Factorization of Polynomials PDF

17 Factorization
of Polynomials
Very early in our mathematical education—in fact in junior high

school or early in high school itself—we are introduced to polyno-
mials. For a seemingly endless amount of time we are drilled, to
the point of utter boredom, in factoring them, multiplying them, di-
viding them, simplifying them. Facility in factoring a quadratic be-
comes confused with genuine mathematical talent.
I. N. Herstein, Topics in Algebra
The value of a principle is the number of things it will explain.

Ralph Waldo Emerson
Reducibility Tests
In high school, students spend much time factoring polynomials and
finding their zeros. In this chapter, we consider the same problems in a
more abstract setting.
To discuss factorization of polynomials, we must first introduce the
polynomial analog of a prime integer.
Definition Irreducible Polynomial, Reducible Polynomial

Let D be an integral domain. A polynomial f(x) from D[x] that is
neither the zero polynomial nor a unit in D[x] is said to be irreducible
over D if, whenever f(x) is expressed as a product f(x) 5 g(x)h(x), with
g(x) and h(x) from D[x], then g(x) or h(x) is a unit in D[x]. A nonzero,
nonunit element of D[x] that is not irreducible over D is called
reducible over D.
In the case that an integral domain is a field F, it is equivalent and more

convenient to define a nonconstant f(x) [ F[x] to be irreducible if f(x) can
not be expressed as a product of two polynomials of lower degree.
289
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,
some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially
affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
290 Rings
EXAMPLE 1 The polynomial f(x) 5 2x2 1 4 is irreducible over Q

but reducible over Z, since 2x2 1 4 5 2(x2 1 2) and neither 2 nor x2 1 2
is a unit in Z[x].
EXAMPLE 2 The polynomial f(x) 5 2x2 1 4 is irreducible over R

but reducible over C.
EXAMPLE 3 The polynomial x2 2 2 is irreducible over Q but reducible

over R.
EXAMPLE 4 The polynomial x2 1 1 is irreducible over Z3 but reducible

over Z5.
In general, it is a difficult problem to decide whether or not a particu

lar polynomial is reducible over an integral domain, but there are special
cases when it is easy. Our first theorem is a case in point. It applies to
the four preceding examples.
Theorem 17.1 Reducibility Test for Degrees 2 and 3
Let F be a field. If f(x) [ F[x] and deg f(x) is 2 or 3, then f(x) is

reducible over F if and only if f(x) has a zero in F.
PROOF Suppose that f(x) 5 g(x)h(x), where both g(x) and h(x) belong to
F[x] and have degrees less than that of f(x). Since deg f(x) 5 deg g(x) 1
deg h(x) (Exercise 19 in Chapter 16) and deg f(x) is 2 or 3, at least one of
g(x) and h(x) has degree 1. Say g(x) 5 ax 1 b. Then, clearly, 2a21b is a
zero of g(x) and therefore a zero of f(x) as well.
Conversely, suppose that f(a) 5 0, where a [ F. Then, by the Factor
Theorem, we know that x 2 a is a factor of f(x) and, therefore, f(x) is
reducible over F.
Theorem 17.1 is particularly easy to use when the field is Zp, because
in this case we can check for reducibility of f(x) by simply testing
to see if f(a) 5 0 for a 5 0, 1, . . . , p 2 1. For example, since 2 is a
zero of x2 1 1 over Z5 , x2 1 1 is reducible over Z5 . On the other hand,
because neither 0, 1, nor 2 is a zero of x2 1 1 over Z3, x2 1 1 is irre
ducible over Z3.
Note that polynomials of degree larger than 3 may be reducible over a
field even though they do not have zeros in the field. For example, in Q[x],
the polynomial x4 1 2x2 1 1 is equal to (x2 1 1)2, but has no zeros in Q.
Our next three tests deal with polynomials with integer coefficients.
To simplify the proof of the first of these, we introduce some terminol
ogy and isolate a portion of the argument in the form of a lemma.
17 | Factorization of Polynomials 291
Definition Content of a Polynomial, Primitive Polynomial

The content of a nonzero polynomial anxn 1 an21xn21 1 ? ? ? 1 a0,
where the a’s are integers, is the greatest common divisor of the integers
an, an21, . . . , a0. A primitive polynomial is an element of Z[x] with
content 1.
Gauss’s Lemma
The product of two primitive polynomials is primitive.
PROOF Let f(x) and g(x) be primitive polynomials, and suppose that f(x)
g(x) is not primitive. Let p be a prime divisor of the content of
f(x)g(x), and let f (x), g(x), and f(x)g(x) be the polynomials obtained from
f(x), g(x), and f(x)g(x) by reducing the coefficients modulo p. Then, f (x)
and g(x) belong to the integral domain Zp[x] and f (x)g(x) 5 f(x)g(x) 5 0,
the zero element of Zp[x] (see Exercise 33 in Chapter 16). Thus, f (x) 5 0
or g(x) 5 0. This means that either p divides every coefficient of f(x) or p
divides every coefficient of g(x). Hence, either f(x) is not primitive or g(x)
is not primitive. This contradiction completes the proof.
Remember that the question of reducibility depends on which ring
of coefficients one permits. Thus, x2 2 2 is irreducible over Z but
reducible over Q[22]. In Chapter 20, we will prove that every poly
nomial of degree greater than 1 with coefficients from an integral
domain is reducible over some field. Theorem 17.2 shows that in the
case of polynomials irreducible over Z, this field must be larger than
the field of rational numbers.
Theorem 17.2 Reducibility over Q Implies Reducibility over Z
Let f(x) [ Z[x]. If f(x) is reducible over Q, then it is reducible over Z.
PROOF Suppose that f(x) 5 g(x)h(x), where g(x) and h(x) [ Q[x]. Clearly,
we may assume that f(x) is primitive because we can divide both f(x) and
g(x) by the content of f(x). Let a be the least common multiple of the de
nominators of the coefficients of g(x), and b the least common multiple of
the denominators of the coefficients of h(x). Then abf(x) 5 ag(x) ? bh(x),
where ag(x) and bh(x) [ Z[x]. Let c1 be the content of ag(x) and let c2 be
the content of bh(x). Then ag(x) 5 c1g1(x) and bh(x) 5 c2h1(x), where
both g1(x) and h1(x) are primitive, and abf(x) 5 c1c2g1(x)h1(x). Since f(x)
is primitive, the content of abf(x) is ab. Also, since the product of two
primitive polynomials is primitive, it follows that the content of c1c2g1(x)
292 Rings
h1(x) is c1c2. Thus, ab 5 c1c2 and f(x) 5 g1(x)h1(x), where g1(x) and h1(x)
[ Z[x] and deg g1(x) 5 deg g(x) and deg h1(x) 5 deg h(x).
EXAMPLE 5 We illustrate the proof of Theorem 17.2 by tracing

