Chapter 3 bounded the number of roots of a
polynomial, and the first section of this chapter
restated the bound as Corollary 6.1.4: a
nonzero polynomial of degree has at most roots. The bound counts
each root once, and so it misses something. The
polynomial has degree but only one root, and
the root is
somehow “used twice”. This section makes “used twice”
precise with the multiplicity of a root, sharpens the
root bound, and then gives a test for repeated roots
that needs no factoring: the formal derivative. The
derivative behaves differently in characteristic , and we say exactly
where. The section ends with Taylor expansion of a
polynomial, which turns out to be a dual basis from
Chapter 5.
Multiplicity of a root
By the Factor Theorem (Lemma 3.7.1,
restated in general as Theorem 6.1.3), is a root of exactly when divides . A repeated root should
mean that a higher power of divides . So we measure how many
factors can
be pulled out.
The multiplicity of counts how many times
divides .
Definition
6.4.1 (Multiplicity of a Root)
Let be a
field,
nonzero, and . The
multiplicity of as a root of , written ,
is the largest such that .
The root is
simple if , and multiple (or
repeated) if .
In words: keep dividing by as long as the
division leaves no remainder, and count the successful
divisions. Divisibility is meant in the sense of Definition 6.1.1, so
says for some .
There is something to check: a largest such must exist. The value
always works,
since
divides every polynomial. And if , then
because
, so Theorem 0.8.3 gives
. The admissible form a nonempty set of
natural numbers bounded by , so it has a
largest element. Moreover exactly when , that is, exactly when is a root. So
multiplicity
means “not a root”.
The hypothesis is not decoration. Every power divides the
zero polynomial, since . There is no largest , and the zero
polynomial has no multiplicities.
A definition by “largest ” is awkward to use
directly, because to confirm we must rule out all
larger powers. The next lemma replaces it with a single
test at .
Lemma
6.4.1 (Multiplicity via the Cofactor)
Let
be nonzero, , and . Then if and only if
Proof. Suppose
. Then for some . If , then by Lemma 3.7.1, so
,
contradicting the maximality of . Hence .
Suppose with . Then , so . Suppose, for a contradiction, that , say
.
Then . Since , cancellation (Corollary 0.8.4) gives
, and
evaluating at
gives by
Theorem 0.8.5, a
contradiction. Every higher power with would also
give . Hence .
The first payoff is that multiplicities add when
polynomials multiply, just as exponents do.
Theorem
6.4.2 (Multiplicity of a Product)
Let be nonzero and . Then .
Example
(Finding a Multiplicity by Repeated Division)
Let . Find the multiplicity of and of as roots of .
Solution. We have ,
so we divide by . Long division gives The cofactor has , so we divide
again: . The new cofactor has , and . Now
has
.
Hence and Lemma 6.4.1 gives
. For ,
write , whose cofactor takes the value
at . So , a simple root. The multiplicities add up to
.
Warning. Multiplicity is
not visible from the set of roots. The
polynomials and have the same roots , the same
degree, and the same leading coefficient, but they are
different polynomials. “The roots of ” as a set loses
information; the roots with their
multiplicities do not, as the next theorem
shows for polynomials that split.
Quick check. Over , what is the
multiplicity of
as a root of ? Of
as a root of ?
Solution. For , the
cofactor is
at , so the multiplicity is
by Lemma 6.4.1. For , the cofactor is at , so the multiplicity is
.
Counting
roots with multiplicity
In Example (Finding a Multiplicity by Repeated Division)
the multiplicities added up to exactly the degree. That
cannot always happen: has degree and no real roots at
all. The difference is whether breaks into linear
factors, so we give that a name.
Definition
6.4.2 (Splitting into Linear Factors)
Let be a
field. A nonzero of degree splits over
if there
are and
, not necessarily distinct, with
A nonzero constant splits (take and the empty
product ). The
polynomial splits over . The polynomial does not split
over , since a
linear factor with would give a rational root, but it splits
over as . The phrase over carries
weight: the
must lie in .
It turns out that the multiplicities always fit
inside the degree, and they fill it exactly when splits:
Theorem
6.4.3 (Roots Counted with Multiplicity)
Let be a field
and
nonzero. Let be the distinct roots of in , with multiplicities
.
Then for some with no root in . Consequently with equality if and only if splits over .
