Alphabeta Math
Session-authored (Fable 5 assisted)
How statement and proof provenance work

The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.

  • Literature-sourced — the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
  • AI-adapted — a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
  • AI-generated — a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.

These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.

14 results · all verified · 0 also independently AI-judged
Every result on this page is machine-checked by a proof checker and read in full and owner-audited; the judge is an additional, independent cross-model AI review of the proofs. The 14 not AI-judged were verified by owner audit (typically over a confirmed judge false positive), not failures.

Polynomial Rings and Roots: Examples and Counterexamples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

None yet.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

ExampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-11Open item page →

Polynomial addition and multiplication computed from coefficient convolution

Example

In Z[x]\mathbb Z[x], let f=1+2x+3x2f=1+2x+3x^2 and g=2xg=2-x. Then

f+g=3+x+3x2,fg=2+3x+4x23x3.f+g=3+x+3x^2,\qquad fg=2+3x+4x^2-3x^3.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The integer polynomials f=1+2x+3x2f=1+2x+3x^2 and g=2xg=2-x.

[L1]

Polynomial addition is coefficientwise, and the coefficient of xnx^n in a product is the finite convolution sum i+j=naibj\sum_{i+j=n}a_i b_j (The polynomial ring over a commutative ring as finitely supported coefficient sequences with convolution).

[L2]

The integers form a commutative ring (The integers form a commutative ring).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

Coefficientwise addition over the commutative ring [L2] gives the coefficients (1+2,21,3+0)=(3,1,3)(1+2,2-1,3+0)=(3,1,3).

givenL1L2algebra
2.1

Convolution gives coefficients 22, 1+4=3-1+4=3, 2+6=4-2+6=4, and 3-3 in degrees 0,1,2,30,1,2,3, respectively, proving the displayed product.

givenL1L2algebra
ExampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-11Open item page →

Long division, the Euclidean algorithm and a Bézout identity in Q[x]\mathbb Q[x]

Example

In Q[x]\mathbb Q[x], put f=x32x+1f=x^3-2x+1 and g=x21g=x^2-1. Long division and the Euclidean algorithm give

f=xg+(x+1),g=(x1)(x+1).f=xg+(-x+1),\qquad g=(-x-1)(-x+1).

Thus gcd(f,g)=x1\gcd(f,g)=x-1 and

x1=f+xg.x-1=-f+xg.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The displayed polynomials f,gQ[x]f,g\in\mathbb Q[x].

[L1]

Polynomial division over a field gives a unique remainder of degree below the divisor (Division algorithm for polynomials over a field).

[L2]

The last nonzero Euclidean remainder, normalized to be monic, is the gcd and is a polynomial linear combination of the inputs (Bézout identity and the Euclidean algorithm for polynomials over a field).

[L3]

The rational numbers form a field (The rationals form a field).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

Direct multiplication gives x(x21)+(x+1)=x32x+1=fx(x^2-1)+(-x+1)=x^3-2x+1=f, and (x1)(x+1)=x21=g(-x-1)(-x+1)=x^2-1=g, so these are the divisions licensed by [L1] over the field [L3].

givenL1L3algebra
2.1

The last nonzero remainder is x+1-x+1, whose monic associate is x1x-1; negating the first remainder identity gives x1=f+xgx-1=-f+xg, in agreement with [L2].

step 1.1L2algebra
CounterexampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-11Open item page →

Over Z/4\mathbb Z/4, a nonconstant polynomial can be a unit and product degree can drop

Statement refuted

For every commutative ring RR, every unit of R[x]R[x] is constant and degrees add under multiplication of nonzero polynomials.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The ring R=Z/4R=\mathbb Z/4 and the polynomial u=1+2xR[x]u=1+2x\in R[x].

[L1]

Over a commutative ring, product degree is at most the sum of the degrees, and the coefficient at that sum is the product of the leading coefficients (Degree inequalities for sums and products over a commutative ring).