through it for the polynomial f (x) 5 6x2 1 x 2 2 5 (3x 2 3/2)(2x 1
4/3) 5 g(x)h(x). In this case we have a 5 2, b 5 3, c1 5 3, c2 5 2, g1(x)
5 2x 2 1, and h1(x) 5 3x 1 2, so that 2 ? 3(6x2 1 x 2 2) 5 3 ? 2(2x 2
1)(3x 1 2) or 6x2 1 x 2 2 5 (2x 2 1)(3x 1 2).
Irreducibility Tests
Theorem 17.1 reduces the question of irreducibility of a polynomial of
degree 2 or 3 to one of finding a zero. The next theorem often allows us
to simplify the problem even further.
Theorem 17.3 Mod p Irreducibility Test
Let p be a prime and suppose that f(x) [ Z[x] with deg f(x) $ 1.
Let f (x) be the polynomial in Zp[x] obtained from f(x) by reducing
all the coefficients of f(x) modulo p. If f (x) is irreducible over Zp and
deg f (x) 5 deg f(x), then f(x) is irreducible over Q.
PROOF It follows from the proof of Theorem 17.2 that if f(x) is reducible
over Q, then f(x) 5 g(x)h(x) with g(x), h(x) [ Z[x], and both g(x) and h(x)
have degree less than that of f(x). Let f (x), g(x), and h(x) be the polyno
mials obtained from f(x), g(x), and h(x) by reducing all the coefficients
modulo p. Since deg f(x) 5 deg f (x), we have deg g(x) # deg g(x) , deg
f (x) and deg h(x) # deg h(x) , deg f (x). But, f (x) 5 g(x)h(x), and this
contradicts our assumption that f (x) is irreducible over Zp.
EXAMPLE 6 Let f(x) 5 21x3 2 3x2 1 2x 1 9. Then, over Z2, we have

f (x) 5 x3 1 x2 1 1 and, since f 102 5 1 and f 112 5 1, we see that f (x)
is irreducible over Z2. Thus, f (x) is irreducible over Q. Notice that, over
Z3, f (x) 5 2x is irreducible, but we may not apply Theorem 17.3 to con
clude that f(x) is irreducible over Q.
Be careful not to use the converse of Theorem 17.3. If f(x) [ Z[x] and
f (x) is reducible over Zp for some p, f(x) may still be irreducible over Q.
For example, consider f(x) 5 21x3 2 3x2 1 2x 1 8. Then, over Z2, f (x)
5 x3 1 x2 5 x2(x 1 1). But over Z5, f (x) has no zeros and therefore is
irreducible over Z5. So, f(x) is irreducible over Q. Note that this e xample
shows that the Mod p Irreducibility Test may fail for some p and work
for others. To conclude that a particular f(x) in Z[x] is irreducible over
Q, all we need to do is find a single p for which the corresponding poly
nomial f 1x2 in Zp is irreducible. However, this is not always possible,
since f(x) 5 x4 1 1 is irreducible over Q but reducible over Zp for every
prime p. (See Exercise 17.)
The Mod p Irreducibility Test can also be helpful in checking for
irreducibility of polynomials of degree greater than 3 and polynomials
with rational coefficients.
EXAMPLE 7 Let f(x) 5 (3/7)x4 2 (2/7)x2 1 (9/35)x 1 3/5. We will

show that f(x) is irreducible over Q. First, let h(x) 5 35f(x) 5 15x4 2
10x2 1 9x 1 21. Then f(x) is irreducible over Q if h(x) is irreducible
over Z. Next, applying the Mod 2 Irreducibility Test to h(x), we get
h1x2 5 x4 1 x 1 1. Clearly, h1x2 has no zeros in Z2. Furthermore, h1x2
has no quadratic factor in Z2[x] either. [For if so, the factor would have
to be either x2 1 x 1 1 or x2 1 1. Long division shows that x2 1 x 1 1 is
not a factor, and x2 1 1 cannot be a factor because it has a zero, whereas
h1x2 does not.] Thus, h1x2 is irreducible over Z2[x]. This guarantees that
h(x) is irreducible over Q.
EXAMPLE 8 Let f(x) 5 x 5 1 2x 1 4. Obviously, neither Theorem 17.1

nor the Mod 2 Irreducibility Test helps here. Let’s try mod 3. Substitution
of 0, 1, and 2 into f (x) does not yield 0, so there are no linear factors. But
f (x) may have a quadratic factor. If so, we may assume it has the form x2
1 ax 1 b (see Exercise 5). This gives nine possibilities to check. We can
immediately rule out each of the nine that has a zero over Z3, since f (x)
does not have one. This leaves only x2 1 1, x2 1 x 1 2, and x2 1 2x 1 2 to
check. These are eliminated by long division. So, since f (x) is irreducible
over Z3, f(x) is irreducible over Q. (Why is it unnecessary to check for
cubic or fourth-degree factors?)
Another important irreducibility test is the following one, credited to

