Ideal in polynomial ring extension [duplicate]











up vote
4
down vote

favorite













This question already has an answer here:




  • Divisor in $mathbb{C}[X]$ $implies$ divisor in $mathbb{R}[X]$?

    3 answers




Let $K subset L$ be a field extension, $K[X]$ and $L[X]$ the corresponding polynomial rings (in one variable) and $I subset K[X]$ an ideal. I want to show that $I=K[X] cap IL[X]$, where $IK[X]$ denotes the Ideal generated by $I$ in $K[X]$.

I got told that while there are many ways to show this abstractly, there is supposed to be a very simple proof only involving Linear Algebra.

I don't really know where to start here. The inclusion from left to right is trivial, but I haven't got much more. Any help - even just a hint - would be appreciated.










share|cite|improve this question













marked as duplicate by Bill Dubuque abstract-algebra
Users with the  abstract-algebra badge can single-handedly close abstract-algebra questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
Nov 18 at 17:24


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.















  • Do you know about faithfully flat modules?
    – Bernard
    Nov 18 at 0:58










  • I know about modules but thats about it.
    – Johny Hunter
    Nov 18 at 1:04










  • Tensor product?
    – Bernard
    Nov 18 at 1:13










  • While I do know the basics about Tensor products, it never got formally introduced to us
    – Johny Hunter
    Nov 18 at 1:21










  • @Bernard if you can find a proof using the tensor product then i am totally fine with that
    – Johny Hunter
    Nov 18 at 2:54















up vote
4
down vote

favorite













This question already has an answer here:




  • Divisor in $mathbb{C}[X]$ $implies$ divisor in $mathbb{R}[X]$?

    3 answers




Let $K subset L$ be a field extension, $K[X]$ and $L[X]$ the corresponding polynomial rings (in one variable) and $I subset K[X]$ an ideal. I want to show that $I=K[X] cap IL[X]$, where $IK[X]$ denotes the Ideal generated by $I$ in $K[X]$.

I got told that while there are many ways to show this abstractly, there is supposed to be a very simple proof only involving Linear Algebra.

I don't really know where to start here. The inclusion from left to right is trivial, but I haven't got much more. Any help - even just a hint - would be appreciated.










share|cite|improve this question













marked as duplicate by Bill Dubuque abstract-algebra
Users with the  abstract-algebra badge can single-handedly close abstract-algebra questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
Nov 18 at 17:24


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.















  • Do you know about faithfully flat modules?
    – Bernard
    Nov 18 at 0:58










  • I know about modules but thats about it.
    – Johny Hunter
    Nov 18 at 1:04










  • Tensor product?
    – Bernard
    Nov 18 at 1:13










  • While I do know the basics about Tensor products, it never got formally introduced to us
    – Johny Hunter
    Nov 18 at 1:21










  • @Bernard if you can find a proof using the tensor product then i am totally fine with that
    – Johny Hunter
    Nov 18 at 2:54













up vote
4
down vote

favorite









up vote
4
down vote

favorite












This question already has an answer here:




  • Divisor in $mathbb{C}[X]$ $implies$ divisor in $mathbb{R}[X]$?

    3 answers




Let $K subset L$ be a field extension, $K[X]$ and $L[X]$ the corresponding polynomial rings (in one variable) and $I subset K[X]$ an ideal. I want to show that $I=K[X] cap IL[X]$, where $IK[X]$ denotes the Ideal generated by $I$ in $K[X]$.

I got told that while there are many ways to show this abstractly, there is supposed to be a very simple proof only involving Linear Algebra.

I don't really know where to start here. The inclusion from left to right is trivial, but I haven't got much more. Any help - even just a hint - would be appreciated.










share|cite|improve this question














This question already has an answer here:




  • Divisor in $mathbb{C}[X]$ $implies$ divisor in $mathbb{R}[X]$?

    3 answers




Let $K subset L$ be a field extension, $K[X]$ and $L[X]$ the corresponding polynomial rings (in one variable) and $I subset K[X]$ an ideal. I want to show that $I=K[X] cap IL[X]$, where $IK[X]$ denotes the Ideal generated by $I$ in $K[X]$.

I got told that while there are many ways to show this abstractly, there is supposed to be a very simple proof only involving Linear Algebra.

I don't really know where to start here. The inclusion from left to right is trivial, but I haven't got much more. Any help - even just a hint - would be appreciated.





This question already has an answer here:




  • Divisor in $mathbb{C}[X]$ $implies$ divisor in $mathbb{R}[X]$?

    3 answers








linear-algebra abstract-algebra algebraic-geometry ideals






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Nov 18 at 0:34









Johny Hunter

9810




9810




marked as duplicate by Bill Dubuque abstract-algebra
Users with the  abstract-algebra badge can single-handedly close abstract-algebra questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
Nov 18 at 17:24


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.






marked as duplicate by Bill Dubuque abstract-algebra
Users with the  abstract-algebra badge can single-handedly close abstract-algebra questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
Nov 18 at 17:24


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.














