ABDUL R TAMBUNAN

FACTORIZATION OF POLYNOMIALS
A. Reducibility Test
Definition: Irreducible Polynomial, Reducible Polynomial
Let D be an integral domain. A polynomial f(x) from D[x] that is neither the zero
polynomial nor a unit in D[x] is said to be irreducible over D if, whenever f(x) is
expressed as a product f(x) = g(x)h(x), with g(x) and h(x) from D[x], then g(x) or h(x) is a
unit in D[x]. A nonzero, non-unit element of D[x] that is not irreducible over D is called
reducible over D.
In the case that an integral domain is a field F, it is equivalent and more convenient to
define a non-constant f(x) F[x] to be irreducible if f(x) cannot be expressed as a product
of two polynomials of lower degree.
Example:
1. In , n is irreducible if and only if n is prime.

2
2. The polynomial = 2 is irreducible over [] but reducible over [],
since 2 2 = 2 + 2 and neither 2 nor + 2 is a unit in
[].

3. The polynomial = 2 + 25 is irreducible over [] but reducible over [],

since 2 + 25 = 5 + 5 and neither 5 nor ( + 5) is a unit in
[].

4. The polynomial = 2 + 2 is irreducible over [] but reducible over [],

since 2 + 2 = 2 + 1 and 2 is a unit in , but a non-unit in

Theorem 1: Reducibility Test for Degrees 2 and 3

Let F be a field. If f(x) F[x] and deg f(x) is 2 or 3, then f(x) is reducible over F if and
only if f(x) has a zero in F.
Proof:
If f(x) is reducible over F then f(x) has a zero in F.
Suppose that f(x) = g(x)h(x), where both g(x) and h(x) belong to F[x] and have degrees
less than that of f(x). Since deg f(x) = deg g(x) + deg h(x) and deg f(x) is 2 or 3, at least
one of g(x) and h(x) has degree 1. Say g(x) = ax + b. Then, clearly, 1 is a zero
of g(x) and therefore a zero of f(x) as well.
If f(x) has a zero in F then f(x) is reducible over F.
Suppose that f(a) = 0, where a F. Then, by the Factor Theorem, we know that x - a
is a factor of f(x) and, therefore, f(x) is reducible over F.

Example:
Consider the polynomial () = 3 + 2 + + 2. Show that f is reducible over the
following rings of polynomials:
a. 2[x]
b. 3[x]
c. 5[x]

1 |M a t he ma t i c s E d uc a t i o n - U N I M E D

ABDUL R TAMBUNAN

Solution:
a. 2 () = 3 + 2 +
2 0 = 0 and 2 (1) = 1
Since 0 is a zero of f over 2, f is reducible over 2[x]
b. 3 = 3 + 2 + + 2
3 0 = 2 ; 3 (1) = 2 and 3 (2) = 1
Since f has no zeroes over 3, f is irreducible over 3[x]
c. 5 = 3 + 2 + + 2
5 0 = 2 ; 5 1 = 0; 5 2 = 1 ; 5 3 = 1 and 5 (4) = 1
Since 1 is a zero of f over 5, f is reducible over 5[x]

Definition: Content of Polynomial, Primitive Polynomial

The content of a nonzero polynomial + 1 1 + + 0 , where the as are
integers, is the greatest common divisor of the integers , 1 , , 0 . A primitive
polynomial is an element of Z[x] with content 1.
Example:
1. The polynomial = 3 4 6 2 + 24 3 has content 3, since the gcd of the
integers 3, 6, and 24 is 3.
2. The polynomial = 2 4 + 3 2 + 12 5 is a primitive polynomial. Since the
gcd of the integers 2, 3, 12, and 5 is 1.
Gausss Lemma
The product of two primitive polynomials is primitive.
Proof:
Let f(x) and g(x) be primitive polynomials.
= + + 0 and = + + 0
and suppose that f(x)g(x) is not primitive.
Let d be the content of fg. To obtain a contradiction suppose d > 1.
Let p be a prime dividing d.
Let j > 0 be the smallest number such that p aj and let k > 0 be the smallest number
such that p bk.
Then the coefficient on xj+k is
+ = + +1 1 + + + 0
But notice that p | b0, b1,
Since also p | cj+k we must have p | ajbk which is impossible.
Hence, either f(x) is not primitive or g(x) is not primitive. This contradiction completes
the proof.