Ferdinand Eisenstein (1823–1852), a student of Gauss. The corollary
was first proved by Gauss by a different method.
Theorem 17.4 Eisenstein’s Criterion (1850)
Let
f(x) 5 anxn 1 an21xn21 1 ? ? ? 1 a0 [ Z[x].

If there is a prime p such that p B an, p | an21, . . . , p | a0 and p2 B a0,
then f(x) is irreducible over Q.
294 Rings
PROOF If f(x) is reducible over Q, we know by Theorem 17.2 that there

exist elements g(x) and h(x) in Z[x] such that f (x) 5 g(x)h(x),
1 # deg g(x), and 1 # deg h(x) , n. Say g(x) 5 br xr 1 ? ? ? 1 b0 and h(x)
5 cs xs 1 ? ? ? 1 c0. Then, since p | a0, p2 B a0, and a0 5 b0c0, it follows
that p divides one of b0 and c0 but not the other. Let us say p | b0 and
p B c0. Also, since p B an 5 brcs, we know that p B br. So, there is a least
integer t such that p B bt. Now, consider at 5 btc0 1 bt21c1 1 ? ? ? 1 b0ct.
By assumption, p divides at and, by choice of t, every summand on the
right after the first one is divisible by p. Clearly, this forces p to divide btc0
as well. This is impossible, however, since p is prime and p divides nei
ther bt nor c0.
Corollary Irreducibility of pth Cyclotomic Polynomial
For any prime p, the pth cyclotomic polynomial
xp 1
Fp(x) 55 xp21 1 xp22 1 ? ? ? 1 x 1 1
x1
is irreducible over Q.
PROOF Let
(x 1)p 1 p p p
f(x)£ p(x 1) xp1a b xp2 a b xp3 . . . a b.
(x 1) 1 1 2 1
Then, since every coefficient except that of xp21 is divisible by p and
the constant term is not divisible by p2, by Eisenstein’s Criterion, f(x) is
irreducible over Q. So, if Fp(x) 5 g(x)h(x) were a nontrivial factorization
of Fp(x) over Q, then f(x) 5 Fp(x 1 1) 5 g(x 1 1) ? h(x 1 1) would be a
nontrivial factorization of f(x) over Q. Since this is impossible, we con
clude that Fp(x) is irreducible over Q.
EXAMPLE 9 The polynomial 3x5 1 15x4 2 20x3 1 10x 1 20 is

irreducible over Q because 5 B 3 and 25 B 20 but 5 does divide 15, 220,
10, and 20.
The principal reason for our interest in irreducible polynomials stems

from the fact that there is an intimate connection among them, maximal
ideals, and fields. This connection is revealed in the next theorem and its
first corollary.
Theorem 17.5 kp(x)l Is Maximal If and Only If p(x) Is Irreducible
Let F be a field and let p(x) [ F[x]. Then kp(x)l is a maximal ideal
in F[x] if and only if p(x) is irreducible over F.
PROOF Suppose first that kp(x)l is a maximal ideal in F[x]. Clearly, p(x) is
neither the zero polynomial nor a unit in F[x], because neither {0} nor
F[x] is a maximal ideal in F[x]. If p(x) 5 g(x)h(x) is a factorization of p(x)
over F, then k p(x)l # kg(x)l # F[x]. Thus, k p(x)l 5 kg(x)l or F[x] 5 kg(xl.
In the first case, we must have deg p(x) 5 deg g(x). In the second case, it
follows that deg g(x) 5 0 and, consequently, deg h(x) 5 deg p(x). Thus,
p(x) cannot be written as a product of two polynomials in F[x] of lower
degree.
Now, suppose that p(x) is irreducible over F. Let I be any ideal of
F[x] such that k p(x)l # I # F[x]. Because F[x] is a principal ideal do
main, we know that I 5 kg(x)l for some g(x) in F[x]. So, p(x) [ kg(x)l
and, therefore, p(x) 5 g(x)h(x), where h(x) [ F[x]. Since p(x) is irreduc
ible over F, it follows that either g(x) is a constant or h(x) is a constant.
In the first case, we have I 5 F[x]; in the second case, we have k p(x)l 5
kg(x)l 5 I. So, k p(x)l is maximal in F[x].
Corollary 1 F [x]/k p(x)l Is a Field
Let F be a field and p(x) be an irreducible polynomial over F. Then

F[x]/k p(x)l is a field.
PROOF This follows directly from Theorems 17.5 and 14.4.
The next corollary is a polynomial analog of Euclid’s Lemma for

primes (see Chapter 0).
Corollary 2 p(x) | a(x)b(x) Implies p(x) | a(x) or p(x) | b(x)
Let F be a field and let p(x), a(x), b(x) [ F[x]. If p(x) is irreducible
over F and p(x) | a(x)b(x), then p(x) | a(x) or p(x) | b(x).
PROOF Since p(x) is irreducible, F[x]/kp(x)l is a field and, therefore, an inte

gral domain. From Theorem 14.3, we know that kp(x)l is a prime
ideal, and since p(x) divides a(x)b(x), we have a(x)b(x) [ kp(x)l. Thus, a(x)
[ k p(x)l or b(x) [ k p(x)l. This means that p(x) | a(x) or p(x) | b(x).
296 Rings
The next two examples put the theory to work.
EXAMPLE 10 We construct a field with eight elements. By Theorem

