James Pringle

June 20, 2011

Abstract Algebra
Dummit and Foote
Third Edition
Section 13.1
Problems: 5, 6, 7, 8
[5] Suppose is a rational root of a monic polynomial in Z[x]. Prove that is an
integer.
Let = b/c, where b and c are coprime integers. Let be a root of p(x) =
x
n
+ a
n1
x
n1
+ a
n2
x
n2
+ + a
0
, a monic polynomial in Z[x]. By the Rational
Root Theorem, b divides the constant term, and c divides the coecient of the
highest power term. Thus b | a
0
and c | 1. It follows that c = 1 and = b, an
integer.
[6] Show that if is a root of a
n
x
n
+ a
n1
x
n1
+ + a
1
x + a
0
then a
n
is a root of
the monic polynomial x
n
+ a
n1
x
n1
+ a
n
a
n2
x
n2
+ + a
n2
n
a
1
x + a
n1
n
a
0
.
Let be a root of p(x) = a
n
x
n
+ a
n1
x
n1
+ + a
1
x + a
0
. Let q(x) = x
n
+
a
n1
x
n1
+ a
n
a
n2
x
n2
+ + a
n2
n
a
1
x + a
n1
n
a
0
. Calculating,
q(a
n
) = (a
n
)
n
+ a
n1
(a
n
)
n1
+ a
n
a
n2
(a
n
)
n2
+ + a
n2
n
a
1
(a
n
) + a
n1
n
a
0
= a
n1
n
a
n

n
+ a
n1
n
a
n1

n1
+ a
n1
n
a
n2

n2
+ + a
n1
n
a
1
+ a
n1
n
a
0
= a
n1
n
(a
n

n
+ a
n1

n1
+ a
n2

n2
+ + a
1
+ a
0
)
= a
n1
n
(p())
= 0
Thus a
n
is a root of q(x).
[7] Prove that x
3
nx + 2 is irreducible for n = 1, 3, 5.
Let p(x) = x
3
nx + 2. We show p(x) is irreducible in Q[x], assuming n Z for
n = 1, 3, 5. Since it is of degree 3, if p(x) were reducible, it would have a linear
factor. Hence, it is sucient to show what values of n make p(x) have no roots in
Q. Suppose x were a root of p(x). By the Rational Root Theorem, x = b/c with
b = 2, 1 and c = 1. Thus x = 2, 1. Note p(1) = 3 n, which is equal to
0 only if n = 3. Similarly, p(1) = 1 + n = 0 only if n = 1, p(2) = 10 2n = 0
only if n = 5, and p(2) = 6 + 2n = 0 only if n = 3. Thus, if n = 1, 3, 5, then
x
3
nx + 2 is irreducible.
1
James Pringle
June 20, 2011
[8] Prove that x
5
ax 1 Z[x] is irreducible unless a = 0, 2, or 1. The rst two
correspond to linear factors, the third corresponds to the factorization (x
2
x +
1)(x
3
+ x
2
1).
Let p(x) = x
5
ax 1. First note that if a = 0, then p(x)l can be written as
(x1)(x
4
+x
3
+x
2
+x+1), and if a = 2, then p(x) can be written as (x+1)(x
4

x
3
+x
2
x1). Now, suppose to the contrary, a = 0, 2, or 1 and p(x) is reducible.
Then either it has a linear factor or it is the product of a degree 2 polynomial and
a degree 3 polynomial.
Case 1: p(x) has a linear factor. By the Rational Root Theorem, the only possible
rootswhich correspond to linear factorsare 1. But, as conrmed by the above,
p(1) = a = 0 only if a = 0 and p(1) = a 2 = 0 only if a = 2. Thus we have a
contradiction, since we assumed a = 0 or 2.
Case 2: p(x) can be written as a product of two polynomials of degree greater than
1 (the complement of p(x) has a linear factor). Hence p(x) = (a
0
+ a
1
x + a
2
x
2
+
a
3
x
3
)(b
0
+b
1
x +b
2
x
2
) with coecients in Z. Without loss of generality, we assume
that a
3
is positive. Expanding, we have
x
5
ax 1 = a
0
b
0
+ (a
1
b
0
+ a
0
b
1
)x + (a
2
b
0
+ a
1
b
1
+ a
0
b
2
)x
2
+
(a
3
b
0
+ a
2
b
1
+ a
1
b
2
)x
3
+ (a
3
b
1
+ a
2
b
2
)x
4
+ (a
3
b
2
)x
5
By comparing coecients, we have the following equations: (x
0
) a
0
b
0
= 1,
(x
1
) a
1
b
0
+a
0
b
1
= a, (x
2
) a
2
b
0
+a
1
b
1
+a
0
b
2
= 0, (x
3
) a
3
b
0
+a
2
b
1
+a
1
b
2
= 0,
(x
4
) a
3
b
1
+ a
2
b
2
= 0, and (x
5
) a
3
b
2
= 1. Note a
3
b
2
= 1. Since we assumed
a
3
= 1, it must be that b
2
= 1 as well. Therefore (x
4
) implies b
1
= a
2
. Now, our
subcases are based on a
0
b
0
= 1.
Subcase 2.1: a
0
= b
0
= 1. Hence, by (x
3
), a
1
= 1+b
2
1
, and by (x
2
), b
1
(a
1
+1)+1 =
0. After substituting, we have b
3
1
+ 2b
1
+ 1 = 0. By the Rational Root Theorem,
the numerator p/q = b
1
with p and q coprime has to be 1. Since b
1
Z, q = 1.
However, b
1
= 1 leads to b
1
= 1 4 = 0 and b
1
= 1 2 = 0. This is a
contradiction, since we assumed that p(x) was reducible.
Subcase 2.2: a
0
= b
0
= 1. By (x
3
), a
1
= b
2
1
1, and by (x
2
), b
1
+ a
1
b
1
1 = 0.
After substituting, we have b
3
1
2b
1
1 = 0. By the Rational Root Theorem and the
reasoning from subcase 2.1, the only possible solutions are b
1
= 1. Only b
1
= 1
is valid, so by the preceding equations, we now know a
2
= 1 and a
1
= 0. This leads
to p(x) = (1 +x
2
+x
3
)(1 x +x
2
) = x
5
+x 1. Hence a = 1, a contradiction,
since we assumed a = 0, 2, or 1.
We therefore reject the hypothesis of case 2. In total, we reject the overall hypothesis
and conclude x
5
ax 1 is irreducible unless a = 0, 2, or 1.
2