Basic Proof
To prove the validity of the criterion, suppose Q satisfies the criterion for the prime number p, but that it is nevertheless reducible in ℚ, from which we wish to obtain a contradiction. From Gauss' lemma it follows that Q is reducible in ℤ as well, and in fact can be written as the product Q = GH of two non-constant polynomials G, H (in case Q is not primitive, one applies the lemma to the primitive polynomial Q/c (where the integer c is the content of Q) to obtain a decomposition for it, and multiplies c into one of the factors to obtain a decomposition for Q). Now reduce Q = GH modulo p to obtain a decomposition in (ℤ/pℤ). But by hypothesis this reduction for Q leaves its leading term, of the form axn for a non-zero constant a ∈ ℤ/pℤ, as the only nonzero term. But then necessarily the reductions modulo p of G and H also make all non-leading terms vanish (and cannot make their leading terms vanish), since no other decompositions of axn are possible in (ℤ/pℤ), which is a unique factorization domain. In particular the constant terms of G and H vanish in the reduction, so they are divisible by p, but then the constant term of Q, which is their product, is divisible by p2, contrary to the hypothesis, and one has a contradiction.
Read more about this topic: Eisenstein's Criterion
Famous quotes containing the words basic and/or proof:
“The basic difference between classical music and jazz is that in the former the music is always greater than its performance—Beethoven’s Violin Concerto, for instance, is always greater than its performance—whereas the way jazz is performed is always more important than what is being performed.”
—André Previn (b. 1929)
“If some books are deemed most baneful and their sale forbid, how, then, with deadlier facts, not dreams of doting men? Those whom books will hurt will not be proof against events. Events, not books, should be forbid.”
—Herman Melville (1819–1891)