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.
linear-algebra abstract-algebra algebraic-geometry ideals
marked as duplicate by Bill Dubuque
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.
|
show 1 more comment
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.
linear-algebra abstract-algebra algebraic-geometry ideals
marked as duplicate by Bill Dubuque
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
|
show 1 more comment
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.
linear-algebra abstract-algebra algebraic-geometry ideals
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
linear-algebra abstract-algebra algebraic-geometry ideals
asked Nov 18 at 0:34
Johny Hunter
9810
9810
marked as duplicate by Bill Dubuque
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
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
|
show 1 more comment
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
|
show 1 more comment
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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