Idea. Peel off the roots one at a
time. After removing , the other roots are still roots of
the cofactor, because , and by Theorem 6.4.2 they
keep their multiplicities. Whatever is left at the end
has no roots, and its degree is exactly the gap between
and . The gap is zero
exactly when the leftover is a constant.
Proof. The set of roots is finite
by Corollary 6.1.4, so
the list makes sense. We prove the following claim
by induction on :
for some nonzero with
For take
. Suppose
the claim holds for some . By Lemma 6.4.1 applied to
, we have with ,
which gives the product formula for and . For , the polynomial
takes the value at , since the roots are
distinct. So its multiplicity at is by Lemma 6.4.1 (with
cofactor the polynomial itself), and Theorem 6.4.2 gives
This is
for and
for , which
completes the induction.
Put . By
the claim, , that is, , for every . If were a root of
, then , so would be one of the
, which is
impossible. Hence
has no root in .
Since ,
also , and
Theorem 0.8.3 gives
.
If
equality holds, then , so is a nonzero constant and splits over .
Suppose with . Group equal
factors: with distinct
and . By the computation above, the cofactor is nonzero at , so by Lemma 6.4.1. Every
root of satisfies , so is
one of the .
Hence the roots of are exactly , and
their multiplicities add up to . This proves
the theorem.
The theorem sharpens Corollary 6.1.4,
because the number of distinct roots is at
most . It also shows that a split polynomial is
determined by its leading coefficient and its roots with
multiplicities. Whether a given polynomial splits
depends on the field: the fifth-degree polynomial has
root multiplicities adding up to over , but it splits over
as .
In the next section we prove that over
every polynomial splits.
How do we recognize a repeated root without
factoring? Over
calculus has an answer. At a simple root the graph of
crosses the axis
with nonzero slope, while at a double root, as for at , it touches the axis
and the slope is .
We would like to use this over every field, including
, where there
are no limits and no slopes. So we keep the formula of
the derivative and throw away the limit.
The formal derivative is the power rule, applied
coefficient by coefficient.
In words: each monomial becomes , and
constants disappear. This is the map of Example (Differentiation),
where we already saw that is linear. Over it agrees with the
derivative of calculus on polynomial functions, since
calculus gives the same power rule. By Lemma 0.7.4, , so
the integer acts
through the element of .
That element can be , and this is
the source of every difference between characteristic
and
characteristic .
Some examples. Over , . Over any field, the derivative of a
constant is and
.
Over , , because there. Over , : a
nonconstant polynomial with derivative zero.
In characteristic the last example cannot
happen. If , the coefficient of in is , a product
of two nonzero elements, so and
in particular . In characteristic the same coefficient
vanishes whenever , because then by Lemma 0.7.4.
The derivative obeys the rules we know from calculus.
The proofs cannot use limits, so they go through
monomials.
Idea. Both sides of the product
rule are linear in for fixed , and linear in for fixed . So it is enough to
check the rule when and are monomials, where it
is the identity for exponents. Checking on monomials, and
extending by linearity, is the standard way to prove any
identity about .
Proof.
(a) Linearity is
Example (Differentiation).
A constant has no coefficients in positions , so its
derivative is .
(b) First let
and with . If , then using from Lemma 0.7.4. If , then , , and both
sides equal (or when ); the case is symmetric.
Now let and . By Theorem 0.8.1, , a finite sum. Applying (a) and
the monomial case, where the middle equality regroups with the
distributive laws, and the last uses (a) again.
- (c) We use induction
on . For both sides are
. If , then by (b) For we have by (a). This proves the theorem.
Repeated
roots and the derivative
Now we can turn the calculus picture into a theorem
valid over every field.
Theorem
6.4.5 (Repeated Root Test)
Let be a
field,
nonzero, and .
- (a) is a multiple root of
if and only if
and .
- (b) Suppose and in (this holds
automatically if
has characteristic ). Then and .
Idea. Write and
differentiate: , so . The
derivative at
reads off exactly the cofactor’s value, which is what Lemma 6.4.1 needs. For
(b), differentiate instead; the factor appears, and it must
not be in .
Proof.
- (a) Suppose
. By
Theorem 6.4.4 (b) and
(c), , and evaluating at gives and .
Suppose
and .
By Lemma 3.7.1, for some
. By Theorem 6.4.4, , so . By Lemma 3.7.1 again,
, so
and
.