[L2]

The ring Z/4\mathbb Z/4 is the quotient ring Z/4Z\mathbb Z/4\mathbb Z, so 4=04=0 in it (For every nNn\in\mathbb N, the congruence-class ring Z/n\mathbb Z/n is the quotient ring Z/nZ\mathbb Z/n\mathbb Z).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1

In R[x]R[x], u2=(1+2x)2=1+4x+4x2=1u^2=(1+2x)^2=1+4x+4x^2=1 by [L2], so the nonconstant polynomial uu is a unit and is its own inverse.

givenL2algebra
2.1

Both factors uu have degree 11, but their product has degree 00; [L1] permits this drop because the top coefficient is 22=02\cdot2=0 in RR, so both parts of the statement are refuted.

step 1.1L1L2
CounterexampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: Literature-sourcedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-11Open item page →

Division with a degree-small remainder can fail over Z\mathbb Z when the leading coefficient of the divisor is not a unit

Statement refuted

For every commutative ring RR and every nonzero gR[x]g\in R[x], each fR[x]f\in R[x] can be written f=qg+rf=qg+r with r=0r=0 or degr<degg\deg r<\deg g.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The polynomials f=xf=x and g=2x+1g=2x+1 in Z[x]\mathbb Z[x].

[L1]

Division is guaranteed over a commutative ring when the divisor is monic (Division by a monic polynomial over a commutative ring).

[L2]

The integers form a commutative ring (The integers form a commutative ring).

Counterexample

technique · contradiction
1.1

Suppose for contradiction that x=q(2x+1)+rx=q(2x+1)+r with r=0r=0 or degr<1\deg r<1. If qq had positive degree mm and leading coefficient c0c\ne0, then q(2x+1)q(2x+1) would have nonzero coefficient 2c2c in degree m+1>1m+1>1, which the constant remainder could not cancel. Thus qq is a constant integer.

assume-contragivenL2algebra
2.1

Comparing coefficients of xx then gives 1=2q1=2q, which has no integer solution because 22 is not a unit by [L3]. This does not contradict the monic-division theorem [L1], since 2x+12x+1 is not monic; hence the claimed division statement fails.

step 1.1L1L2L3discharge-contradiction
CounterexampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-11Open item page →

Quadratics can have four roots over Z/6\mathbb Z/6 and Z/8\mathbb Z/8

Statement refuted

Every nonzero quadratic over a commutative ring has at most two distinct roots.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The polynomials f=x2xf=x^2-x in (Z/6)[x](\mathbb Z/6)[x] and g=x21g=x^2-1 in (Z/8)[x](\mathbb Z/8)[x].

[L1]

The degree root bound holds for nonzero polynomials over integral domains (A nonzero polynomial of degree nn over an integral domain has at most nn distinct roots).

[L2]

Over any commutative ring, aa is a root exactly when xax-a divides the polynomial (Factor theorem over a commutative ring).

[L3]

The rings Z/6\mathbb Z/6 and Z/8\mathbb Z/8 are the corresponding quotient rings, so computations are modulo 66 and 88 (For every nNn\in\mathbb N, the congruence-class ring Z/n\mathbb Z/n is the quotient ring Z/nZ\mathbb Z/n\mathbb Z).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1

Modulo 66, the four distinct residues 0,1,3,40,1,3,4 satisfy a(a1)=0a(a-1)=0, so they are roots of the nonzero quadratic ff.

givenL2L3algebra
2.1

Modulo 88, the four distinct odd residues 1,3,5,71,3,5,7 have square congruent to 11, so they are roots of the nonzero quadratic gg; these rings have zero divisors, so the domain hypothesis in [L1] fails and the statement is refuted.

givenL1L2L3algebra
CounterexampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-11Open item page →

Over Fp\mathbb F_p, xpxx^p-x and the zero polynomial induce the same function but are distinct polynomials

Statement refuted

Two formal polynomials over a field are equal whenever they induce the same function on that field.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A prime pp, the field Fp=Z/p\mathbb F_p=\mathbb Z/p, and the polynomials f=xpxf=x^p-x and 00 in Fp[x]\mathbb F_p[x].

[L1]

Evaluation substitutes an element into a formal polynomial, while the formal polynomial itself is its coefficient sequence (Evaluation and roots of a polynomial in a commutative target ring).

[L5]

For prime pp, the quotient ring Z/p\mathbb Z/p is a field (For every prime pp, the two operations on Z/p\mathbb{Z}/p make it a field).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1

Fact [L5] licenses the field Fp=Z/p\mathbb F_p=\mathbb Z/p. For every aFpa\in\mathbb F_p, choose an integer representative; [L2] and [L3] give f(a)=apa=0f(a)=a^p-a=0, so ff and the zero polynomial induce the same function.

givenL1L2L3L5
2.1

Because [L4] gives p>1p>1, the degrees pp and 11 are distinct; as a coefficient sequence, ff has coefficient 11 in degree pp and is therefore nonzero. Hence [L1] distinguishes ff from the zero formal polynomial and refutes the statement.

givenL1L3L4
ExampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: Literature-sourcedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-11Open item page →

The polynomial x22x^2-2 is irreducible over Q\mathbb Q

Example

The polynomial x22x^2-2 is irreducible in Q[x]\mathbb Q[x].