Example:
Let = 2 3 + 3 2 + 5 + 2 and = 3 2 + 4 1. Show that , ,
and () are primitive polynomials!

2 |M a t he ma t i c s E d uc a t i o n - U N I M E D

ABDUL R TAMBUNAN
Solution:
Given = 2 3 + 3 2 + 5 + 2. Since the gcd of the integers 2, 3, and 5 is 1, then
f(x) is primitive polynomial.
Given = 3 2 + 4 1. Since the gcd of the integers 1, 3, and 4 is 1, then g(x) is
primitive polynomial.
Hence, = 6 5 + 17 4 + 25 3 + 23 2 + 3 2
Since the gcd of the integers 6, 17, 25, 23, 3, and 2 is 1, then is primitive
polynomial.

Theorem 2: Reducibility over Q Implies Reducibility Over Z

Let f(x) Z[x]. If f(x) is reducible over Q, then it is reducible over Z.
Proof:
Suppose that f (x) = g(x)h(x), where g(x) and h(x) Q[x].
Clearly, we may assume that f (x) is primitive because we can divide both f (x) and g(x)
by the content of f (x).
Let a be the least common multiple of the denominators of the coefficients of g(x), and b
the least common multiple of the denominators of the coefficients of h(x).
Then abf(x) = ag(x) bh(x), where ag(x) and bh(x) Z[x].
Let c1 be the content of ag(x) and let c2 be the content of bh(x).
Then ag(x) = c1g1(x) and bh(x) = c2h1(x), where both g1(x) and h1(x) are primitive and
abf(x) = c1c2g1(x)h1(x).
Since f(x) is primitive, the content of abf(x) is ab.
Also, since the product of two primitive polynomials is primitive, it follows that the
content of c1c2g1(x)h1(x) is c1c2.
Thus, ab = c1c2 and f(x) = g1(x)h1(x), where g1(x) and h1(x) Z[x] and deg g1(x) = deg
g(x) and deg h1(x) = deg h(x).
Hence,
f (x) is reducible over Z.

Example:
Let = 2 2 + 13 7 Z .
Suppose () is factored in Q[x] as
= 2 2 + 13 7 =
Show that () is reducible in Z[x] too!
Solution:
Given
= 2 2 + 13 7 =

3
21
+
2
2

4
2

3
3

3
21
+
2
2

4
2

3
3

Let = ().
3
21
4
2
Then, = 2 + 2 and = 3 3
where and Q[]
In this case we have a = 2, b = 3
3
21
Then, we have 2 3 2 2 + 13 7 = 2 2 + 2 3
3 |M a t he ma t i c s E d uc a t i o n - U N I M E D

4
3

ABDUL R TAMBUNAN
In this case we have c1 = 3 and c2 = 2
Then, we have
3
21
2 +
= 31
2
2
1 = + 7
And
4
2
3
= 21
3
3
1 = 2 1
So that
2 3 2 2 + 13 7 = 3 2 + 7 2 1
Or
2 2 + 13 7 = + 7 2 1
is reducible over Z[x]

B. Irreducibility Test
Theorem 3: Mod p Irreducibility Test
Let p be a prime and suppose that f(x) Z[x] with deg f(x) 1. Let be the
polynomial in Zp[x] obtained from f(x) by reducing all the coefficients of f(x) modulo p. If
is irreducible over Zp and deg = deg f(x), then f(x) is irreducible over Q.
Proof:
It follows from the proof of Theorem 2 that if f(x) is reducible over Q, then f(x) = g(x)h(x)
with g(x), h(x) Z[x], and both g(x) and h(x) have degree less than that of f(x).
Let , () and () be the polynomials obtained from f(x), g(x), and h(x) by
reducing all the coefficients modulo p.
Since deg f(x) = deg , we have deg () deg g(x) < deg and deg () deg
h(x) < deg .
But, = , and this contradicts our assumption that is irreducible over Zp.

Example:
Let = 273 3 491 2 + 935 > Show that () is irreducible over Q!
Solution:
Given = 273 3 491 2 + 935 Z[].
Then, over Z2 we have:
= 3 + 2 + 1
Since we have the deg = deg f(x) = 3, then it will be reducible over Z2 if and only if
it has a root in Z2.
However, we have
0 = 03 + 02 + 1 = 1
1 = 13 + 12 + 1 = 1
Thus, is irreducible over Z2, and it follows that f(x) is irreducible over Q.

4 |M a t he ma t i c s E d uc a t i o n - U N I M E D

ABDUL R TAMBUNAN
WARNING:
Be cautious not to use the converse of the Theorem 3. If f(x) Z[x] and is reducible
over Zp for some p, f(x) may still be irreducible over Q.
Example:
Consider the polynomial = 2 + 2.
If we use prime p = 3, we have
3 = 2 + 2
Since we have deg 3 = deg f(x) = 2, then it will be reducible over Z3 if and only if it
has a root in Z3.
We have
3 0 = 02 + 2 = 2
3 1 = 12 + 2 = 0
3 2 = 22 + 2 = 0
Hence,
3 = 2 + 2 = + 1 ( + 2)
It shows that 3 is reducible over Z3.
But, if we use prime p = 5, we have

5 = 2 + 2
Since we have deg 5 = deg f(x) = 2, then it will be reducible over Z5 if and only if it
has a root in Z5.
We have
5 0 = 02 + 2 = 2
5 1 = 12 + 2 = 3
5 2 = 22 + 2 = 1
5 3 = 32 + 2 = 1
5 4 = 42 + 2 = 3
Thus, 5 is irreducible over Z5, and it follows that f(x) is irreducible over Q.

Theorem 4: Eisensteins Criterion (1850)

Let
= + 1 1 + +
If there is a prime p such that p an, p | an-1, , p | a0 and p2 a0, then f(x) is irreducible
over Q.
Proof:
If f (x) is reducible over Q, we know by Theorem 2 that there exist elements g(x) and h(x)
in Z[x] such that f (x) = g(x)h(x) and 1 deg g(x), and 1 deg h(x) < n.
Say = + + 0 and = + + 0 .
Then, since p | a0, p2 a0, and a0 = b0c0, it follows that p divides one of b0 and c0 but not
the other.
Let us say p | b0 and p c0.
Also, since p an = brcs, we know that p br.
So, there is a least integer t such that p bt.
Now, consider at = btc0 + bt-1c1 + + b0ct.

5 |M a t he ma t i c s E d uc a t i o n - U N I M E D

ABDUL R TAMBUNAN
By assumption, p divides at and, by choice of t, every summand on the right after the first
one is divisible by p.
Clearly, this forces p to divide btc0 as well.
This is impossible, however, since p is prime and p divides neither bt nor c0.
It follows that f(x) is irreducible over Q

Example:
Show that polynomial = 12 + 4 + 21 2 6 3 + 3 4 + 7 is irreducible over Q!
Solution:
We have = 12 + 24 + 21 2 6 3 + 3 4 + 7 Z[]
Take p = 3, then
i)
31
ii)
3 does divide 12, 24, 21, -6, and 3
iii)
9 12
By using Eisensteins Criterion, it follows that () is irreducible over Q[x].

Corollary: Irreducibility of pth Cyclotomic Polynomial

For any prime p, the pth cyclotomic polynomial
1
=
= 1 + 2 + + + 1
1
is irreducible over Q,
Proof:
Let

+1 1
2
3

= + 1 =
= 1 +

+ +
+1 1
1
2
1
Then, since every coefficient except that of xp-1 is divisible by p and the constant term is
not divisible by p2, by Eisensteins Criterion, f(x) is irreducible over Q.
So, if = ()() were a nontrivial factorization of over Q, then =
+ 1 = ( + 1) ( + 1) would be a nontrivial factorization of f(x) over Q.
Since this is impossible, we conclude that is irreducible over Q.

Example:
Show that polynomial =

7 1
1

is irreducible over Q!

Solution:
7 1
1 6 + 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + + 1
=
=
1
1
6
5
4
3
= + + + + 2 + + 1 Z[]
Then, over Z2 we have:

= 6 + 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + + 1
Since we have the deg = deg f(x) = 3, then it will be reducible over Z2 if and only if
it has a root in Z2.
6 |M a t he ma t i c s E d uc a t i o n - U N I M E D

ABDUL R TAMBUNAN
However, we have

0 = 06 + 05 + 04 + 03 + 02 + 0 + 1 = 1
1 = 16 + 15 + 14 + 13 + 12 + 1 + 1 = 1
Thus, is irreducible over Z2, and it follows that f(x) is irreducible over Q.

Theorem 5: p(x) Is Maximal If and Only If p(x) Is Irreducible

Let F be a field and let p(x) F[x]. Then p(x) is a maximal ideal in F[x] if and only if
p(x) is irreducible over F.
Proof:
Suppose first that () is a maximal ideal in F[x]. Clearly, p(x) is neither the zero
polynomial nor a unit in F[x], because neither {0} nor F[x] is a maximal ideal in F[x].
If p(x) = g(x)h(x) is a factorization of p(x) over F, then () () [].
Thus, () = () or = () . In the first case, we must have deg p(x) =
deg g(x). In the second case, it follows that deg g(x) = 0 and, consequently, deg h(x) =
deg p(x). Thus, p(x) cannot be written as a product of two polynomials in F[x] of
lower degree.
Now, suppose that p(x) is irreducible over F. Let I be any ideal of F[x] such that
() []. Because F[x] is a principal ideal domain, we know that I
= () for some g(x) in F[x]. So, p(x) () and, therefore, p(x) = g(x)h(x),
where h(x) F[x]. Since p(x) is irreducible over F, it follows that either g(x) is a
constant or h(x) is a constant. In the first case, we have I = F[x]; in the second case, we
have () = () = . So, () is maximal in F[x].

Corollary 1: F[x]/ p(x) Is a Field

Let F be a field and p(x) an irreducible polynomial over F. Then F[x] / p(x) is a field.
Corollary 2: p(x) | a(x)b(x) Implies p(x) | a(x) or p(x) | b(x)
Let F be a field and let p(x), a(x), b(x) F[x]. If p(x) is irreducible over F and p(x) |
a(x)b(x), then p(x) | a(x) or p(x) | b(x).
Proof:

Since p(x) is irreducible, F[x]/ p(x) is a field and, therefore, an integral domain.
We know that p(x) is a prime ideal, and since p(x) divides a(x)b(x), we have a(x)b(x) p(x).
Thus, a(x) p(x) or b(x) p(x).
This means that p(x) | a(x) or p(x) | b(x).

Example:
Let Z2 be a field with two elements. Show that the polynomial 3 + + 1 is irreducible
over Z2[x]. Prove that 2 / 3 + + 1 is a field!
Solution:
Let = 3 + + 1 2 []
7 |M a t he ma t i c s E d uc a t i o n - U N I M E D

ABDUL R TAMBUNAN
It will be reducible over Z2 if and only if it has a root in Z2.
We have
0 = 03 + 0 + 1 = 1
1 = 13 + 1 + 1 = 1
Thus, is irreducible over Z2.
To prove that 2 / 3 + + 1 is a field, we have to find that every nonzero element is
a unit.
We have,
2
= 2 + + + 3 + + 1 |, , 2
3
++1
2
= 0, 1, , + 1, 2 , 2 + 1, 2 + , 2 + + 1
3
++1
This table below is the multiplication table for the nonzero elements of 2 / 3 + +
1
(mod 2)
1
x
x+1
x2
x2 + 1
x2 + x
x2 + x + 1

1
1
x
x+1
x2
x2 + 1
x2 + x
x2 + x + 1

x
x
x2
x2 + x
x+1
1
x2 + x + 1
x2 + 1

x+1
x+1
x2 + x
x2 + 1
x2 + x + 1
x2
1
x

x2
x2
x+1
x2 + x + 1
x2 + x
x
x2 + 1
1

x2 + 1
x2 + 1
1
x2
x
x2 + x + 1
x+1
x2 + x

x2 + x
x2 + x
x2 + x + 1
1
x2 + 1
x+1
X
x2

Since, every nonzero element is a unit; it follows that 2 / 3 + + 1 is a field.

