3
$\begingroup$

This is a basic question about polynomial rings, but I can't find the precise proof of the following fact.

Theorem: Let $f, g $ be two polynomials in $\mathbb{R}[\overline x]$, where $\mathbb{R}$ are the reals and $\overline x = (x_1,\dots,x_n)$. Assume that $f(\overline a) = g(\overline a)$, for all $\overline a\in\mathbb{R}^n$. Prove that $f = g $ as formal polynomials (i.e., the coefficient vector of their monomials is the same).


Comment: over finite fields this is not necessarily the case. E.g., $x^2-x$ is not the zero polynomial but computes the zero function over $GF(2)$. See If two polynomials are equal as functions, are they necessarily equal as polynomials?.

Attempt 1: Use Schwartz-Zippel Lemma: Let $S\subseteq \mathbb{F}^n$. If $f-g$ is not always zero over $S$, then it has at most $|S|^{n-1}\cdot d~ $ roots from $S^n$ , with $d$ being the maximal (total) degree of $f-g$. But this doesn't seem to work, because even if we knew that $f-g$ is always zero over $S$, how can we conclude that $f-g$ is the zero polynomial (even for $S$ big enough)?

Comment 2: Note that if we change the formulation of Schwartz-Zippel Lemma to: If $f-g$ is not the zero polynomial, then it has at most $|S|^{n-1}\cdot d~ $ roots from $S^n$, then we finish the proof of the statement I'm after at. But this is not the formulation of Schwartz-Zippel Theorem I've seen.

$\endgroup$
10
  • $\begingroup$ I am now beginning to think that Schwartz-Zippel lemma is in fact formulated as in Comment 2. I'm wondering if there is a proof of the Theorem that does not involve Schwartz-Zippel then. $\endgroup$
    – Jack
    Commented Jul 7 at 14:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You are over the reals, analysis is your friend :) take partial derivatives until you have only constants. Those constants must vanish as the partial derivatives of the zero function are again the zero function. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 7 at 14:14
  • $\begingroup$ @SeverinSchraven, not sure if this works as a proof though about the polynomials in the polynomial ring. (I.e., I assume you implicitly use statements about the zero polynomial when you take derivatives, etc.). $\endgroup$
    – Jack
    Commented Jul 7 at 14:28
  • $\begingroup$ No, I don't. A polynomial is given by its coefficients. I take the polynomial function and determine the coefficients. Not sure what your concern is. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 7 at 14:32
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This is probably a multiple duplicate, e.g. math.stackexchange.com/questions/4551890/…. There are many nice ways to prove this; in the link I give two proofs neither of which requires the concept of a derivative, and the second proof works over any infinite field (which are exactly the fields over which this statement is true). $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 7 at 18:21

2 Answers 2

4
$\begingroup$

Pick a polynomial $f\in \mathbb{R}[x_1, \dots, x_n]$ such that $f(\overline{a})=0$ for all $a\in \mathbb{R}^n$. We want to prove that $f$ is the zero polynomial. We can write $f=(a_\alpha)_{\alpha\in \mathbb{N}^n}$ (these are the coefficients of $f$ and this is really the definition of a formal multivariate polynomial).

Denote by $G: \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ the polynomial function corresponding to $f$. We can write $$ G(\overline{x})= \sum_{\alpha\in \mathbb{N}^n \ : \ \vert \alpha \vert\leq d } a_\alpha \prod_{j=1}^n x_j^{\alpha_j},$$ where $d$ is the total degree of $f$ if $f$ is not the zero polynomial (in any case all $a_\alpha$ vanish for $\vert \alpha\vert >d$).

In order to show that $f$ is the zero polynomial, we just need to prove that $a_\alpha=0$ for all $\vert \alpha\vert = d$ (by definition of the total degree at least on of these coefficients needs to be nonzero).

Let $\vert \alpha\vert =d$, then we have, using that $d$ is the total degree of $f$, $$ \partial_1^{\alpha_1} \dots \partial_n^{\alpha_n} G(\overline{x})= a_\alpha \prod_{j=1}^n (\alpha_j!).$$ We could also just use Taylor's theorem to get this.