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The polynomial f=x22Z[x]Q[x]f=x^2-2\in\mathbb Z[x]\subseteq\mathbb Q[x].

[L1]

A reduced rational root r/sr/s of an integer polynomial has numerator dividing the constant coefficient and denominator dividing the leading coefficient (Rational root theorem).

[L2]

A quadratic over a field is irreducible exactly when it has no root in that field (A polynomial of degree two or three over a field is irreducible exactly when it has no root in the field).

[L3]

An integer is prime when it exceeds 11 and has no positive divisors other than 11 and itself (Prime and composite integers: pp is prime when p>1p > 1 and its only positive divisors are 11 and pp).

[L5]

Integer absolute value is given by the positive and negative cases (The absolute value a|a| of an integer).

[L7]

The integers form an ordered ring (The integers form a totally ordered ring).

[L8]

The natural numbers embed in the integers preserving their arithmetic (The naturals embed in the integers).

[L9]

The natural-number order is discrete (Discreteness: σ(n)\sigma(n) is the immediate successor).

[L10]

The rational numbers form a field (The rationals form a field).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

Facts [L3] through [L9] show that the positive divisors of 22 are 1,21,2 and the only positive divisor of 11 is 11. Hence [L3] makes 22 prime, and [L1] forces a reduced rational root to have denominator 11 and numerator in the complete list 1,1,2,21,-1,2,-2.

givenL1L3L4L5L6L7L8L9
2.1

Evaluating gives 1,1,2,2-1,-1,2,2, respectively, so none is a root; [L10] supplies the field hypothesis and [L2] therefore makes the quadratic irreducible over Q\mathbb Q.

step 1.1L2L10algebra
ExampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: Literature-sourcedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-11Open item page →

The polynomial x2+1x^2+1 is irreducible over R\mathbb R

Example

The polynomial x2+1x^2+1 is irreducible in R[x]\mathbb R[x].

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The polynomial f=x2+1R[x]f=x^2+1\in\mathbb R[x].

[L1]

A quadratic over a field is irreducible exactly when it has no root in that field (A polynomial of degree two or three over a field is irreducible exactly when it has no root in the field).

[L2]

The real numbers form an ordered field, so every square is nonnegative and 1>01>0 (The reals form a totally ordered field).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

For every real aa, [L2] gives a20a^2\ge0 and hence a2+1>0a^2+1>0.

givenL2algebra
2.1

Thus ff has no real root, and [L1] makes it irreducible in R[x]\mathbb R[x].

step 1.1L1
ExampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: Literature-sourcedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-11Open item page →

Reduction modulo 22 proves x3+17x+391x^3+17x+391 irreducible over Q\mathbb Q

Example

The polynomial f=x3+17x+391f=x^3+17x+391 is irreducible in Q[x]\mathbb Q[x].

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The primitive integer polynomial f=x3+17x+391f=x^3+17x+391.

[L1]

If a primitive integer polynomial has leading coefficient nonzero modulo a prime and its reduction is irreducible, then it is irreducible over Q\mathbb Q (Irreducibility after reduction modulo a prime implies irreducibility over Q\mathbb Q when the leading coefficient survives).

[L2]

A cubic over a field is irreducible exactly when it has no root in the field (A polynomial of degree two or three over a field is irreducible exactly when it has no root in the field).

[L4]

An integer is prime when it exceeds 11 and has no positive divisors other than 11 and itself (Prime and composite integers: pp is prime when p>1p > 1 and its only positive divisors are 11 and pp).

[L6]

Integer absolute value is defined by sign cases (The absolute value a|a| of an integer).

[L8]

The integers form an ordered ring (The integers form a totally ordered ring).

[L9]

Natural numbers embed in the integers preserving arithmetic (The naturals embed in the integers).

