in the same way, I was thinking that maybe [TEX] F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] [/TEX] could stand for a number of different polynomial rings.

I don't quite understand you here. Can you please elaborate?
 
  • #5
Re: Simple question on polynomial ringsWhen we write [TEX] F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] [/TEX] where F

Peter said:
Thanks caffeinemachine,

You write "There is no reason that mathematicians would choose to use a different and quite ambiguous convention for more complicated structures."

I was more thinking that maybe [TEX] F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] [/TEX]would stand for a set of possible structures in the same way that when we say, a ring R., it can stand for many structures ... in the same way, I was thinking that maybe [TEX] F[x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n] [/TEX] could stand for a number of different polynomial rings.

Mind you, I think you are correct anyway :)

Peter

It does stand for a number of different structures in the same way that $R$ stands for different structures but that is because the $F$ can represent different fields.

So for example the polynomial ring $\mathbb{Q}[x_1,...,x_n]$ has co-efficients from the rationals and would be analogous to the ring $\mathbb{Q}$

And $F[x_1,...,x_n]$ has co-efficients from the field $F$ whatever that may be in the same way that $R$ has elements from $R$ whatever that may be.

However once we specify this field it does not then change
 

Related to Simple Question on Polynomial Rings

1. What is a polynomial ring?

A polynomial ring is a mathematical structure that consists of polynomials with coefficients from a given ring. It is denoted by R[x], where R is the ring and x is the indeterminate or variable.

2. How do you add or multiply polynomials in a polynomial ring?

To add or multiply polynomials in a polynomial ring, you simply add or multiply the coefficients of each term with the same degree. For example, to add (3x^2 + 2x + 1) and (5x^2 + 4x + 3), you would add 3x^2 + 5x^2 = 8x^2, 2x + 4x = 6x, and 1 + 3 = 4, resulting in 8x^2 + 6x + 4.

3. Can you divide polynomials in a polynomial ring?

Yes, you can divide polynomials in a polynomial ring using long division or synthetic division, just like dividing numbers. However, the remainder must always be of lower degree than the divisor, and the quotient and remainder must also be elements of the polynomial ring.

4. What is the degree of a polynomial in a polynomial ring?

The degree of a polynomial in a polynomial ring is the highest power of the indeterminate or variable in the polynomial. For example, the degree of the polynomial 3x^2 + 2x + 1 is 2.

5. How is a polynomial ring different from a regular ring?

A polynomial ring and a regular ring are both algebraic structures, but they differ in that a polynomial ring has an added operation of multiplication with an indeterminate or variable. This variable can be manipulated and combined with other elements of the ring, allowing for the representation of polynomials.

Similar threads

Replies
27
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
825
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
5
Views
2K
Back
Top