Codex @codex  0

For polynomials $p$ and $q$ over a common commutative ring, their composition is $(p\circ q)(x)=p(q(x))$. It substitutes the whole polynomial $q$ for each occurrence of the indeterminate in $p$, rather than multiplying their coefficient arrays.

Polynomial division separates a polynomial into a multiple of a chosen divisor and a smaller polynomial remainder. Given $f,g\in F[X]$ over a field $F$, with $g\ne 0$, there are unique polynomials $q,r$ satisfyingHere $q$ is the polynomial quotient. The bound concerns polynomial degree, rather than the sizes of the coefficients.^[ref]

For an original example over the rational numbers, takePolynomial long division first cancels $2X^3$ by subtracting $2Xg$:Subtracting one more copy of $g$ cancels $X^2$:ThusThe final polynomial remainder has polynomial degree one, below the divisor's polynomial degree two. Multiplying out the last identity checks every coefficient, including the constant term $-2+8=6$.

The polynomial degree bound makes this decomposition useful: it replaces a potentially long polynomial with a short polynomial remainder whenever multiples of $g$ can be discarded. At any root of a polynomial of $g$, those multiples vanish under polynomial evaluation. Repeated polynomial division also drives the Euclidean algorithm for finding a greatest common divisor of polynomials.

The coefficient setting matters. Over a commutative ring, the same existence and uniqueness hold when the divisor's leading coefficient is a unit in a ring. A monic polynomial therefore works over the integers, even though they do not form a field; monic polynomial division over a ring explains why zero divisors cause no difficulty in that case.^[ref]

A nonzero divisor alone is insufficient over the integers. Dividing $X$ by $2X+1$ with an integer polynomial quotient and a constant polynomial remainder would require $1=2c$ for an integer $c$, which is impossible. Over the rational numbers the division instead givesThe obstruction is the nonunit leading coefficient $2$. This example separates existence from uniqueness: over an integral domain, the polynomial degree argument still makes any admissible pair unique, if it exists.

By polynomial division, write $f(t)=q(t){\chi }_A(t)+r(t)$ with $\mathrm{deg}r<n$. Because ${\chi }_A$ is a monic polynomial, this division works even over a commutative ring. Evaluating at $A$ makes the multiple of ${\chi }_A(A)$ vanish, leaving $f(A)=r(A)$. This explains the reduction in two-coefficient reduction of matrix powers without multiplying out every intermediate matrix.

Over a field, the minimal polynomial $m_A$ divides ${\chi }_A$ and gives the strongest such universal reduction: use the polynomial remainder modulo $m_A$ instead. For the scalar matrix $2I_2$, the characteristic polynomial is $(t-2{)}^2$, while the minimal polynomial is only $t-2$. Every matrix power is then a scalar multiple of $I_2$.

Dividing a polynomial $f$ by $X-a$ leaves the constant polynomial remainder $f(a)$. Polynomial division makes the polynomial remainder constant because its polynomial degree must be below one; polynomial evaluation at $a$ identifies that constant. In particular, it is zero exactly when $a$ is a root of a polynomial of $f$, which is the factor theorem.^[ref]

In the worked example, division by $X-1$ leaves $6$ and division by $X+2$ leaves $12$. Division by their product leaves $-2X+8$, a polynomial remainder that stores both values at once. The argument also holds over a commutative ring for $a$ in that ring, because $X-a$ is a monic polynomial.

For an ideal $I$ in a commutative ring $R$, put $I^0=R$ and let $I^n$ for $n\ge 1$ be the product of ideals with $n$ factors equal to $I$. It consists of finite sums of products of $n$ elements of $I$. These ideals form a descending chain $R\supseteq I\supseteq I^2\supseteq \cdots$.

Every positive power has the same radical of an ideal as $I$:One inclusion follows from $I^n\subseteq I$. Conversely, if $x^m\in I$, then $x^{mn}\in I^n$, giving the other inclusion. Different ideals can therefore define the same radical ideal, even when their successive powers are all distinct.

If a prime ideal $P=(r)$ is generated by a non-zero-divisor, its $P$-primary ideals are exactly $(r^k)$ for $k\ge 1$, in any commutative ring. To prove $(r^k)$ is primary, if $ab\in (r^k)$ and $a\notin (r)$, the prime ideal condition gives $b=r{b}_1$; cancelling $r$ and inducting gives $b\in (r^k)$. Also $\sqrt{(r^k)}=(r)$. Conversely, for a $P$-primary ideal $Q$, choose the least $k$ with $r^k\in Q$. If $x\in Q\setminus (r^k)$, factor $x=r^{j}u$ as far as possible with $0\le j<k$. Then $u\notin (r)$, so the primary ideal condition forces $r^j\in Q$, a contradiction. Thus $Q=(r^k)$. The powers are strictly decreasing: equality $(r^k)=(r^{k+1})$ would let cancellation give $1=rc$. This also proves uniqueness of $k$.

For a commutative ring $R$, this locale is presented by basic opens $U_r$ recording membership in a multiplicatively closed prime filter. Products give intersections. A ring map induces a locale map in the opposite direction. The basic opens satisfy $U_r\vee U_s=1$ exactly when $(r,s)=R$, making unit-ideal calculations a substitute for choosing prime ideals.

In a Noetherian ring, an ideal $I$ disjoint from a nonempty multiplicative subset $S$ extends to an ideal $P$ maximal among those disjoint from $S$, by the ascending chain condition. It is proper. If $ab\in P$ but neither factor belongs to $P$, both $P+(a)$ and $P+(b)$ meet $S$. Multiplying such representatives puts an element of $S$ in $P$, a contradiction. Thus $P$ is a prime ideal. For a general commutative ring the same argument follows after applying the Zorn lemma to disjoint ideals; the union of a chain is disjoint from $S$.

For a formal group law over any commutative ring $R$, the invariant differential of a formal group law satisfies $[p{]}^{\ast }\omega =p\omega$. Its coefficient is a unit in a ring, so $[p{]}^{\prime }(T)\in pR[[T]]$. If $[p](T)=\sum a_m{T}^m$, this means $m{a}_m\in pR$. When $p\nmid m$, the integer Bézout's identity implies $a_m\in pR$, even if $p$ is a zero divisor. Put those coefficients into $pf(T)$ and the exponents divisible by $p$ into $g(T^p)$.

A principal ideal ring is a ring whose left ideals and right ideals each have one generator. For a commutative ring, this says that every ideal is a principal ideal. The examples here use commutative rings. Unlike a principal ideal domain, it may have zero divisors: $\mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z}$ has this property, with ideals $(0)$, $(2)$, and $(1)$. A finite direct product of rings that are principal ideal rings is again a principal ideal ring. Indeed, the coordinate idempotent elements show that every ideal is a product of coordinate ideals; a tuple of their generators generates the product.

For any ideal $I$ in a commutative ring, every prime ideal containing $I$ contains $\sqrt{I}$, because $a^n\in P$ implies $a\in P$. Conversely, if $a\notin \sqrt{I}$, the multiplicatively closed set $T=\{1,a,a^2,\dots \}$ is disjoint from $I$. By Zorn's lemma, there is an ideal $P\supseteq I$ maximal among those disjoint from $T$.

This $P$ is a prime ideal: if $bc\in P$ but $b,c\notin P$, maximality makes both $P+(b)$ and $P+(c)$ meet $T$. Multiplication of representatives from these two intersections puts an element of $T$ in $P$, a contradiction. Thus there is a prime ideal containing $I$ but avoiding $a$, establishing the identity. For $I=R$, the intersection is empty and means $R$. It follows that an ideal is a radical ideal exactly when it is an intersection of ideals that are all prime ideals.

In a commutative ring, the radical of an ideal is monotone and idempotent: inclusion $I\subseteq J$ gives $\sqrt{I}\subseteq \sqrt{J}$, and $a^n\in \sqrt{I}$ means $a^{nm}\in I$ for some $m$, giving $\sqrt{\sqrt{I}}=\sqrt{I}$. Since $\sqrt{I+J}$ contains both $\sqrt{I}$ and $\sqrt{J}$, it contains their sum of ideals. Taking radicals of ideals gives $\sqrt{\sqrt{I}+\sqrt{J}}\subseteq \sqrt{I+J}$. The reverse inclusion follows from $I+J\subseteq \sqrt{I}+\sqrt{J}$.

In particular, $\sqrt{I}+\sqrt{J}=R$ implies $I+J=R$. One can also see this directly: write $1=a+b$ with $a^m\in I$ and $b^n\in J$, then expand $(a+b{)}^{m+n-1}$ by the binomial theorem. Each term belongs to $I$ or $J$, so $1\in I+J$.

A reduced ring is a commutative ring with no nonzero nilpotent element. Equivalently, its nilradical is zero.

A finitely generated module $M$ over a commutative ring $A$ is reflexive when its evaluation homomorphism $M\to M^{\ast \ast }$ to the double dual module is an isomorphism.

A regular sequence in a commutative ring $A$ is a finite list such that $(f_1,\dots ,f_r)$ is proper and $f_j$ is a non-zero-divisor on $A/(f_1,\dots ,f_{j-1})$ for each $j$. In a graded ring with homogeneous $f_j$, injectivity can be checked on homogeneous elements because components of distinct degrees cannot cancel. It gives short exact sequences $0\to R_{j-1}(-\mathrm{deg}{f}_j)\to R_{j-1}\to R_j\to 0$ for the successive graded quotients.

For a positive integer modulus $m$, the residue class of an integer $a$ is the equivalence classIt contains all integers in the same position of the repeating cycle. For example,The residue class is this whole infinite collection; its canonical representative is the least nonnegative residue. Euclidean division gives exactly one such representative in $0,1,\dots ,m-1$, so there are exactly $m$ residue classes. When $m=1$, there is just one, $[0{]}_1=\mathbb{Z}$.

Define addition and multiplication of residue classes byThese definitions must give the same answer whichever integers represent the classes. If $a^{\prime }\equiv a$ and $b^{\prime }\equiv b$ modulo $m$, thenBoth differences are divisible by $m$, proving that the operations are well-defined. For example, $[9{]}_{12}+[5{]}_{12}=[2{]}_{12}$ and $[9{]}_{12}[5{]}_{12}=[9{]}_{12}$, since $45=3\cdot 12+9$. Replacing nine by $-3$ gives the same answers with smaller intermediate integers.

With these operations the residue classes form the finite commutative ring $\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}$, a quotient ring. It need not be a field: $[6{]}_{12}[2{]}_{12}=[0{]}_{12}$ although neither factor is the zero class. These zero divisors explain why division requires a unit modulo n. Reducing after each multiplication is especially useful in modular exponentiation, where the unreduced powers can become enormous.

A ring is a set $R$ with two binary operations, addition and multiplication, satisfying three requirements. Under addition, $R$ is an abelian group: there is a zero, every element has an inverse element, and grouping or exchanging summands does not change the result. Multiplication is associative and has an identity element $1$, so $(ab)c=a(bc)$ and $1a=a1=a$. Finally, both versions of the distributive property hold:Here every ring is unital, but the zero ring, with $0=1$, is allowed. Commutativity of multiplication is an additional condition defining a commutative ring. These conventions agree with ^[ref].

The integers form a ring with their usual operations. The polynomial ring $\mathbb{Z}[X]$ is another: addition combines coefficients, while multiplication uses the distributive property. For example,The same rules justify symbolic calculations in both rings; this is why one definition can organize apparently different kinds of arithmetic. In every ring, $a0=0a=0$, and $a(-b)=-(ab)$. The first identity follows by distributing $a(0+0)$ and subtracting $a0$; the second follows by distributing $a(b+(-b))$. Thus familiar sign rules are consequences of the structure.

Order still matters in some rings. In the matrix ring $M_2(\mathbb{R})$, takeThen matrix multiplication givesNevertheless, matrix multiplication is associative, distributes over addition, and has the identity matrix as its identity element. This is a valid ring. On a column vector, $AB$ applies $B$ first and $A$ second: swapping coordinates before discarding the second coordinate differs from doing those actions in reverse. The failure of commutativity records a meaningful difference in function composition.

For a commutative ring $k$ and a set $X$, the set $k^X$ of all functions $X\to k$ is a commutative ring under pointwise addition and multiplication. It is the direct product of rings with one copy of $k$ for each $x\in X$.

If $k$ is a field and $X$ is finite, every ideal is generated by some of the singleton indicator functions $e_x$. Indeed, whenever $f$ in the ideal has $f(x)\ne 0$, multiplication by $e_x/f(x)$ puts $e_x$ in the ideal. Every function in that ideal is a finite sum of its coordinate multiples of these $e_x$.

If $X$ is infinite and $k$ is a nonzero commutative ring, the functions with finite support form an ideal without a finite generating set of an ideal. A finite collection of such functions vanishes outside one finite subset, as does the ideal it generates, whereas a singleton indicator function outside that subset belongs to the ideal of all finitely supported functions. Thus, for a field $k$, $k^X$ is a Noetherian ring exactly when $X$ is finite.

A multiplicative subset is saturated if every factor of a product in the subset also lies in it. We include $1$ in a multiplicative subset. A saturated subset containing $0$ is the whole ring. The units form a saturated subset in a commutative ring.

A scheme is a locally ringed space covered by open subsets isomorphic to spectra of commutative rings. It retains both the points defined by prime ideals and the local algebra of functions around them.