17.1 and Corollary 1 of Theorem 17.5, it suffices to find a cubic polyno
mial over Z2 that has no zero in Z2. By inspection, x3 1x 1 1 fills the bill.
Thus, Z2[x]/kx3 1 x 1 1l 5 {ax2 1 bx 1 c 1 kx3 1 x 1 1l | a, b, c [ Z2}
is a field with eight elements. For practice, let us do a few calculations in
this field. Since the sum of two polynomials of the form ax2 1 bx 1 c is
another one of the same form, addition is easy. For example,
(x2 1 x 1 1 1 kx3 1 x 1 1l) 1 (x2 1 1 1 kx3 1 x 1 1l)
5 x 1 kx3 1 x 1 1l.
On the other hand, multiplication of two coset representatives need not
yield one of the original eight coset representatives:
(x2 1 x 1 1 1 kx3 1 x 1 1l) ? (x2 1 1 1 kx3 1 x 1 1l)
5 x4 1 x3 1 x 1 1 1 kx3 1 x 1 1l 5 x4 1 kx3 1 x 1 1l
(since the ideal absorbs the last three terms). How do we express this in
the form ax2 1 bx 1 c 1 kx3 1 x 1 1l? One way is to long divide x4 by
x3 1 x 1 1 to obtain the remainder of x2 1 x (just as one reduces
12 1 k5l to 2 1 k5l by dividing 12 by 5 to obtain the remainder 2).
Another way is to observe that x3 1 x 1 1 1 kx3 1 x 1 1l 5 0 1
kx3 1 x 1 1l implies x3 1 kx3 1 x 1 1l 5 x 1 1 1 kx3 1 x 1 1l. Thus,
we may multiply both sides by x to obtain
x4 1 kx3 1 x 1 1l 5 x2 1 x 1 kx3 1 x 1 1l.
Similarly,
(x2 1 x 1 kx3 1 x 1 1l) ? (x 1 kx3 1 x 1 1l)
5 x3 1 x2 1 kx3 1 x 1 1l
5 x2 1 x 1 1 1 kx3 1 x 1 1l.
A partial multiplication table for this field is given in Table 17.1.
To simplify the notation, we indicate a coset by its representative only.
Table 17.1 A Partial Multiplication Table for Example 10

1 x x 1 1 x2 x2 1 1 x2 1 x x2 1 x 1 1
1 1 x x 1 1 x2 x2 1 1 x2 1 x x2 1 x 1 1
x x x2 x2 1 x x 1 1 1 x 1 x 1 1 x2 1 1
2
x 1 1 x 1 1 x2 1 x x2 1 1 x2 1 x 1 1 x2 1 x
x2 x2 x 1 1 x2 1 x 1 1 x2 1 x x x2 1 1 1
2
x 1 1 x2 1 1 1 x2 x 2
x 1 x 1 1 x 1 1 x2 1 x
(Complete the table yourself. Keep in mind that x3 can be replaced by

x 1 1 and x4 by x2 1 x.)
EXAMPLE 11 Since x2 1 1 has no zero in Z3, it is irreducible over Z3.

Thus, Z3[x]/kx2 1 1l is a field. Analogous to Example 12 in Chapter 14,
Z3[x]/kx2 1 1l 5 {ax 1 b 1 kx2 1 1l | a, b [ Z3}. Thus, this field has
nine elements. A multiplication table for this field can be obtained from
Table 13.1 by replacing i by x. (Why does this work?)
Unique Factorization in Z [x]

As a further application of the ideas presented in this chapter, we next
prove that Z[x] has an important factorization property. In Chapter 18,
we will study this property in greater depth. The first proof of Theorem
17.6 was given by Gauss. In reading this theorem and its proof, keep in
mind that the units in Z[x] are precisely f(x) 5 1 and f(x) 5 21 (see
Exercise 25 in Chapter 12), the irreducible polynomials of degree 0 over
Z are precisely those of the form f(x) 5 p and f(x) 5 2p where p is a
prime, and every nonconstant polynomial from Z[x] that is irreducible
over Z is primitive (see Exercise 3).
Theorem 17.6 Unique Factorization in Z [x]
Every polynomial in Z[x] that is not the zero polynomial or a unit

in Z[x] can be written in the form b1b2 ? ? ? bs p1(x)p2(x) ? ? ? pm(x),
where the bi’s are irreducible polynomials of degree 0 and the pi(x)’s
are irreducible polynomials of positive degree. Furthermore, if
b1b2 ? ? ? bs p1(x)p2(x) ? ? ? pm(x) 5 c1c2 ? ? ? ct q1(x)q2(x) ? ? ? qn(x),
where the bi’s and ci’s are irreducible polynomials of degree 0 and the
pi(x)’s and qi(x)’s are irreducible polynomials of positive degree, then
s 5 t, m 5 n, and, after renumbering the c’s and q(x)’s, we have
bi 5 6ci for i 5 1, . . . , s and pi(x) 5 6qi(x) for i 5 1, . . . , m.
PROOF Let f(x) be a nonzero, nonunit polynomial from Z[x]. If deg f(x) 5

0, then f(x) is constant and the result follows from the Fundamental Theo
rem of Arithmetic. If deg f(x) . 0, let b denote the content of f(x), and let
b1b2 ? ? ? bs be the factorization of b as a product of primes. Then, f(x) 5
b1b2 ? ? ? bs f1(x), where f1(x) belongs to Z[x], is primitive and deg f1(x) 5
deg f(x). Thus, to prove the existence portion of the theorem, it suffices to
show that a primitive polynomial f(x) of positive degree can be written as
a product of irreducible polynomials of positive degree. We proceed by
298 Rings
induction on deg f(x). If deg f(x) 5 1, then f(x) is already irreducible and
we are done. Now suppose that every primitive polynomial of degree less
than deg f(x) can be written as a product of irreducibles of positive degree.
If f(x) is irreducible, there is nothing to prove. Otherwise, f(x) 5 g(x)h(x),
where both g(x) and h(x) are primitive and have degree less than that of
f(x). Thus, by induction, both g(x) and h(x) can be written as a product of
irreducibles of positive degree. Clearly, then, f(x) is also such a product.
To prove the uniqueness portion of the theorem, suppose that
f(x) 5 b1b2 ? ? ? bs p1(x)p2(x) ? ? ? pm(x) 5 c1c2 ? ? ? ct q1(x)q2(x) ? ? ? qn(x),
where the bi’s and ci’s are irreducible polynomials of degree 0 and the
pi(x)’s and qi(x)’s are irreducible polynomials of positive degree. Let b 5
b1b2 ? ? ? bs and c 5 c1c2 ? ? ? ct. Since the p(x)’s and q(x)’s are primitive,
it follows from Gauss’s Lemma that p1(x)p2(x) ? ? ? pm(x) and q1(x)q2(x)
? ? ? qn(x) are primitive. Hence, both b and c must equal plus or minus
the content of f(x) and, therefore, are equal in absolute value. It then fol
lows from the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic that s 5 t and, after
renumbering, bi 5 6ci for i 5 1, 2, . . . , s. Thus, by canceling the
constant terms in the two factorizations for f(x), we have

p1(x)p2(x) ? ? ? pm(x) 5 6q1(x) q2(x) ? ? ? qn(x). Now, viewing the p(x)’s
and q(x)’s as elements of Q[x] and noting that p1(x) divides q1(x) ? ? ?
qn(x), it follows from Corollary 2 of Theorem 17.5 and induction (see
Exercise 32) that p1(x) | qi(x) for some i. By renumbering, we may as
sume i 5 1. Then, since q1(x) is irreducible, we have q1(x) 5 (r/s)p1(x),
where r, s [ Z. However, because both q1(x) and p1(x) are primitive, we
must have r/s 5 61. So, q1(x) 5 6p1(x). Also, after canceling, we have
p2(x) ? ? ? pm(x) 5 6q2(x) ? ? ? qn(x). Now, we may repeat the argument
above with p2(x) in place of p1(x). If m , n, after m such steps we would
have 1 on the left and a nonconstant polynomial on the right. Clearly,
this is impossible. On the other hand, if m . n, after n steps we would
have 61 on the right and a nonconstant polynomial on the left—another
impossibility. So, m 5 n and pi(x) 5 6qi(x) after suitable
renumbering of the q(x)’s.
Weird Dice: An Application

of Unique Factorization
EXAMPLE 12 Consider an ordinary pair of dice whose faces are labeled
1 through 6. The probability of rolling a sum of 2 is 1/36, the probabil
ity of rolling a sum of 3 is 2/36, and so on. In a 1978 issue of S cientific
American [1], Martin Gardner remarked that if one were to label the six
faces of one cube with the integers 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4 and the six faces of
another cube with the integers 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, then the probability of
obtaining any particular sum with these dice (called Sicherman dice)
would be the same as the probability of rolling that sum with ordinary
dice (that is, 1/36 for a 2, 2/36 for a 3, and so on). See Figure 17.1. In
this example, we show how the Sicherman labels can be derived, and
that they are the only possible such labels besides 1 through 6. To do
so, we utilize the fact that Z[x] has the unique factorization property.
2 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 3 4 4 5
3 4 5 6 7 8 4 5 5 6 6 7
4 5 6 7 8 9 5 6 6 7 7 8
5 6 7 8 9 10 6 7 7 8 8 9
6 7 8 9 10 11 7 8 8 9 9 10
7 8 9 10 11 12 9 10 10 11 11 12
Figure 17.1
To begin, let us ask ourselves how we may obtain a sum of 6, say, with
an ordinary pair of dice. Well, there are five possibilities for the two faces:
(5, 1), (4, 2), (3, 3), (2, 4), and (1, 5). Next we consider the product of the
two polynomials created by using the ordinary dice labels as exponents:
(x6 1 x5 1 x4 1 x3 1 x2 1 x)(x6 1 x5 1 x4 1 x3 1 x2 1 x).
Observe that we pick up the term x6 in this product in precisely the fol
lowing ways: x5 ? x1, x4 ? x2 , x3 ? x3, x2 ? x4, x1 ? x5. Notice the correspon
dence between pairs of labels whose sums are 6 and pairs of terms whose
products are x6. This correspondence is one-to-one, and it is valid for all
sums and all dice—including the Sicherman dice and any other dice that
yield the desired probabilities. So, let a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6 and b1, b2, b3,
b4, b5, b6 be any two lists of positive integer labels for the faces of a pair
of cubes with the property that the probability of rolling any particular
sum with these dice (let us call them weird dice) is the same as the prob
ability of rolling that sum with ordinary dice labeled 1 through 6. Using
our observation about products of polynomials, this means that
(x6 1 x5 1 x4 1 x3 1 x2 1 x)(x6 1 x5 1 x4 1 x3 1 x2 1 x)
5 (xa1 1 xa2 1 xa3 1 xa4 1 xa5 1 xa6) ?
(xb1 1 xb2 1 xb3 1 xb4 1 xb5 1 xb6). (1)
Now all we have to do is solve this equation for the a’s and b’s. Here is
where unique factorization in Z[x] comes in. The polynomial x6 1 x5 1
x4 1 x3 1 x2 1 x factors uniquely into irreducibles as
300 Rings
x(x 1 1)(x2 1 x 1 1)(x2 2 x 1 1)

