Hensel's Lemma - Hensel Lifting

Hensel Lifting

Using the lemma, one can "lift" a root r of the polynomial f mod pk to a new root s mod pk+1 (by taking m=1; taking larger m also works). The new root s is congruent to r mod p, so the new root also satisfies . So the lifting can be repeated, and starting from a solution rk of we can derive a sequence of solutions rk+1, rk+2, ... of the same congruence for successively higher powers of p, provided for the initial root rk.

What happens to this process if r is not a simple root mod p? If we have a root mod pk at which the derivative mod p is 0, then there is not a unique lifting of a root mod pk to a root mod pk+1: either there is no lifting to a root mod pk+1 or there are multiple choices:

if and then .

That is, for all integers t. Therefore if then there is no lifting of r to a root of f(x) mod pk+1, while if then every lifting of r to modulus pk+1 is a root of f(x) mod pk+1.

To see the difficulty that can arise in a concrete example, take p = 2, f(x) = x2 + 1, and r = 1. Then f(1) ≡ 0 mod 2 and f'(1) ≡ 0 mod 2. We have f(1) = 2 ≠ 0 mod 4 and no lifting of 1 to modulus 4 is a root of f(x) mod 4. On the other hand, if we take f(x) = x2 - 17 and then 1 is a root of f(x) mod 2 and for every positive integer k there is more than one lifting of 1 mod 2 to a root of f(x) mod 2k.

Read more about this topic:  Hensel's Lemma

Famous quotes containing the word lifting:

    Thales claimed that everything was water. He also put wine into water to sterilize it. Did he really believe he was putting water into water to sterilize it? Parmenides, like most Greeks, knew that wine was not water. But while lifting a glass of wine to his lips, he denied that motion was possible. Did he really believe that the glass was not moving when he lifted it?
    Avrum Stroll (b. 1921)