Skip to content

Comment on Why don't we define “imaginary” numbers for every “impossibility”? (2012)

Comments

For polynomial equations, the construction works in quite some generality, and is known as quotient ring: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotient_ring

Given any polynomial P (e.g. x^2 + 1) over a filed F (e.g. reals) we can form: `R = F[X]/P`

This is an algebraic "set" that supports addition, substraction, multiplication and has 0,1 but not division in general. Elements are elements of F and a new symbol X that satisfies "P(X) = 0".

Examples:

     R[X]/(x^2 + 1) = C
     R[X]/x = R
     C[X]/(x^2 + 1) = C + C.x
     R[X]/1 = 0
# Properties

- If the polynomial P is invertible, i.e. has degree 0 and is not zero, then the resulting ring is zero R[X]/P = 0. This is what happens in the example x = x-1 (which corresponds to P = x - 1 - x = -1).

- If the polynomial P has degree 1 (i.e. P=aX+b), then the equation P=0 is equivalent to x=-b/a, representing an element already present in R, hence the ring R[X]/P is equal to R.

- If the polynomial P is irreducible (i.e. not a product of two proper polynomials) then the quotient R[X]/P is a field. This happens in the case R[x]/(x^2 + 1) which results in the complex numbers.

- If the polynomial P is a product of two polynomials P1,P2 which don't have common divisors, then R[X]/P = R[X]/P1 + R[X]/P2, this happens in the case that C[X]/(x^2+1), since P = x^2 + 1 factors as (x+i)*(x-i) in C. The equivalent result for integers is known as Chinese Remainder Theorem.

If the polynomial P is invertible, i.e. has degree 1

Should be degree 0: only constant polynomials are invertible. E.g. x+1 is not invertible, and modding it out doesn't result in the zero ring.

The example is a bit confusing, because $x=x+1$ is equivalent to $0=1$, which has degree 0.

What's wrong with negative degree monomials?

You mean like $x^{-1} = 1/x$? That's called a rational function[1], but not a polynomial, so it's not an element of the polynomial ring[2]. Of course you can also consider the algebra of rational functions, but this is a field[3] (almost by definition: you make every polynomial invertible), which means that modding out anything other than 0 yields the zero ring[4].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_function

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynomial_ring

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics)

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_ring

Yes! Fixing

Thanks for this comment! Quick note - for clarity and conformity with standard notation, it would be good to have parentheses around the denominators of those ring quotients (in those cases like x^2 - 1 where they contain multiple additive terms).

Nit: I think everywhere you write x^2-1 you actually meant x^2+1.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.