Gauss's Lemma on Primitive Rational Polynomials/Proof 1

Proof
Let $f$ and $g$ be as follows:

From the definition of primitive polynomial, the coefficients of $f$ and $g$ are all integers.

From the definition of polynomial product:


 * $\ds f g = \sum_{k \mathop \in \Z} c_k \mathbf X^k$

where:
 * $\ds c_k = \sum_{\substack {p \mathop + q \mathop = k \\ p, q \mathop \in \Z} } a_p b_q$

it is clear that the coefficients of $f g$ are also all integers.

$f g$ is not primitive.

Then its coefficients must have a GCD greater than $1$.

Therefore there exists some prime $p$ which divides all the coefficients of $fg$.

Now $p$ can not divides all the coefficients of either $f$ or $g$, because they are primitive polynomials.

So:
 * Let $i$ be the smallest integer such that $p$ does not divide $a_i$
 * Let $j$ be the smallest integer such that $p$ does not divide $b_j$.

Consider the coefficient $c_{i+j}$ of $f g$:
 * $\ds c_{i + j} = \sum_{k \mathop = 0}^{i + j} a_k b_{i + j - k} = a_0 b_{i + j} + a_1 b_{i + j - 1} + \cdots + a_i b_j + \cdots + a_{i + j - 1} b_1 + a_{i + j} b_0$

From the assumption, it follows that $p \divides c_{i + j}$, and so:
 * $\ds p \divides \sum_{k \mathop = 0}^{i + j} a_k b_{i + j - k}$

where $\divides$ denotes divisibility.

Also, from the choice of $i$ and $j$, we have:
 * $p \divides a_m$ whenever $m < i$
 * $p \divides b_n$ whenever $n < j$

Now all the terms of $\ds \sum_{k \mathop = 0}^{i + j} a_k b_{i + j - k}$, except for $a_i b_j$, contain a factor from either $\set {a_0, a_1, \ldots, a_{i - 1} }$ or $\set {b_0, b_1, \ldots, b_{j - 1} }$.

It follows that we have:
 * $p \divides \paren {\ds \sum_{k \mathop = 0}^{i - 1} a_k b_{i + j - k} + \sum_{k \mathop = i + 1}^{i + j} a_k b_{i + j - k} }$

But then, as also $p \divides c_{i + j}$, it follows that $p \divides a_i b_j$ as well.

From Euclid's Lemma for Prime Divisors, $p$ has to divide one or the other.

This contradicts the definition of $i$ and $j$.

So $i$ and $j$ cannot both exist.

It follows that $p$ divides at least one of $f$ and $g$, one of which is therefore not primitive.

From this contradiction, we conclude that $f g$ must be primitive.

Hence the result.