so that the left-hand side of Equation (1) has the irreducible factorization
x2(x 1 1)2(x2 1 x 1 1)2(x2 2 x 1 1)2.
So, by Theorem 17.6, this means that these factors are the only possible
irreducible factors of P(x) 5 xa1 1 xa2 1 xa3 1 xa4 1 xa5 1 xa6. Thus, P(x)
has the form
xq(x 1 1)r(x2 1 x 1 1)t(x2 2 x 1 1)u,
where 0 # q, r, t, u # 2.
To restrict further the possibilities for these four parameters, we evalu
ate P(1) in two ways. P(1) 5 1 a 1 1 1 a 2 1 ? ? ? 1 1 a 6 5 6 and
P(1) 5 1q2r3t1u. Clearly, this means that r 5 1 and t 5 1. What about q?
Evaluating P(0) in two ways shows that q 2 0. On the other hand, if
q 5 2, the smallest possible sum one could roll with the corresponding
labels for dice would be 3. Since this violates our assumption, we have
now reduced our list of possibilities for q, r, t, and u to q 5 1, r 5 1,
t 5 1, and u 5 0, 1, 2. Let’s consider each of these possibilities in turn.
When u 5 0, P(x) 5 x4 1 x3 1 x3 1 x2 1 x2 1 x, so the die labels are
4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1—a Sicherman die.
6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1—an ordinary die.
8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 1—the other Sicherman die.
This proves that the Sicherman dice do give the same probabilities as
ordinary dice and that they are the only other pair of dice that have this
property.
Exercises
No matter how good you are at something, there’s always about a million peo-
ple better than you.
Homer Simpson
1. Verify the assertion made in Example 2.

2. Suppose that D is an integral domain and F is a field containing D.

If f(x) [ D[x] and f(x) is irreducible over F but reducible over D,
what can you say about the factorization of f(x) over D?
3. Show that a nonconstant polynomial from Z[x] that is irreducible

over Z is primitive. (This exercise is referred to in this chapter.)
4. Suppose that f(x) 5 xn 1 an21xn21 1 ? ? ? 1 a0 [ Z[x]. If r is ra

tional and x 2 r divides f(x), show that r is an integer.
5. Let F be a field and let a be a nonzero element of F.

a. If af(x) is irreducible over F, prove that f(x) is irreducible over F.
b. If f(ax) is irreducible over F, prove that f(x) is irreducible over F.
c. If f(x 1 a) is irreducible over F, prove that f(x) is irreducible
over F.
d. Use part c to prove that 8x3 2 6x 1 1 is irreducible over Q.
(This exercise is referred to in this chapter.)
6. Let F be a field and f(x) [ F[x]. Show that, as far as deciding upon
the irreducibility of f(x) over F is concerned, we may assume that
f(x) is monic. (This assumption is useful when one uses a computer
to check for irreducibility.)
7. Suppose there is a real number r with the property that r 1 1/r is an
odd integer. Prove that r is irrational.
8. Show that the equation x2 1 y2 5 2003 has no solutions in the
integers.
9. Explain how the Mod p Irreducibility Test (Theorem 17.3) can be
used to test members of Q[x] for irreducibility.
10. Suppose that f(x) [ Zp[x] and f(x) is irreducible over Zp, where p is
a prime. If deg f(x) 5 n, prove that Zp[x]/k f(x)l is a field with pn
elements.
11. Construct a field of order 25.
12. Construct a field of order 27.
13. Show that x3 1 x2 1 x 1 1 is reducible over Q. Does this fact con
tradict the corollary to Theorem 17.4?
14. Determine which of the polynomials below is (are) irreducible
over Q.
a. x5 1 9x4 1 12x2 1 6
b. x4 1 x 1 1
c. x4 1 3x2 1 3
d. x5 1 5x2 1 1
e. (5/2)x5 1 (9/2)x4 1 15x3 1 (3/7)x2 1 6x 1 3/14
15. Show that x4 1 1 is irreducible over Q but reducible over R. (This
exercise is referred to in this chapter.)
16. Prove that x4 1 15x3 1 7 is irreducible over Q
17. Show that x4 1 1 is reducible over Zp for every prime p. (This ex
ercise is referred to in this chapter.)
18. Show that x2 1 x 1 4 is irreducible over Z11.
19. Let f(x) 5 x3 1 6 [ Z7[x]. Write f(x) as a product of irreducible
polynomials over Z7.
20. Let f(x) 5 x3 1 x2 1 x 1 1 [ Z2[x]. Write f(x) as a product of irre
ducible polynomials over Z2.
302 Rings
21. Find all the zeros and their multiplicities of x5 1 4x4 1 4x3 2 x2 2
4x 1 1 over Z5.
22. Find all zeros of f(x) 5 3x2 1 x 1 4 over Z7 by substitution. Find all
zeros of f(x) by using the quadratic formula (2b 6 2b2 4ac) ?
(2a)21 (all calculations are done in Z7). Do your answers agree?
Should they? Find all zeros of g(x) 5 2x2 1 x 1 3 over Z5 by sub
stitution. Try the quadratic formula on g(x). Do your answers agree?
State necessary and sufficient conditions for the quadratic formula
to yield the zeros of a quadratic from Z p[x], where p is a prime
greater than 2.
23. Let p be a prime.
a. Show that the number of reducible polynomials over Zp of the
form x2 1 ax 1 b is p(p 1 1)/2.
b. Determine the number of reducible quadratic polynomials over Zp.
24. Let p be a prime.
a. Determine the number of irreducible polynomials over Zp of the
form x2 1 ax 1 b.
b. Determine the number of irreducible quadratic polynomials
over Zp.
25. Show that for every prime p there exists a field of order p2.
26. Prove that, for every positive integer n, there are infinitely many
polynomials of degree n in Z[x] that are irreducible over Q.
27. Show that the field given in Example 11 in this chapter is isomor
phic to the field given in Example 9 in Chapter 13.
28. Let f(x) [ Zp[x]. Prove that if f(x) has no factor of the form x2 1
ax 1 b, then it has no quadratic factor over Zp.
29. Find all monic irreducible polynomials of degree 2 over Z3.
30. Given that p is not the zero of a nonzero polynomial with rational
coefficients, prove that p 2 cannot be written in the form ap 1 b,
where a and b are rational.
31. (Rational Root Theorem) Let
f(x) 5 anxn 1 an21xn21 1 ? ? ? 1 a0 [ Z[x]
and an 2 0. Prove that if r and s are relatively prime integers and
f(r/s) 5 0, then r | a0 and s | an.
32. Let F be a field and let p(x), a1(x), a2(x), . . . , ak(x) [ F[x], where
p(x) is irreducible over F. If p(x) | a1(x)a2(x) ? ? ? ak(x), show that
p(x) divides some ai(x). (This exercise is referred to in the proof of
Theorem 17.6.)
33. Let F be a field and p(x) [ F[x]. Use Theorem 14.4 to prove that if
kp(x)l is a maximal ideal in F[x], then p(x) is irreducible over F (see
Theorem 17.5).
34. If p is a prime, prove that xp21 2 xp22 1 xp23 2 ? ? ? 2 x 1 1 is