  • Do you know about faithfully flat modules?
    – Bernard
    Nov 18 at 0:58










  • I know about modules but thats about it.
    – Johny Hunter
    Nov 18 at 1:04










  • Tensor product?
    – Bernard
    Nov 18 at 1:13










  • While I do know the basics about Tensor products, it never got formally introduced to us
    – Johny Hunter
    Nov 18 at 1:21










  • @Bernard if you can find a proof using the tensor product then i am totally fine with that
    – Johny Hunter
    Nov 18 at 2:54


















  • Do you know about faithfully flat modules?
    – Bernard
    Nov 18 at 0:58










  • I know about modules but thats about it.
    – Johny Hunter
    Nov 18 at 1:04










  • Tensor product?
    – Bernard
    Nov 18 at 1:13










  • While I do know the basics about Tensor products, it never got formally introduced to us
    – Johny Hunter
    Nov 18 at 1:21










  • @Bernard if you can find a proof using the tensor product then i am totally fine with that
    – Johny Hunter
    Nov 18 at 2:54
















Do you know about faithfully flat modules?
– Bernard
Nov 18 at 0:58




Do you know about faithfully flat modules?
– Bernard
Nov 18 at 0:58












I know about modules but thats about it.
– Johny Hunter
Nov 18 at 1:04




I know about modules but thats about it.
– Johny Hunter
Nov 18 at 1:04












Tensor product?
– Bernard
Nov 18 at 1:13




Tensor product?
– Bernard
Nov 18 at 1:13












While I do know the basics about Tensor products, it never got formally introduced to us
– Johny Hunter
Nov 18 at 1:21




While I do know the basics about Tensor products, it never got formally introduced to us
– Johny Hunter
Nov 18 at 1:21












@Bernard if you can find a proof using the tensor product then i am totally fine with that
– Johny Hunter
Nov 18 at 2:54




@Bernard if you can find a proof using the tensor product then i am totally fine with that
– Johny Hunter
Nov 18 at 2:54










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
3
down vote



accepted










In general, if $F$ is a field, then $F[x]$ is a PID (hint: Euclidean Algorithm).



So suppose $I = (f)$ where $f in K[x]$. To show the non-obvious inclusion, it suffices to show that if $fg in K[x]$ for some $g in L[x]$, then $g in K[x]$. Write $f = sum a_i x^i$ and $g = sum b_j x^j$, where $a_i in K$ and $b_j in L$. Then $fg$ has constant term $a_0b_0 in K$, so $b_0 in K$. Then the linear term is $a_0b_1 + b_0 a_1 in K$, so $b_1 in K$. You can then proceed similarly.



There is a flaw I left in - what should you do if $a_0$ or $b_0$ is zero? (or $a_1, b_1$, etc.) I'll leave this to you to fix it.



This is a typical question you will see in descent theory. For example, Galois descent says if $V$ is a $K$-vector space and $L/K$ is Galois, then $(V otimes_K L)^{operatorname{Gal}(L/K)} = V$. (So if $L/K$ is Galois, then you can apply $V=I$ and you are home.) Bernard asked whether you know about faithfully flat modules because, lo and behold, there's something called faithfully flat descent.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Easier to use uniqueness of the quotient (and remainder) in the division algorithm - see my answer in the linked dupe.
    – Bill Dubuque
    Nov 18 at 17:26




















1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
3
down vote



accepted










In general, if $F$ is a field, then $F[x]$ is a PID (hint: Euclidean Algorithm).



So suppose $I = (f)$ where $f in K[x]$. To show the non-obvious inclusion, it suffices to show that if $fg in K[x]$ for some $g in L[x]$, then $g in K[x]$. Write $f = sum a_i x^i$ and $g = sum b_j x^j$, where $a_i in K$ and $b_j in L$. Then $fg$ has constant term $a_0b_0 in K$, so $b_0 in K$. Then the linear term is $a_0b_1 + b_0 a_1 in K$, so $b_1 in K$. You can then proceed similarly.



There is a flaw I left in - what should you do if $a_0$ or $b_0$ is zero? (or $a_1, b_1$, etc.) I'll leave this to you to fix it.



This is a typical question you will see in descent theory. For example, Galois descent says if $V$ is a $K$-vector space and $L/K$ is Galois, then $(V otimes_K L)^{operatorname{Gal}(L/K)} = V$. (So if $L/K$ is Galois, then you can apply $V=I$ and you are home.) Bernard asked whether you know about faithfully flat modules because, lo and behold, there's something called faithfully flat descent.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Easier to use uniqueness of the quotient (and remainder) in the division algorithm - see my answer in the linked dupe.
    – Bill Dubuque
    Nov 18 at 17:26

















up vote
3
down vote



accepted










In general, if $F$ is a field, then $F[x]$ is a PID (hint: Euclidean Algorithm).



So suppose $I = (f)$ where $f in K[x]$. To show the non-obvious inclusion, it suffices to show that if $fg in K[x]$ for some $g in L[x]$, then $g in K[x]$. Write $f = sum a_i x^i$ and $g = sum b_j x^j$, where $a_i in K$ and $b_j in L$. Then $fg$ has constant term $a_0b_0 in K$, so $b_0 in K$. Then the linear term is $a_0b_1 + b_0 a_1 in K$, so $b_1 in K$. You can then proceed similarly.



There is a flaw I left in - what should you do if $a_0$ or $b_0$ is zero? (or $a_1, b_1$, etc.) I'll leave this to you to fix it.



This is a typical question you will see in descent theory. For example, Galois descent says if $V$ is a $K$-vector space and $L/K$ is Galois, then $(V otimes_K L)^{operatorname{Gal}(L/K)} = V$. (So if $L/K$ is Galois, then you can apply $V=I$ and you are home.) Bernard asked whether you know about faithfully flat modules because, lo and behold, there's something called faithfully flat descent.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Easier to use uniqueness of the quotient (and remainder) in the division algorithm - see my answer in the linked dupe.
    – Bill Dubuque
    Nov 18 at 17:26















up vote
3
down vote



accepted







up vote
3
down vote



accepted






In general, if $F$ is a field, then $F[x]$ is a PID (hint: Euclidean Algorithm).



So suppose $I = (f)$ where $f in K[x]$. To show the non-obvious inclusion, it suffices to show that if $fg in K[x]$ for some $g in L[x]$, then $g in K[x]$. Write $f = sum a_i x^i$ and $g = sum b_j x^j$, where $a_i in K$ and $b_j in L$. Then $fg$ has constant term $a_0b_0 in K$, so $b_0 in K$. Then the linear term is $a_0b_1 + b_0 a_1 in K$, so $b_1 in K$. You can then proceed similarly.



There is a flaw I left in - what should you do if $a_0$ or $b_0$ is zero? (or $a_1, b_1$, etc.) I'll leave this to you to fix it.



This is a typical question you will see in descent theory. For example, Galois descent says if $V$ is a $K$-vector space and $L/K$ is Galois, then $(V otimes_K L)^{operatorname{Gal}(L/K)} = V$. (So if $L/K$ is Galois, then you can apply $V=I$ and you are home.) Bernard asked whether you know about faithfully flat modules because, lo and behold, there's something called faithfully flat descent.






share|cite|improve this answer












In general, if $F$ is a field, then $F[x]$ is a PID (hint: Euclidean Algorithm).



So suppose $I = (f)$ where $f in K[x]$. To show the non-obvious inclusion, it suffices to show that if $fg in K[x]$ for some $g in L[x]$, then $g in K[x]$. Write $f = sum a_i x^i$ and $g = sum b_j x^j$, where $a_i in K$ and $b_j in L$. Then $fg$ has constant term $a_0b_0 in K$, so $b_0 in K$. Then the linear term is $a_0b_1 + b_0 a_1 in K$, so $b_1 in K$. You can then proceed similarly.



There is a flaw I left in - what should you do if $a_0$ or $b_0$ is zero? (or $a_1, b_1$, etc.) I'll leave this to you to fix it.



This is a typical question you will see in descent theory. For example, Galois descent says if $V$ is a $K$-vector space and $L/K$ is Galois, then $(V otimes_K L)^{operatorname{Gal}(L/K)} = V$. (So if $L/K$ is Galois, then you can apply $V=I$ and you are home.) Bernard asked whether you know about faithfully flat modules because, lo and behold, there's something called faithfully flat descent.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Nov 18 at 4:44









dyf

521110




521110












  • Easier to use uniqueness of the quotient (and remainder) in the division algorithm - see my answer in the linked dupe.
    – Bill Dubuque
    Nov 18 at 17:26




















  • Easier to use uniqueness of the quotient (and remainder) in the division algorithm - see my answer in the linked dupe.
    – Bill Dubuque
    Nov 18 at 17:26


















Easier to use uniqueness of the quotient (and remainder) in the division algorithm - see my answer in the linked dupe.
– Bill Dubuque
Nov 18 at 17:26






Easier to use uniqueness of the quotient (and remainder) in the division algorithm - see my answer in the linked dupe.
– Bill Dubuque
Nov 18 at 17:26





Popular posts from this blog

AnyDesk - Fatal Program Failure

How to calibrate 16:9 built-in touch-screen to a 4:3 resolution?

QoS: MAC-Priority for clients behind a repeater