[L11]

For prime pp, the ring Z/p\mathbb Z/p is a field (For every prime pp, the two operations on Z/p\mathbb{Z}/p make it a field).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

Facts [L4] through [L10] show that 22 is prime, so [L11] makes Z/2\mathbb Z/2 a field. Using [L3], reduction gives fˉ=x3+x+1\bar f=x^3+x+1; its values at the only residues 00 and 11 are both 11, so [L2] makes fˉ\bar f irreducible.

givenL2L3L4L5L6L7L8L9L10L11algebra
2.1

The leading coefficient survives modulo 22, and ff is primitive because it is monic, so [L1] proves that ff is irreducible over Q\mathbb Q.

step 1.1L1
ExampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: Literature-sourcedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-11Open item page →

Eisenstein proves xn2x^n-2 irreducible over Q\mathbb Q for every positive nn

Example

For every positive natural number nn, the polynomial xn2x^n-2 is irreducible in Q[x]\mathbb Q[x].

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A natural number n1n\ge1.

[L1]

For every prime pp and positive nn, the polynomial xnpx^n-p is irreducible over Q\mathbb Q (For every prime pp and positive nn, xnpx^n-p is irreducible over Q\mathbb Q).

[L2]

An integer is prime when it exceeds 11 and has no positive divisors other than 11 and itself (Prime and composite integers: pp is prime when p>1p > 1 and its only positive divisors are 11 and pp).

[L4]

Integer absolute value is defined by sign cases (The absolute value a|a| of an integer).

[L6]

The integers form an ordered ring (The integers form a totally ordered ring).

[L7]

Natural numbers embed in the integers preserving arithmetic (The naturals embed in the integers).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

Facts [L2] through [L8] verify that 2>12>1 and that its only positive divisors are 11 and 22, so 22 is prime.

givenL2L3L4L5L6L7L8
2.1

Apply [L1] with p=2p=2 and the given positive nn to obtain the claimed irreducibility.

step 1.1L1
ExampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-11Open item page →

Translation turns x4+1x^4+1 into an Eisenstein polynomial

Example

The polynomial x4+1x^4+1 is irreducible over Q\mathbb Q, although Eisenstein's criterion does not apply to it before a translation.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The polynomial f=x4+1Q[x]f=x^4+1\in\mathbb Q[x] and the substitution τ(f)(x)=f(x+1)\tau(f)(x)=f(x+1).

[L1]

The universal property makes substitution xx+1x\mapsto x+1 a ring homomorphism; substitution xx1x\mapsto x-1 is its inverse (Universal property of R[x]R[x]: a coefficient homomorphism and the image of xx determine a unique ring homomorphism).

[L2]

Eisenstein's criterion proves a primitive integer polynomial irreducible over Q\mathbb Q from the stated prime-divisibility conditions (Eisenstein criterion over the integers).

[L3]

An integer is prime when it exceeds 11 and has no positive divisors other than 11 and itself (Prime and composite integers: pp is prime when p>1p > 1 and its only positive divisors are 11 and pp).

[L4]

The rational numbers form a field (The rationals form a field).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

No prime can make f=x4+1f=x^4+1 Eisenstein before translation, because the criterion would require that prime to divide the constant coefficient 11. A direct divisor check using [L3] shows that 22 is prime. Binomial expansion gives τ(f)=x4+4x3+6x2+4x+2\tau(f)=x^4+4x^3+6x^2+4x+2. It is monic and hence primitive, and it is Eisenstein at 22: every nonleading coefficient is even, the leading coefficient is odd, and 44 does not divide the constant coefficient 22. Thus [L2] makes τ(f)\tau(f) irreducible.

givenL2L3algebra
2.1

Over the field [L4], [L1] makes τ\tau an automorphism; a nontrivial factorization of ff would map to one of τ(f)\tau(f), so irreducibility of τ(f)\tau(f) implies irreducibility of ff.

step 1.1L1L4
CounterexampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: Literature-sourcedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-11Open item page →

A degree-four polynomial can be reducible over Q\mathbb Q without having a rational root

Statement refuted

A polynomial over a field is irreducible whenever it has no root in that field.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The polynomial f=(x2+1)(x2+2)=x4+3x2+2Q[x]f=(x^2+1)(x^2+2)=x^4+3x^2+2\in\mathbb Q[x].

[L1]

A root is equivalent to divisibility by the corresponding linear polynomial (Factor theorem over a commutative ring).

[L2]

The rational numbers form a field (The rationals form a field).