- (b) By Lemma 6.4.1, with
. By Theorem 6.4.4, Then , a product of two nonzero
elements of , so
. In
particular , so by Corollary 0.8.4, and
by Lemma 6.4.1.
Part (a) holds over every field.
Part (b) needs its hypothesis. Over , let . Then , and , so , not .
Here , and the factor killed the term that
should have lowered the multiplicity.
Part (a) finds a repeated root at a known point . To decide whether
any repeated root exists, without
knowing the roots, we use the gcd of and , which the
Euclidean algorithm (Theorem 6.2.6)
computes by division alone. Repeated roots are a special
case of repeated irreducible factors: is a multiple root
exactly when the irreducible polynomial appears
squared.
Corollary
6.4.6 (Repeated Factors and )
Let be a field
and
nonconstant.
- (a) (Any
field.) If is irreducible and , then .
Hence, if , then no irreducible polynomial divides twice; in particular
has no multiple
root in .
- (b)
(Characteristic .) If has characteristic
and ,
then for
some irreducible .
Idea. For (a), differentiate : every term still
contains . For
(b), run it backwards. An irreducible dividing both and must divide . If does not divide , then Euclid’s
lemma pushes into
, and . The only
question is whether can happen, and that is exactly where
the characteristic enters.
Proof.
(a) Write . By Theorem 6.4.4, . So is a common divisor of
and , and by
Theorem 6.2.3. If
, this would give , which is
impossible because is nonconstant (Definition 6.3.1) and
a nonzero multiple of has degree at least
by Theorem 0.8.3. If
were a multiple
root, then . But is irreducible (Definition 6.3.1),
because a product of two nonconstant polynomials has
degree at least .
This is again impossible.
(b) Let . Since and , ; as is
monic and ,
. By Theorem 6.3.5, has a monic irreducible
factor . Then
and (Theorem 6.2.3). Write
. By Theorem 6.4.4, , so divides .
Since has
characteristic
and ,
we showed after Definition 6.4.3 that
and
. A nonzero multiple of has degree at least
, so . By
Euclid’s lemma (Theorem 6.3.3), . Hence . This
proves the corollary.
Warning. In characteristic
, a nonconstant
polynomial can have derivative . Over , . The proof of (b) used that an irreducible
factor of has of smaller
degree, so that ; in characteristic that step is no longer
automatic, because may be . So the correct
statements are: implies no repeated irreducible
factor, over any field; the converse is
proved here only in characteristic . Do not use
“repeated factor if and only if ”
over a field of characteristic without checking that
no irreducible factor of has derivative .
Example
(Detecting a Repeated Root with a gcd)
Decide whether has a repeated
irreducible factor, using only . Does
have a multiple
root in ?
Solution. Here .
Run the Euclidean algorithm (Theorem 6.2.6).
Dividing by , and the remainder is .
Dividing by
, (We divided by the monic multiple of the
remainder; scaling a divisor by a nonzero constant
changes only the quotient, so the next remainder is
still .) The last
nonzero remainder, made monic, is the gcd: . By Corollary 6.4.6 (b),
since has
characteristic ,
has a repeated
irreducible factor. Indeed divides the gcd, so is a common root of
and , and by Theorem 6.4.5 (a) it
is a multiple root. This matches Example (Finding a Multiplicity by Repeated Division),
where , and Theorem 6.4.5 (b)
gives , consistent with the factor of the gcd.
So yes, has a
multiple root in , namely . The gcd test
is useful over
even for polynomials with rational coefficients: the
Euclidean algorithm uses only divisions in , and division with
remainder is unique (Theorem 6.1.1), so
running it in produces the same
remainders and the same gcd. Had the gcd been , part (a) over would have ruled out
every multiple complex root, without our finding a
single root.
Quick check. Over , satisfies .
Does Theorem 6.4.5 say that
has multiplicity
?
Solution. No. Part (a) says only
that the multiplicity is at least . The actual
multiplicity is .
Part (b) applies, since has characteristic
: . To pin
the multiplicity down with derivatives, find the first
with : here
and , so .
Taylor
expansion of a polynomial
The answer to the check suggests that, in
characteristic ,
the derivatives of at know everything about
near . Calculus makes this
precise with Taylor’s formula. For polynomials the
formula is exact, and it has a clean linear-algebra
meaning: the numbers are the
coordinates of in
the basis of powers of , so the maps form a dual basis in the
sense of Definition 5.1.3. In Example (Dual Bases in )
we saw this for and .
