Difficult:
The "obvious" fact that f(t) is irreducible iff f(t+1) is irreducible is not obvious to me at all.
Reflective:
I think it is interesting that I thought Gauss's lemma was obvious by looking at it from two different directions, but both of those directions were incomplete. The first was the first half of the given proof, but I forgot to consider that the two factors in Z of n*f might not reduce to make factors of f in Z. The other thought I had was considering that polynomials in Q add no extra roots from polynomials in Z, considering all complex roots, but that doesn't directly address the problem at hand. It might make a good proof somehow, but I don't care enough to work out the missing bits.
No comments:
Post a Comment