Talk:Additive polynomial

Latest comment: 8 years ago by Jbeyerl in topic Non-absolutely additive example dispute

The fundamental theorem of additive polynomials edit

Let   be a polynomial with coefficients in k, and   be the set of its roots. Assuming that   is separable, then P(x) is additive if and only if   form a group.

They are a subgroup in respect to addition or multiplication?

Should it be

 

instead of

 ?


Mathworld edit

Hmm, the structure of this article shows remarkable similarity to the Mathworld article. linas 05:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that a while ago too.
By the way, could you check my edits for correctness? Back then both of us were green and we fought like hell. :) Oleg Alexandrov 05:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Non-absolutely additive example dispute edit

Is the example under additive versus absolutely additive correct? That is, I think   is absolutely additive.   is the order of the field, and if finite it must then be   for some  . But   is the characteristic, so that   is a linear combination of   and   and thus absolutely additive. GromXXVII (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you. However, I also want to dispute the clarity of the definition. The article first says that an additive polynomial is such that   as polynomials in   and  . What does the underlined part mean? Isn't that just evaluating   at both values? Then, the article goes on to say that this (which looks like the merely additive version) is equivalent to assume that this equality holds for all a and b in some infinite field containing k, such as its algebraic closure (which looks like the absolutely additive version). Wisapi (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Yes,   is evaluating   at both values. The clarification in the underlined part has to do with the difference between functions and polynomials. In finite characteristic you can have equality of functions without equality of polynomials - this makes the equals sign "=" ambiguous as to whether you mean as functions or polynomials. For instance, consider the field   and the functions  . As functions over  ,   because   for all  . However, as polynomials   Jbeyerl (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply