Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Let $R=Z[x_{1},x_{2},\dots,x_{n}]$ be a multivariate polynomial ring. Is it possible to define a normal form for a general $m \times m$ matrix $M$ with entries from $R$?

share|improve this question
1  
A normal form up to what equivalence relation? –  Qiaochu Yuan Mar 8 '12 at 15:48

1 Answer 1

See this question -- the answer contain all the references you might ever want.

share|improve this answer
    
@IgorRivin: Thankyou. There are many terminologies I do not understand. Which of those references should I focus on for the case in my question? –  Turbo Mar 9 '12 at 18:00
1  
You should look at the early papers of Helmer and Kaplansky (cited in the last two answers), and go on from there. –  Igor Rivin Mar 9 '12 at 20:50
    
Theorem $5.2$ in here seems to answer what I am asking is impossible! ams.org/journals/tran/1949-066-02/S0002-9947-1949-0031470-3/… Is my interpretation correct? –  Turbo Mar 11 '12 at 7:25
    
I am guessing that's right, but of course I don't know exactly what you are looking for :) –  Igor Rivin Mar 11 '12 at 19:17
    
Hi Igor. Thankyou. The paper says to prove diagonal form for general m x m matrices, it suffices to show for 2 x 2. Say we have [x1 x2; x3 x4] (first row x1 x2 and second row x3 x4), it looks like it is not possible to find 'one' formula for smith form. However, if we extend Z[x1,x2,x3,x4] to Z[x1,x2,x3,x4,x2^-1,x3^-1]. We can premultiply by [1 (x3^z(X3))^-1; 0 1] where z(X3) = 0 if X3=0 else it is 1. That way we can change the given matrix to [x1 x2; 1 x4x3^-1] or [x1 x2; 0 x4] if we define (0^0)^-1 = 1^-1. This should be able to take care of the issue to get 'one' formula. Isn't it? –  Turbo Mar 12 '12 at 17:29

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.