irreducible over Q.
35. Let F be a field and let p(x) be irreducible over F. If E is a field
that contains F and there is an element a in E such that p(a) 5 0,
show that the mapping f: F[x] S E given by f(x) S f(a) is a ring
homomorphism with kernel kp(x)l. (This exercise is referred to in
Chapter 20.)
36. Prove that the ideal kx2 1 1l is prime in Z[x] but not maximal in Z[x].
37. Let F be a field and let p(x) be irreducible over F. Show that {a 1
k p(x)l | a [ F} is a subfield of F[x]/kp(x)l isomorphic to F. (This
exercise is referred to in Chapter 20.)
38. Let F be a field and let f(x) be a polynomial in F[x] that is reducible
over F. Prove that kf(x)l is not a prime ideal in F[x].
39. Example 1 in this chapter shows the converse of Theorem 17.2 is
not true. That is, a polynomial f(x) in Z[x] can be reducible over Z
but irreducible over Q. State a condition on f(x) that makes the con
verse true.
40. Carry out the analysis given in Example 12 for a pair of tetrahe
drons instead of a pair of cubes. (Define ordinary tetrahedral dice
as the ones labeled 1 through 4.)
41. Suppose in Example 12 that we begin with n (n . 2) ordinary dice
each labeled 1 through 6, instead of just two. Show that the only
possible labels that produce the same probabilities as n ordinary
dice are the labels 1 through 6 and the Sicherman labels.
42. Show that one two-sided die labeled with 1 and 4 and another 18-
sided die labeled with 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7, 8
yield the same probabilities as an ordinary pair of cubes labeled
1 through 6. Carry out an analysis similar to that given in Example
12 to derive these labels.
43. In the game of Monopoly, would the probabilities of landing on
various properties be different if the game were played with
Sicherman dice instead of ordinary dice? Why?
Computer Exercises
Computer exercises for this chapter are available at the website:
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jgallian
304 Rings
Reference
1. Martin Gardner, “Mathematical Games,” Scientific American 238/2
(1978): 19–32.
Suggested Readings
Duane Broline, “Renumbering the Faces of Dice,” Mathematics Magazine
52 (1979): 312–315.
In this article, the author extends the analysis we carried out in Example
12 to dice in the shape of Platonic solids.
J. A. Gallian and D. J. Rusin, “Cyclotomic Polynomials and Nonstandard
Dice,” Discrete Mathematics 27 (1979): 245–259.
Here Example 12 is generalized to the case of n dice each with m labels
for all n and m greater than 1.
Randall Swift and Brian Fowler, “Relabeling Dice,” The College Mathe-
matics Journal 30 (1999): 204–208.
The authors use the method presented in this chapter to derive positive
integer labels for a pair of dice that are not six-sided but give the
same probabilities for the sum of the faces as a pair of cubes labeled
1 through 6.
Serge Lang
Lang’s Algebra changed the way graduate

algebra is taught . . . . It has affected all sub-
Courtesy of Bogdan Oporowski

sequent graduate-level algebra books.
Citation for the Steele Prize
Serge Lang was a prolific mathematician, prize-winning teacher known for his extraor
inspiring teacher, and political activist. He dinary devotion to students. Lang often got
was born near Paris on May 19, 1927. His into heated discussions about mathematics,
family moved to Los Angeles when he was a the arts, and politics. In one incident, he
teenager. Lang received a B.A. in physics threatened to hit a fellow mathematician
from Caltech in 1946 and a Ph.D. in mathe with a bronze bust for not conceding it was
matics from Princeton in 1951 under Emil self-
evident that the Beatles were greater
Artin (see the biography in Chapter 19). His musicians than Beethoven.
first permanent position was at Columbia Among Lang’s honors were the Steele
University in 1955, but in 1971 Lang re Prize for Mathematical Exposition from the
signed his position at Columbia as a protest American Mathematical Society, the Cole
against Columbia’s handling of Vietnam anti Prize in Algebra (see Chapter 25), and elec
war protesters. He joined Yale University in tion to the National Academy of Sciences.
1972 and remained there until his retirement. Lang died on September 25, 2005, at the age
Lang made significant contributions to of 78.
number theory, algebraic geometry, differen For more information about Lang, visit:
tial geometry, and analysis. He wrote more
than 120 research articles and 60 books. http://wikipedia.org/wiki/
His most famous and influential book was Serge_Lang
his graduate-level Algebra. Lang was a
305

Factorization of Polynomials PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Factorization of Polynomials PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

17 Factorization

Very early in our mathematical education—in fact in junior high

The value of a principle is the number of things it will explain.

Definition Irreducible Polynomial, Reducible Polynomial

In the case that an integral domain is a field F, it is equivalent and more

EXAMPLE 1 The polynomial f(x) 5 2x2 1 4 is irreducible over Q

EXAMPLE 2 The polynomial f(x) 5 2x2 1 4 is irreducible over R

EXAMPLE 3 The polynomial x2 2 2 is irreducible over Q but re­ducible

EXAMPLE 4 The polynomial x2 1 1 is irreducible over Z3 but re­ducible

In general, it is a difficult problem to decide whether or not a particu­

Theorem 17.1 Reducibility Test for Degrees 2 and 3

Let F be a field. If f(x) [ F[x] and deg f(x) is 2 or 3, then f(x) is

Definition Content of a Polynomial, Primitive Polynomial

The product of two primitive polynomials is primitive.

Theorem 17.2 Reducibility over Q Implies Reducibility over Z

Let f(x) [ Z[x]. If f(x) is reducible over Q, then it is reducible over Z.

EXAMPLE 5 We illustrate the proof of Theorem 17.2 by tracing

Theorem 17.3 Mod p Irreducibility Test

EXAMPLE 6 Let f(x) 5 21x3 2 3x2 1 2x 1 9. Then, over Z2, we have

EXAMPLE 7 Let f(x) 5 (3/7)x4 2 (2/7)x2 1 (9/35)x 1 3/5. We will

EXAMPLE 8 Let f(x) 5 x 5 1 2x 1 4. Obviously, neither Theorem 17.1

Another important irreducibility test is the following one, credited to

Theorem 17.4 Eisenstein’s Criterion (1850)

f(x) 5 anxn 1 an21xn21 1 ? ? ? 1 a0 [ Z[x].

PROOF If f(x) is reducible over Q, we know by Theorem 17.2 that there

Corollary Irreducibility of pth Cyclotomic Polynomial

For any prime p, the pth cyclotomic polynomial

EXAMPLE 9 The polynomial 3x5 1 15x4 2 20x3 1 10x 1 20 is

The principal reason for our interest in irreducible polynomials stems

Theorem 17.5 kp(x)l Is Maximal If and Only If p(x) Is Irreducible

Corollary 1 F [x]/k p(x)l Is a Field

Let F be a field and p(x) be an irreducible polynomial over F. Then

PROOF This follows directly from Theorems 17.5 and 14.4.

The next corollary is a polynomial analog of Euclid’s Lemma for

Corollary 2 p(x) | a(x)b(x) Implies p(x) | a(x) or p(x) | b(x)

PROOF Since p(x) is irreducible, F[x]/kp(x)l is a field and, therefore, an inte­

The next two examples put the theory to work.

EXAMPLE 10 We construct a field with eight elements. By Theorem

Table 17.1 A Partial Multiplication Table for Example 10

(Complete the table yourself. Keep in mind that x3 can be replaced by

EXAMPLE 11 Since x2 1 1 has no zero in Z3, it is irreducible over Z3.

Unique Factorization in Z [x]

Theorem 17.6 Unique Factorization in Z [x]

Every polynomial in Z[x] that is not the zero polynomial or a unit

PROOF Let f(x) be a nonzero, nonunit polynomial from Z[x]. If deg f(x) 5

Weird Dice: An Application

x(x 1 1)(x2 1 x 1 1)(x2 2 x 1 1)

1. Verify the assertion made in Example 2.

5. Let F be a field and let a be a nonzero element of F.

34. If p is a prime, prove that xp21 2 xp22 1 xp23 2 ? ? ? 2 x 1 1 is

Lang’s Algebra changed the way graduate

Courtesy of Bogdan Oporowski

You might also like

EXAMPLE 3 The polynomial x2 2 2 is irreducible over Q but reducible

EXAMPLE 4 The polynomial x2 1 1 is irreducible over Z3 but reducible

In general, it is a difficult problem to decide whether or not a particu

PROOF This follows directly from Theorems 17.5 and 14.4.

PROOF Since p(x) is irreducible, F[x]/kp(x)l is a field and, therefore, an inte