We need one derivative computation. For integers
,
repeated use of Theorem 6.4.4 (c) and
(a) gives by induction on , and for , since the -th derivative is the
constant .
Evaluating at ,
every term with vanishes because of the factor . Hence
Theorem
6.4.7 (Taylor Expansion of a Polynomial)
Let be a
field, ,
and .
- (a) The list is a basis of .
- (b) Suppose has characteristic
, or
characteristic . For define by . Then is the dual basis of , and every
satisfies
Idea. ① The powers of have degrees , so no
combination of them can cancel down to zero; there are
of them, so
counting finishes (a). ② The computation above says
exactly , once we may divide by
. ③ A list of
functionals with the property is the
dual basis, and the dual basis expansion of Theorem 5.1.3 is Taylor’s
formula.
Proof.
(a) Let , and suppose not all are zero. Let be the largest index
with . By
Theorem 0.8.3, has degree
, and each earlier
term has degree less than , so by Theorem 0.8.2 the sum
has degree .
This contradicts the sum being , of degree . Hence is linearly
independent. It has elements and by Example (Standard Bases),
so is a basis
by Theorem 1.6.4
(a).
(b) First, in
for . By Lemma 0.7.4, . In characteristic each factor is nonzero
by Definition 0.7.2; in
characteristic , each factor with is nonzero by the minimality of
. A product of
nonzero elements is nonzero (Theorem 0.7.1). So
is
defined.
Each
is linear: is linear as a composite of copies of
(Example (Differentiation)),
evaluation at is
linear by Theorem 0.8.5, and so
is multiplication by . The
derivatives of a polynomial of degree at most have degree at most
, so . By the computation before the theorem,
By the uniqueness in Theorem 5.1.3 (a), is the dual basis of . The first formula
of Theorem 5.1.3 (c), , is the Taylor expansion. This proves the
theorem.
Example
(Re-centering a Cubic)
Expand in powers of .
Solution. The derivatives are , , . At
: , , , .
By Theorem 6.4.7 (b),
since has
characteristic ,
Check by expanding: equals
The expansion also reads off root information at
: the constant
term , so is
not a root. In general,
is the index of the first nonzero coordinate of in the basis (over any field, by
part (a); in characteristic these coordinates are
the Taylor coefficients), because and the bracket is at .
Warning. Taylor’s formula
needs . Over , take and . Then , so
every derivative of , at every point, is
, even though
. No
formula in the values can recover
the coefficient
of . Part (a) of
Theorem 6.4.7 still
holds over :
has coordinates
in . What fails
is that these coordinates are derivatives divided by
.
The two halves of this section meet in Chapter 9,
where a matrix is diagonalizable exactly when its
minimal polynomial splits and has no repeated roots; the
gcd test above is how such a condition is checked in
practice. Before that, the next section proves that over
the sum of the
multiplicities always equals the degree.
Exercises
A. Check your
understanding
Exercise
(A1)
- (a) Define the
multiplicity of
as a root of a nonzero . Why is required?
- (b) True or false:
if , then
has multiplicity exactly . Justify your
answer.
- (c) True or false:
over every field, implies that is constant. Justify
your answer.
- (d) True or false:
if has
degree and the
multiplicities of its real roots add up to , then splits over . Justify your
answer.
- (e) True or false:
if is
nonconstant and , then has a repeated
irreducible factor. Justify your answer.
- (f) Name the dual
basis (Theorem 5.1.3) of in .
Solution.
- (a) It is the
largest
with (Definition 6.4.1). For
, every power
divides , so no
largest
exists.
- (b) False. For and , , but
. Theorem 6.4.5 (a) only
gives multiplicity at least .
- (c) False. Over
, . (In
characteristic it
is true: whenever .)
- (d) True. By Theorem 6.4.3, the sum
of multiplicities equals the degree if and only if splits over .
- (e) True. has characteristic
, so this is Corollary 6.4.6
(b).
- (f) for , by Theorem 6.4.7 (b);
has
characteristic .
B. Practice
Exercise
(B1: Multiplicities over different fields)
- (a) Let . Find
in . Hence
decide whether
splits over ,
and whether it splits over .
- (b) In , find the roots
of
and their multiplicities. Does split over ?
Solution.
- (a) Here . Dividing by repeatedly, and . Since takes the value
at , Lemma 6.4.1 gives
and . Over , has no root
(), so
the only real root of is , and . By Theorem 6.4.3, does not split over
. Over , ,
so splits.
