Identity of Polynomials in positive charcteristic












2












$begingroup$


In positive charcteristic $p$, we know that for every field element $xinmathbb{F}_{p}$ we get $x^p = x$.



Then I think (and I might be wrong, but I don't see how) monomials of the form $t^{p^i}inmathbb{F}_p[t]$ for arbitrary $iin mathbb{N}$ are all the same, since the functions $p_0(t)=t$, $p_1(t)=t^p$, $p_2(t)=t^{p^2}$ and so on are all actually the same functions. Not? I mean certainly they are equal on all elements, that is



$$p_i(x)= p_j(x)$$ for all $xinmathbb{F}_p$ and $i,jinmathbb{N}_0$. But in textbooks on finite function field and such, they are treated as if they where different. But this seems to contradict the (poinwise) definition of a function in terms of evaluation on elements.



So would be great to get some clarification here.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    2












    $begingroup$


    In positive charcteristic $p$, we know that for every field element $xinmathbb{F}_{p}$ we get $x^p = x$.



    Then I think (and I might be wrong, but I don't see how) monomials of the form $t^{p^i}inmathbb{F}_p[t]$ for arbitrary $iin mathbb{N}$ are all the same, since the functions $p_0(t)=t$, $p_1(t)=t^p$, $p_2(t)=t^{p^2}$ and so on are all actually the same functions. Not? I mean certainly they are equal on all elements, that is



    $$p_i(x)= p_j(x)$$ for all $xinmathbb{F}_p$ and $i,jinmathbb{N}_0$. But in textbooks on finite function field and such, they are treated as if they where different. But this seems to contradict the (poinwise) definition of a function in terms of evaluation on elements.



    So would be great to get some clarification here.










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      2












      2








      2





      $begingroup$


      In positive charcteristic $p$, we know that for every field element $xinmathbb{F}_{p}$ we get $x^p = x$.



      Then I think (and I might be wrong, but I don't see how) monomials of the form $t^{p^i}inmathbb{F}_p[t]$ for arbitrary $iin mathbb{N}$ are all the same, since the functions $p_0(t)=t$, $p_1(t)=t^p$, $p_2(t)=t^{p^2}$ and so on are all actually the same functions. Not? I mean certainly they are equal on all elements, that is



      $$p_i(x)= p_j(x)$$ for all $xinmathbb{F}_p$ and $i,jinmathbb{N}_0$. But in textbooks on finite function field and such, they are treated as if they where different. But this seems to contradict the (poinwise) definition of a function in terms of evaluation on elements.



      So would be great to get some clarification here.










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      In positive charcteristic $p$, we know that for every field element $xinmathbb{F}_{p}$ we get $x^p = x$.



      Then I think (and I might be wrong, but I don't see how) monomials of the form $t^{p^i}inmathbb{F}_p[t]$ for arbitrary $iin mathbb{N}$ are all the same, since the functions $p_0(t)=t$, $p_1(t)=t^p$, $p_2(t)=t^{p^2}$ and so on are all actually the same functions. Not? I mean certainly they are equal on all elements, that is



      $$p_i(x)= p_j(x)$$ for all $xinmathbb{F}_p$ and $i,jinmathbb{N}_0$. But in textbooks on finite function field and such, they are treated as if they where different. But this seems to contradict the (poinwise) definition of a function in terms of evaluation on elements.



      So would be great to get some clarification here.







      polynomials finite-fields






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked 35 mins ago









      BobbyBobby

      1847




      1847






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          4












          $begingroup$

          There are indeed two different notions of a polynomial over a field $K$: the first is that of formal expressions of the form $sum_{i=0}^k a_iX^i$ where $a_i in K$, and the second is that of functions $f : K to K$ where there exist $a_i in K$ such that for all $x in K$ we have
          $$
          f(x) = sum_{i = 0}^k a_ix^k.
          $$

          If we write $K[X]$ for the formal expressions, and $mathrm{Pol}(K)$ for the functions, then there is a mapping $K[X] to mathrm{Pol}(K)$ given by interpreting the formal expression as a function. In fact, it is a homomorphism whose kernel is precisely those polynomial expressions which evaluate as the zero function.



          Note that if $K$ is infinite, then the mapping $K[X] to mathrm{Pol}(K)$ is a bijection, and we tend to identify the two sets without too much worry.



          When $K$ is finite, identifying the sets makes little sense: the set $mathrm{Pol}(K)$ is a finite set -- in fact the set of all functions $K to K$ -- that does not catch the structure we find interesting about polynomials over $K$. For a concrete example, $mathrm{Pol}(mathbb F_2)$ only has four elements, and they can be written (as polynomial expressions) as $0, 1, X, X - 1$. There are no polynomials of degree at least $2$ to form any splitting fields!






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Nice! That clears everything exactly. Unfortunately this is rarely mentioned. Likely because of the identification in char zero. Good answer.
            $endgroup$
            – Bobby
            5 mins ago












          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3206874%2fidentity-of-polynomials-in-positive-charcteristic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          4












          $begingroup$

          There are indeed two different notions of a polynomial over a field $K$: the first is that of formal expressions of the form $sum_{i=0}^k a_iX^i$ where $a_i in K$, and the second is that of functions $f : K to K$ where there exist $a_i in K$ such that for all $x in K$ we have
          $$
          f(x) = sum_{i = 0}^k a_ix^k.
          $$

          If we write $K[X]$ for the formal expressions, and $mathrm{Pol}(K)$ for the functions, then there is a mapping $K[X] to mathrm{Pol}(K)$ given by interpreting the formal expression as a function. In fact, it is a homomorphism whose kernel is precisely those polynomial expressions which evaluate as the zero function.



          Note that if $K$ is infinite, then the mapping $K[X] to mathrm{Pol}(K)$ is a bijection, and we tend to identify the two sets without too much worry.



          When $K$ is finite, identifying the sets makes little sense: the set $mathrm{Pol}(K)$ is a finite set -- in fact the set of all functions $K to K$ -- that does not catch the structure we find interesting about polynomials over $K$. For a concrete example, $mathrm{Pol}(mathbb F_2)$ only has four elements, and they can be written (as polynomial expressions) as $0, 1, X, X - 1$. There are no polynomials of degree at least $2$ to form any splitting fields!






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Nice! That clears everything exactly. Unfortunately this is rarely mentioned. Likely because of the identification in char zero. Good answer.
            $endgroup$
            – Bobby
            5 mins ago
















          4












          $begingroup$

          There are indeed two different notions of a polynomial over a field $K$: the first is that of formal expressions of the form $sum_{i=0}^k a_iX^i$ where $a_i in K$, and the second is that of functions $f : K to K$ where there exist $a_i in K$ such that for all $x in K$ we have
          $$
          f(x) = sum_{i = 0}^k a_ix^k.
          $$

          If we write $K[X]$ for the formal expressions, and $mathrm{Pol}(K)$ for the functions, then there is a mapping $K[X] to mathrm{Pol}(K)$ given by interpreting the formal expression as a function. In fact, it is a homomorphism whose kernel is precisely those polynomial expressions which evaluate as the zero function.



          Note that if $K$ is infinite, then the mapping $K[X] to mathrm{Pol}(K)$ is a bijection, and we tend to identify the two sets without too much worry.



          When $K$ is finite, identifying the sets makes little sense: the set $mathrm{Pol}(K)$ is a finite set -- in fact the set of all functions $K to K$ -- that does not catch the structure we find interesting about polynomials over $K$. For a concrete example, $mathrm{Pol}(mathbb F_2)$ only has four elements, and they can be written (as polynomial expressions) as $0, 1, X, X - 1$. There are no polynomials of degree at least $2$ to form any splitting fields!






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Nice! That clears everything exactly. Unfortunately this is rarely mentioned. Likely because of the identification in char zero. Good answer.
            $endgroup$
            – Bobby
            5 mins ago














          4












          4








          4





          $begingroup$

          There are indeed two different notions of a polynomial over a field $K$: the first is that of formal expressions of the form $sum_{i=0}^k a_iX^i$ where $a_i in K$, and the second is that of functions $f : K to K$ where there exist $a_i in K$ such that for all $x in K$ we have
          $$
          f(x) = sum_{i = 0}^k a_ix^k.
          $$

          If we write $K[X]$ for the formal expressions, and $mathrm{Pol}(K)$ for the functions, then there is a mapping $K[X] to mathrm{Pol}(K)$ given by interpreting the formal expression as a function. In fact, it is a homomorphism whose kernel is precisely those polynomial expressions which evaluate as the zero function.



          Note that if $K$ is infinite, then the mapping $K[X] to mathrm{Pol}(K)$ is a bijection, and we tend to identify the two sets without too much worry.



          When $K$ is finite, identifying the sets makes little sense: the set $mathrm{Pol}(K)$ is a finite set -- in fact the set of all functions $K to K$ -- that does not catch the structure we find interesting about polynomials over $K$. For a concrete example, $mathrm{Pol}(mathbb F_2)$ only has four elements, and they can be written (as polynomial expressions) as $0, 1, X, X - 1$. There are no polynomials of degree at least $2$ to form any splitting fields!






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          There are indeed two different notions of a polynomial over a field $K$: the first is that of formal expressions of the form $sum_{i=0}^k a_iX^i$ where $a_i in K$, and the second is that of functions $f : K to K$ where there exist $a_i in K$ such that for all $x in K$ we have
          $$
          f(x) = sum_{i = 0}^k a_ix^k.
          $$

          If we write $K[X]$ for the formal expressions, and $mathrm{Pol}(K)$ for the functions, then there is a mapping $K[X] to mathrm{Pol}(K)$ given by interpreting the formal expression as a function. In fact, it is a homomorphism whose kernel is precisely those polynomial expressions which evaluate as the zero function.



          Note that if $K$ is infinite, then the mapping $K[X] to mathrm{Pol}(K)$ is a bijection, and we tend to identify the two sets without too much worry.



          When $K$ is finite, identifying the sets makes little sense: the set $mathrm{Pol}(K)$ is a finite set -- in fact the set of all functions $K to K$ -- that does not catch the structure we find interesting about polynomials over $K$. For a concrete example, $mathrm{Pol}(mathbb F_2)$ only has four elements, and they can be written (as polynomial expressions) as $0, 1, X, X - 1$. There are no polynomials of degree at least $2$ to form any splitting fields!







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 25 mins ago









          Mees de VriesMees de Vries

          17.8k13061




          17.8k13061












          • $begingroup$
            Nice! That clears everything exactly. Unfortunately this is rarely mentioned. Likely because of the identification in char zero. Good answer.
            $endgroup$
            – Bobby
            5 mins ago


















          • $begingroup$
            Nice! That clears everything exactly. Unfortunately this is rarely mentioned. Likely because of the identification in char zero. Good answer.
            $endgroup$
            – Bobby
            5 mins ago
















          $begingroup$
          Nice! That clears everything exactly. Unfortunately this is rarely mentioned. Likely because of the identification in char zero. Good answer.
          $endgroup$
          – Bobby
          5 mins ago




          $begingroup$
          Nice! That clears everything exactly. Unfortunately this is rarely mentioned. Likely because of the identification in char zero. Good answer.
          $endgroup$
          – Bobby
          5 mins ago


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3206874%2fidentity-of-polynomials-in-positive-charcteristic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Ponta tanko

          Tantalo (mitologio)

          Erzsébet Schaár