[L3]

The rational numbers form an ordered field, so squares are nonnegative and positive constants remain positive when added (The rationals form a totally ordered field).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1

The displayed equality is a factorization in the field polynomial ring [L2] into two positive-degree nonunits, so ff is reducible.

givenL2algebra
2.1

For every rational aa, [L3] gives a2+1>0a^2+1>0 and a2+2>0a^2+2>0, so f(a)>0f(a)>0 and ff has no rational root; by [L1] it has no rational linear factor, yet step 1.1 shows it reducible.

step 1.1L1L3algebra
ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-11Open item page →

In characteristic 22, x2+1=(x+1)2x^2+1=(x+1)^2 has zero derivative and a repeated root

Example

In (Z/2)[x](\mathbb Z/2)[x], the polynomial f=x2+1f=x^2+1 has repeated root 11 and has formal derivative 00.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The quotient field Z/2\mathbb Z/2 and the polynomial f=x2+1f=x^2+1.

[L1]

A root is repeated exactly when it is also a root of the formal derivative (A root is repeated exactly when it is also a root of the formal derivative).

[L2]

The power and Leibniz rules hold for formal derivatives over any commutative ring (Linearity, power rule, Leibniz rule and the degree bound for the formal derivative).

[L3]

The ring Z/2\mathbb Z/2 is the quotient ring Z/2Z\mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z, so 2=02=0 and 1+1=01+1=0 (For every nNn\in\mathbb N, the congruence-class ring Z/n\mathbb Z/n is the quotient ring Z/nZ\mathbb Z/n\mathbb Z).

[L4]

An integer is prime when it exceeds 11 and has no positive divisors other than 11 and itself (Prime and composite integers: pp is prime when p>1p > 1 and its only positive divisors are 11 and pp).

[L5]

For prime pp, the ring Z/p\mathbb Z/p is a field (For every prime pp, the two operations on Z/p\mathbb{Z}/p make it a field).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

A direct divisor check using [L4] shows that 22 is prime, so [L5] licenses the field Z/2\mathbb Z/2. By [L3], 1=1-1=1 and (x1)2=(x+1)2=x2+2x+1=x2+1=f(x-1)^2=(x+1)^2=x^2+2x+1=x^2+1=f, so 11 is a repeated root.

givenL3L4L5algebra
2.1

By [L2], f=2x=0f'=2x=0 in Z/2[x]\mathbb Z/2[x], so both f(1)f(1) and f(1)f'(1) vanish, agreeing with the criterion [L1].

step 1.1L1L2L3
CounterexampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: Literature-sourcedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-11Open item page →

For a field FF, the ideal (x,y)(x,y) in F[x,y]F[x,y] is not principal

Statement refuted

If FF is a field, then every ideal of F[x,y]F[x,y] is principal.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A field FF, the iterated ring F[x,y]=F[x][y]F[x,y]=F[x][y], and the ideal I=(x,y)I=(x,y) generated by xx and yy.

[L1]

The bivariate polynomial ring is obtained by adjoining xx and then yy (Polynomial rings in finitely many commuting indeterminates by iteration).

[L2]

A polynomial ring in finitely many indeterminates over a field is an integral domain (A polynomial ring in finitely many indeterminates over an integral domain is an integral domain).

[L3]

The ideal generated by a set is the smallest ideal containing that set, and (h)(h) denotes the ideal generated by one element hh (The ideal generated by a subset and principal ideals).

Counterexample

technique · contradiction
1.1

In a commutative ring the multiples of hh form an ideal containing hh and lie in every ideal containing hh, so [L3] identifies (h)(h) with the set of multiples of hh. Suppose for contradiction that I=(h)I=(h); since x,yIx,y\in I, the element hh divides both. Treating the ring as F[x][y]F[x][y] by [L1], degree in yy and the domain property [L2] show from hxh\mid x that hF[x]h\in F[x].

assume-contragivenL1L2L3algebra
2.1

From hyh\mid y, comparison of the leading coefficient in yy gives 1=hc1=h c for some cF[x]c\in F[x], so hh is a unit and (h)(h) is the whole ring.

step 1.1L1L2L3algebra
3.1

Evaluation at x=0,y=0x=0,y=0 exists by [L4] and has kernel an ideal containing x,yx,y, so [L3] gives II inside that proper kernel; thus II is proper, contradicting step 2.1, and II is not principal.

step 2.1L3L4discharge-contradiction

Sources