- (b) In , ,
and because . Hence , using . The cofactor is at , and is at , so by Lemma 6.4.1. These are
the only elements of , the multiplicities
add to ,
and splits over
.
Exercise
(B2: A gcd test)
Decide whether has a repeated root, by
computing with the Euclidean algorithm. Hence
factor and give
all multiplicities.
Solution. We have .
Dividing, , since . Next, . So the last nonzero
remainder is , and by Theorem 6.2.6 . Its roots and are common roots of
and , since
divides both. By Theorem 6.4.5 (a),
and are multiple roots of
.
To factor, note that , so .
By Lemma 6.4.1, (cofactor , value at ) and .
Exercise
(B3: The multiplicity of )
Let and
. Prove that is a root of of multiplicity exactly
.
Solution. We have ,
, so , and , so since . In particular . By Theorem 6.4.5 (a),
. Since has characteristic
, part (b) gives
. Apply (a) to : since
, is
not a multiple root of , so . Hence .
C. Going deeper
Exercise
(C1: Real roots of the derivative)
Let
have degree
and split over .
Prove that
splits over .
You may use Rolle’s theorem from
calculus: if are real and , then for some
with .
Hint: count the roots of with multiplicity,
and compare with .
Solution. Let be the distinct real roots of , with multiplicities
.
Since splits over
, Theorem 6.4.3 gives
.
By Rolle’s theorem, for each there
is with and . These
numbers are
distinct, since they lie in disjoint open intervals, and
none of them is a . Moreover, each with is a root of
of
multiplicity , by Theorem 6.4.5 (b)
(characteristic );
for the
count
is also correct.
Since and
has characteristic , , so
.
Adding the multiplicities of the distinct roots of gives at least
By Theorem 6.4.3 the sum
of the multiplicities of all roots of is at most , so it equals
, and
splits over
.
Exercise
(C2: over
)
Let be a prime
and .
Hint for (c): for , use the integer identity .
Solution.
(a) By Definition 6.4.3,
, since in . Every common
divisor of and
divides , so , and
Corollary 6.4.6 (a),
which holds over every field, shows has no repeated
irreducible factor.
(b) By Exercise (C2: A nonzero polynomial vanishing everywhere)
(c), every is a root of , so each of the elements has
multiplicity at least . The multiplicities add
up to at least , and at most by Theorem 6.4.3. So they
add up to exactly , and each is . By Theorem 6.4.3, with , so is a constant;
comparing leading coefficients (Theorem 0.8.3), .
(c) Here , so
(the monic generator of the ideal generated
by and ). Part (a) of Corollary 6.4.6 needs
, so it
says nothing, and part (b) is only available in
characteristic .
Still, and
, so
is a multiple
root by Theorem 6.4.5 (a).
For the factorization, expand with the binomial
theorem (valid in the commutative ring , Theorem 0.8.1): , with the integers
acting
as integer multiples. For , the identity and Lemma 0.7.4 give in . Since , by Definition 0.7.2, so
(Theorem 0.7.1). Hence
. For odd this is ; for it is . So
, and
by Lemma 6.4.1.
Exercise
(C3: Removing repeated factors)
Let be a field
and , where ,
the are
distinct monic irreducible polynomials,
and .
- (a) Suppose has characteristic
. Prove that , and deduce that .
- (b) Over , let . Compute
and show that the conclusion of (a) fails.
Hint for (a): write . Show ;
for the reverse, show
using Euclid’s lemma.
Solution.
(a) Let
and . By Theorem 6.4.4 (b) and
(c), applied repeatedly, Every term is divisible by , and so is . Hence by Theorem 6.2.3.
Conversely, , so . Factoring and into monic irreducibles
and comparing with the factorization of by the uniqueness in Theorem 6.3.5,
with (as
is monic). Suppose for some . Then . In
the formula for every term with
index
contains ,
so
divides the remaining term . Canceling (Corollary 0.8.4),
. Here
is a nonzero constant (characteristic ),
because has smaller degree, and for because both are
monic irreducible and distinct. Applying Theorem 6.3.3
repeatedly gives a contradiction. Hence for all
, so . Both are monic
and divide each other, so they have the same degree and
. Finally
, so .
(b) In , and .
Since ,
, and . The formula of (a)
would predict and . The irreducible factor has been lost. The step
that fails is “”: here and in .