x2 + x + 1
x2 + x + 1
x2 + 1
x
1
x2 + x
x2
x+1

C. Unique Factorization in Z[x]

Theorem 6: Unique Factorization in Z[x]
Every polynomial in Z[x] that is not the zero polynomial or a unit in Z[x] can be written in
the form b1b2, bsp1(x)p2(x), pm(x), where the bis are irreducible polynomials of
degree 0, and the pi(x)s are irreducible polynomials of positive degree. Furthermore, if
1 2 1 2 = 1 2 1 2 .
where the bs and cs are irreducible polynomials of degree 0, and the p(x)s and q(x)s
are irreducible polynomials of positive degree, then s = t, m = n, and, after renumbering
the cs and q(x)s, we have bi = ci for i = 1, , s; and pi(x) = qi(x) for i = 1, . . . , m.
Proof:
Let f(x) be a nonzero, nonunit polynomial from Z[x].
If deg f(x) = 0, then f(x) is constant and the result follows from the Fundamental Theorem
of Arithmetic. If deg f(x) > 0, let b denote the content of f(x), and let b1b2 bs be the
factorization of b as a product of primes. Then, f(x) = b1b2 bs f1(x), where f1(x) belongs
to Z[x], is primitive and deg f1(x) = deg f(x). Thus, to prove the existence portion of the
theorem, it suffices to show that a primitive polynomial f(x) of positive degree can be
written as a product of irreducible polynomials of positive degree. We proceed by
induction on deg f(x). If deg f(x) = 1, then f(x) is already irreducible and we are done.
Now suppose that every primitive polynomial of degree less than deg f(x) can be written
as a product of irreducibles of positive degree. If f(x) is irreducible, there is nothing to
prove. Otherwise, f(x) = g(x)h(x), where both g(x) and h(x) are primitive and have degree

8 |M a t he ma t i c s E d uc a t i o n - U N I M E D

ABDUL R TAMBUNAN
less than that of f(x). Thus, by induction, both g(x) and h(x) can be written as a product of
irreducibles of positive degree. Clearly, then, f(x) is also such a product.
To prove the uniqueness portion of the theorem, suppose that f(x) = b1b2 bs p1(x)p2(x)
pm(x) = c1c2ct q1(x)q2(x)qn(x), where the bs and cs are irreducible polynomials of
degree 0, and the p(x)s and q(x)s are irreducible polynomials of positive degree. Let b =
b1b2bs and c = c1c2ct. Since the p(x)s and q(x)s are primitive, it follows from Gausss
Lemma that p1(x)p2(x) pm(x) and q1(x)q2(x) qn(x) are primitive. Hence, both b and c
must equal plus or minus the content of f(x) and, therefore, are equal in absolute value. It
then follows from the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic that s = t and, after
renumbering, bi = ci for i = 1, 2, . . . , s. Thus, by canceling the constant terms in the two
factorizations for f(x), we have p1(x)p2(x) pm(x) = q1(x) q2(x) qn(x). Now, viewing
the p(x)s and q(x)s as elements of Q[x] and noting that p1(x) divides q1(x) qn(x), it
follows from Corollary 2 of Theorem 5 and induction that p1(x) | qi(x) for some i. By
renumbering, we may assume i = 1. Then, since q1(x) is irreducible, we have q1(x) =
(r/s)p1(x), where r, s Z. However, because both q1(x) and p1(x) are primitive, we must
have r/s = 1. So, q1(x) = p1(x). Also, after canceling, we have p2(x) pm(x) = q2(x)
qn(x). Now, we may repeat the argument above with p2(x) in place of p1(x). If m < n,
after m such steps we would have 1 on the left and a nonconstant polynomial on the right.
Clearly, this is impossible. On the other hand, if m > n, after n steps we would have 1
on the right and a nonconstant polynomial on the left another impossibility. So, m = n and
pi(x) = qi(x) after suitable renumbering of the q(x)s.

Example:
Consider = 3 2 + 4 + 3 Z5 []. Show it factors both as 3 + 2 ( + 4) and
as 4 + 1 2 + 3 . Explain why this does NOT contradict unique factorization of
polynomials.
Solution:
First note that:

3 + 2 + 4 = 3 2 + 12 + 2 + 8 = 3 2 + 4 + 3

and that

4 + 1 2 + 3 = 8 2 + 12 + 3 = 3 2 + 4 + 3
On the other hand, 2 3 = 1 in Z5, and so
4 + 1 2 + 3 = 4 + 1 2 1 2 + 3 = 4 + 1 2 3 2 + 3
= 8 + 2 6 + 9 = 3 + 2 + 4
This completes the proof.

D. Factorization
Weird Dice: An Application of Unique Factorization
Example:
Consider an ordinary pair of dice whose faces are labeled 1 through 6. The probability of
rolling a sum of 2 is 1/36, the probability of rolling a sum of 3 is 2/36, and so on. In a
1978 issue of Scientific American, Martin Gardner remarked that if one were to label the
six faces of one cube with the integers 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4 and the six faces of another cube
with the integers 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, then the probability of obtaining any particular sum with

9 |M a t he ma t i c s E d uc a t i o n - U N I M E D

ABDUL R TAMBUNAN
these dice (called Sicherman dice) would be the same as the probability of rolling that
sum with ordinary dice (that is, 1/36 for a 2, 2/36 for a 3, and so on). See Figure 1. In this
example, we show how the Sicherman labels can be derived, and that they are the only
possible such labels besides 1 through 6. To do so, we utilize the fact that Z[x] has the
unique factorization property.

Figure 1
To begin, let us ask ourselves how we may obtain a sum of 6, say, with an ordinary
pair of dice. Well, there are five possibilities for the two faces: (5, 1), (4, 2), (3, 3), (2, 4),
and (1, 5). Next we consider the product of the two polynomials created by using the
ordinary dice labels as exponents:
6 + 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 6 + 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 +
Observe that we pick up the term x6 in this product in precisely the following ways:
5 1 , 4 2 , 3 3 , 2 4 , 1 5 . Notice the correspondence between pairs of
labels whose sums are 6 and pairs of terms whose products are 6 . This correspondence is
one-to-one, and it is valid for all sums and all diceincluding the Sicherman dice and
any other dice that yield the desired probabilities. So, let a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6 and b1, b2, b3,
b4, b5, b6 be any two lists of positive integer labels for the faces of a pair of cubes with the
property that the probability of rolling any particular sum with these dice (let us call them
weird dice) is the same as the probability of rolling that sum with ordinary dice labeled 1
through 6. Using our observation about products of polynomials, this means that
6 + 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 6 + 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 +
= 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 (1)
Now all we have to do is solve this equation for the as and bs. Here is where unique
factorization in Z[x] comes in. The polynomial 6 + 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + factors
uniquely into irreducibles as
+ 1 2 + + 1 ( 2 + 1)
so that the left-hand side of Equation (1) has the irreducible factorization
2 + 1 2 2 + + 1 2 ( 2 + 1)2
So, by Theorem 17.6, this means that these factors are the only possible irreducible
factors of = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 . Thus, P(x) has the form
+ 1 2 + + 1 ( 2 + 1)
where 0 q, r, t, u 2.
To restrict further the possibilities for these four parameters, we evaluate P(1) in two
ways.
1 = 1 1 + 1 2 + 1 3 + 1 4 + 1 5 + 1 6 = 6 and 1 = 1 2 3 1

10 | M a t h e m a t i c s E d u c a t i o n - U N I M E D

ABDUL R TAMBUNAN
Clearly, this means that r = 1 and t = 1. What about q? Evaluating P(0) in two ways
shows that q 0. On the other hand, if q = 2, the smallest possible sum one could roll
with the corresponding labels for dice would be 3. Since this violates our assumption, we
have now reduced our list of possibilities for q, r, t, and u to q = 1, r = 1, t = 1, and u = 0,
1, 2. Lets consider each of these possibilities in turn.
When u = 0, = 4 + 3 + 3 + 2 + 2 + , so the die labels are 4, 3, 3, 2, 2,
1 a Sicherman die.
When u = 1, = 6 + 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + ,so the die labels are 6, 5, 4, 3, 2,
1an ordinary die.
When u = 2, = 8 + 6 + 5 + 4 + 3 + , so the die labels are 8, 6, 5, 4, 3,
1the other Sicherman die.
This proves that the Sicherman dice do give the same probabilities as ordinary dice
and that they are the only other pair of dice that have this property.

References
Bergen, Jeffery. 2010. A Concrete Approach to Abstract Algebra. USA: Elsevier Inc
Gallian, Joseph A. 2010. Contemporary Abstract Algebra Seventh Edition. Belmont
USA: Brooks Cole Inc.
Hungerford, Thomas W. 2000. Algebra. USA: Springer
Pinter, Charles C. 1982. A Book of Abstract Algebra. USA: McGraw Hill Company.
Paley Hirem, et al. 1966. A First Course in Abstract Algebra. USA: Holt, Rineheart and
Winston Inc.
Rotman, Joseph J. _____. A First Course in Abstract Algebra. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Sixty minutes of thinking of any kind is bound to lead to

confusion and unhappiness.
JAMES THURBER

11 | M a t h e m a t i c s E d u c a t i o n - U N I M E D