Proof of The Irreducibility Statement
We prove the irreducibility statement directly in the setting of a UFD R. As mentioned above a non-constant polynomial is irreducible in R if and only if it is primitive and not a product of two non-constant polynomials in F. Being irreducible in F certainly excludes the latter possibility (since those non-constant polynomials would remain non-invertible in F), so the essential point left to prove is that if P is non-constant and irreducible in R then it is irreducible in F.
Note first that in F\{0} any class of associate elements (whose elements are related by multiplication by nonzero elements of the field F) meets the set of primitive elements in R: starting from an arbitrary element of the class, one can first (if necessary) multiply by a nonzero element of R to enter into the subset R (removing denominators), then divide by the greatest common divisor of all coefficients to obtain a primitive polynomial. Now assume that P is reducible in F, so P = ST with S,T non-constant polynomials in F. One can replace S and T by associate primitive elements S′, T′, and obtain P = αS′T′ for some nonzero α in F. But S′T′ is primitive in R by the primitivity statement, so α must lie in R (if written as an irreducible fraction, its denominator has to divide all coefficients of S′T′ because αS′T′ lies in R, but that means the denominator is invertible in R), and the decomposition P = αS′T′ contradicts the irreducibility of P in R.
Read more about this topic: Gauss's Lemma (polynomial)
Famous quotes containing the words proof of the, proof of, proof and/or statement:
“If we view our children as stupid, naughty, disturbed, or guilty of their misdeeds, they will learn to behold themselves as foolish, faulty, or shameful specimens of humanity. They will regard us as judges from whom they wish to hide, and they will interpret everything we say as further proof of their unworthiness. If we view them as innocent, or at least merely ignorant, they will gain understanding from their experiences, and they will continue to regard us as wise partners.”
—Polly Berrien Berends (20th century)
“The thing with Catholicism, the same as all religions, is that it teaches what should be, which seems rather incorrect. This is “what should be.” Now, if you’re taught to live up to a “what should be” that never existed—only an occult superstition, no proof of this “should be”Mthen you can sit on a jury and indict easily, you can cast the first stone, you can burn Adolf Eichmann, like that!”
—Lenny Bruce (1925–1966)
“When children feel good about themselves, it’s like a snowball rolling downhill. They are continually able to recognize and integrate new proof of their value as they grow and mature.”
—Stephanie Martson (20th century)
“It is commonplace that a problem stated is well on its way to solution, for statement of the nature of a problem signifies that the underlying quality is being transformed into determinate distinctions of terms and relations or has become an object of articulate thought.”
—John Dewey (1859–1952)