However, $G$ is the zero function by assumption and hence all partial derivatives are the zero function too. This yields $$ a_\alpha =\frac{0}{\prod_{j=1}^n (\alpha_j !)} =0.$$ This completes the proof.

$\endgroup$
9
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Taylor's theorem is massive overkill. You can just induct on the degree of the polynomial, and when you do that you can replace taking derivatives with taking finite differences, which still lowers the degree by $1$ but doesn't require the concept of a derivative and works over any field of characteristic $0$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 7 at 18:25
  • $\begingroup$ @QiaochuYuan My goal was not to be general, but to be understandable :) Given the comments the OP made, I can't imagine that they care much about anything different than real coefficients (I was aware of the fact that one can do this in much greater generality, but failed the correct posts. Luckily you've fixed that in the comments above). $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 7 at 18:34
  • $\begingroup$ @QiaochuYuan The point is that it follows immediately from Taylor's theorem for polynomials. Also, since ${\mathbb Q} \subset F$ for any field $F$ of characteristic zero it's not totally outrageous to use an argument that works over ${\mathbb Q}$ to cover the situation. $\endgroup$
    – Zarrax
    Commented Jul 7 at 19:56
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! However, I don't think that the second displayed formula is correct. Take for example: $x_1\cdot M$, for $M$ a monomial, with powers $\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_n$, in your notation. Then the left-hand side of your displayed formula (for $x\cdot M$) does not equal a constant, while your right-hand side is. I think that Zarrax's formula is the correct one. That is, you need to assign 0 to the variables. $\endgroup$
    – Jack
    Commented Jul 7 at 20:55
  • $\begingroup$ But the bigger question, which is the one that interests me, is what about other fields? In particular, for finite fields the theorem does not hold. So where in your proof did you use the properties of the reals $\mathbb{R}$? $\endgroup$
    – Jack
    Commented Jul 7 at 20:58
2
$\begingroup$

If $f(x) = \sum_{\alpha} c_{\alpha} x^{\alpha}$, where $\alpha$ denotes a multiindex $(\alpha_1,...,\alpha_n)$, then $c_{\alpha}$ is given by the formula $$c_{\alpha} = {1 \over \alpha_1 ! ... \alpha_n !}{\partial^{\alpha_1 + ... + \alpha_n} f \over \partial_{x_1}^{\alpha_1}...\partial_{x_n}^{\alpha_n}}(0) $$ This can be proved rigorously using induction for example. Since this formula is determined by the values of $f(x)$, if two polynomials take the same value at every point, each coefficient $c_{\alpha}$ will be the same for the two polynomials.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Nice! But where in your proof did you use the properties of the reals $\mathbb{R}$? (Since, over $GF(q)$ the theorem doesn't hold.) $\endgroup$
    – Jack
    Commented Jul 7 at 20:59
  • $\begingroup$ @Jack Some of the $\alpha_i!$ might be zero if the field has positive characteristic so that formula doesn't even make sense. The proof of the formula for $c_{\alpha}$ using successive differentiation will work over any field $F$ of characteristic zero since ${\mathbb Q} \subset F$ and you can do the limits giving the above formula for $c_{\alpha}$ for $(x_1,...,x_n)$ in ${\mathbb Q}^n \subset F^n$. $\endgroup$
    – Zarrax
    Commented Jul 7 at 21:06
  • $\begingroup$ I see. So the partial derivative formula to extract coefficients works only over large characteristic. $\endgroup$
    – Jack
    Commented Jul 7 at 21:12
  • $\begingroup$ It works over characteristic zero fields. The result in question also holds over infinite fields of positive characteristic but you can't use Taylor's theorem for such situations. $\endgroup$
    – Zarrax
    Commented Jul 7 at 21:14
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, thanks. I meant large characteristic or zero characteristic. $\endgroup$
    – Jack
    Commented Jul 7 at 21:18

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .