Definition of Polynomial from Polynomial Ring over Sequence
 It has been suggested that this page or section be merged into Equivalence of Definitions of Polynomial Ring. (Discuss) |
Theorem
Let $\struct {R, +, \circ}$ be a ring with unity.
Let $\struct {P \sqbrk R, \oplus, \odot}$ be the polynomial ring over the set of all sequences in $R$:
- $P \sqbrk R = \set {\sequence {r_0, r_1, r_2, \ldots} }$
where the operations $\oplus$ and $\odot$ on $P \sqbrk R$ be defined as:
| \((1)\) | $:$ | Ring Addition: | \(\displaystyle \sequence {r_0, r_1, r_2, \ldots} \oplus \sequence {s_0, s_1, s_2, \ldots} \) | \(\displaystyle = \) | \(\displaystyle \sequence {r_0 + s_0, r_1 + s_1, r_2 + s_2, \ldots} \) | |||
| \((2)\) | $:$ | Ring Negative: | \(\displaystyle -\sequence {r_0, r_1, r_2, \ldots} \) | \(\displaystyle = \) | \(\displaystyle \sequence {-r_0, -r_1, -r_2, \ldots} \) | |||
| \((3)\) | $:$ | Ring Product: | \(\displaystyle \sequence {r_0, r_1, r_2, \ldots} \odot \sequence {s_0, s_1, s_2, \ldots} \) | \(\displaystyle = \) | \(\displaystyle \sequence {t_0, t_1, t_2, \ldots} \) | where $\displaystyle t_i = \sum_{j \mathop + k \mathop = i} r_j \circ s_k$ |
Let $\struct {R \sqbrk X, +, \circ}$ be the ring of polynomials over $R$ in $X$.
Strictly speaking the definition in terms of Definition:Polynomial Form is needed here, with $X$ specifically being an Definition:Indeterminate (Polynomial Theory) or Definition:Transcendental over Integral Domain.
You can help $\mathsf{Pr} \infty \mathsf{fWiki}$ by explaining it. To discuss this point in more detail, feel free to use the talk page.
If you are able to explain it, then when you have done so you can remove this instance of {{Explain}} from the code.
Then $\struct {R \sqbrk X, +, \circ}$ and $\struct {P \sqbrk R, \oplus, \odot}$ are isomorphic.
Proof
Let $P \sqbrk R$ be the polynomial ring over $R$.
Consider the injection $\phi: R \to P \sqbrk R$ defined as:
- $\forall r \in R: \map \phi r = \sequence {r, 0, 0, \ldots}$
It is easily checked that $\phi$ is a ring monomorphism.
So the set $\set {\sequence {r, 0, 0, \ldots}: r \in R}$ is a subring of $P \sqbrk R$ which is isomorphic to $R$.
So we identify $r \in R$ with the sequence $\sequence {r, 0, 0, \ldots}$.
Next we note that $P \sqbrk R$ contains the element $\sequence {0, 1, 0, \ldots}$ which we can call $x$.
From the definition of ring product on the polynomial ring over $R$, we have that:
- $x^2 = \sequence {0, 1, 0, \ldots} \odot \sequence {0, 1, 0, \ldots} = \sequence {0, 0, 1, 0, 0, \ldots}$
- $x^3 = \sequence {0, 0, 1, 0, 0, \ldots} \odot \sequence {0, 1, 0, \ldots} = \sequence {0, 0, 0, 1, 0, \ldots}$
and in general:
- $x^n = \sequence {0, 1, 0, \ldots}^{n - 1} \odot \sequence {0, 1, 0, \ldots} = \sequence {0, \ldots \paren n \ldots, 0, 1, 0, \ldots}$
for all $n \ge 1$.
Hence we see that:
| \(\displaystyle \sequence {r_0, r_1, \ldots, r_n, 0, \ldots \ldots}\) | \(=\) | \(\displaystyle \sequence {r_0, 0, 0, \ldots \ldots} \odot \sequence {1, 0, 0, \ldots}\) | |||||||||||
| \(\displaystyle \) | \(\) | \(\, \displaystyle \oplus \, \) | \(\displaystyle \sequence {r_1, 0, 0, \ldots \ldots} \odot \sequence {0, 1, 0, \ldots}\) | ||||||||||
| \(\displaystyle \) | \(\) | \(\, \displaystyle \oplus \, \) | \(\displaystyle \cdots\) | ||||||||||
| \(\displaystyle \) | \(\) | \(\, \displaystyle \oplus \, \) | \(\displaystyle \sequence {r_n, 0, 0, \ldots \ldots} \odot \sequence {0, \ldots \paren n \ldots, 0, 1, 0, \ldots}\) | ||||||||||
| \(\displaystyle \) | \(=\) | \(\displaystyle r_0 \oplus r_1 \circ x \oplus r_2 \circ x^2 \oplus \ldots \oplus r_n \circ x^n\) |
So by construction, $R \sqbrk X$ is seen to be equivalent to $P \sqbrk R$.
$\blacksquare$
This article contains statements that are justified by handwavery, in particular:
The entirety of the above argument needs to be made properly rigorous.
You can help $\mathsf{Pr} \infty \mathsf{fWiki}$ by adding precise reasons why such statements hold.
If you are able to do this, then when you have done so you can remove this instance of {{Handwaving}} from the code.
If you would welcome a second opinion as to whether your work is correct, add a call to {{Proofread}} the page (see the proofread template for usage).
To discuss this in more detail, feel free to use the talk page.
It can also be shown that this proof works for the general ring whether it be a ring with unity or not.
Sources
- 1969: C.R.J. Clapham: Introduction to Abstract Algebra ... (previous) ... (next): Chapter $6$: Polynomials and Euclidean Rings: $\S 25$. Polynomials
