8

Assume $f \in \Bbb Z[x]$ is a monic polynomial, s.t for every commutative ring $R$, the solutions of $f(x)=0$ in $R$ can be endowed with an abelian group structure that is functorial respect to $R$.

Some examples of f include $ f(x)=x^n-1, f(x)=x$ , with the group structure inherited from the additive group or the unit group. But there is an example with new group structure: $ f(x)=x^2-x$ with group operation given by $(x,y) \mapsto (x-y)^2$.

So are there other types of such polynomial?How to classify all such $f$?

A neccesary condition is $f$ has root in every $R$ hence $f $ must have a linear factor.

Eric Wofsey
  • 342,377
  • 1
    Another class of examples: take $a,b\in\Bbb Z$ with $ab = 2$. Then $x^2 + ax = f(x)$ is such a polynomial, where multiplication is $(x,y)\mapsto x + y + bxy$. I suspect you might already know this based on the way you've asked and tagged the question, but you're essentially asking for what monic polynomials $f$ can $A = \Bbb Z[x]/(f)$ be given the structure of a commutative and cocommutative Hopf algebra (over $\Bbb Z$). – Stahl Jul 23 '17 at 08:42
  • @Stahl: Those aren't really new examples: they are all equivalent to the group structures on $x^2-1$ or $x^2-x$ mentioned in the question by a change of coordinates. – Eric Wofsey Jul 23 '17 at 08:45
  • @EricWofsey I wasn't able to verify that $(x,y)\mapsto(x - y)^2$ actually gives a legitimate group operation on the roots of $x^2 - x$, but assuming it either turns out to be isomorphic to $x^2 - x$ with $a = -1$, $b = -2$ or that that was what was intended, then I agree that all the group schemes mentioned are isomorphic to ones already appearing. – Stahl Jul 23 '17 at 08:56
  • A natural generalization is to look at finite group schemes. – Qiaochu Yuan Jul 23 '17 at 09:35
  • 1
    @Stahl: $(x-y)^2=x^2+y^2-2xy$ is the same thing as $x+y-2xy$ since $x^2=x$ and $y^2=y$ (we are looking at roots of $x^2-x$). – Eric Wofsey Jul 23 '17 at 15:48
  • @EricWofsey Oh, of course! :P Algebra gets harder when you're half asleep. – Stahl Jul 23 '17 at 17:32
  • 1
    It is a theorem that for each commutative ring $R$, the group of roots of $f$ in $R$ is killed by multiplication by $\deg(f)$. In particular, it is necessary that the radical of the number of roots in $R$ must divide $\deg(f)$. So for example a group structure cannot exist for $f(x)=x(x-1)(x-2)$, which has degree $3$ but has two roots in $\mathbb{F}_2$. – Julian Rosen Jul 24 '17 at 14:39
  • @JulianRosen It sounds reasonable, where can I found a proof of the theorem? –  Jul 24 '17 at 14:57
  • 2
    The theorem is stated on page 19 of these notes, with a proof following. – Julian Rosen Jul 24 '17 at 15:11
  • @JulianRosen It sounds reasonable, where can I found a proof of the theorem? –  Jul 24 '17 at 15:12

1 Answers1

1

This is really only a place to start and not an answer, but it's too long to be a comment.

As I said in my first comment, you want to put a Hopf algebra structure on $A = \Bbb Z[x]/(f)$ which is both commutative and cocommutative. That is, you need ring homomorphisms: \begin{align*} e : \Bbb Z&\to A&\text{unit}\\ \epsilon : A&\to\Bbb Z&\text{counit}\\ \mu : A\otimes_{\Bbb Z}A&\to A&\text{multiplication}\\ \Delta : A&\to A\otimes_{\Bbb Z}A&\text{comultiplication}\\ S : A&\to A&\text{antipode} \end{align*} such that the following conditions hold: \begin{align*} \mu\circ(id_A\otimes\mu) &= \mu\circ(\mu\otimes id_A)&\text{associativity}\\ id_A &= \mu\circ(id_A\otimes e)\circ(A\xrightarrow{\sim} A\otimes\Bbb Z)&\text{identity}\\ \mu &= \mu\circ\tau&\text{commutativity}\\ (id_A\otimes\Delta)\circ\Delta &= (\Delta\otimes id_A)\circ\Delta&\text{coassociativity}\\ id_A &= (A\otimes\Bbb Z\xrightarrow{\sim}A)\circ(id_A\otimes\epsilon)\circ\Delta&\text{coidentity}\\ \tau\circ\Delta &= \Delta&\text{cocommutativity}\\ \Delta\circ\mu &= \left(\mu\otimes\mu\right)\circ\left(id_A\otimes\tau\otimes id_A\right)\circ\left(\Delta\otimes\Delta\right)&\text{compatibility}\\ \Delta\circ e &= (e\otimes e)\circ(\Bbb Z\xrightarrow{\sim}\Bbb Z\otimes\Bbb Z)\\ \epsilon\circ\mu &= (\Bbb Z\otimes\Bbb Z\xrightarrow{\sim}\Bbb Z)\circ(\epsilon\otimes\epsilon)\\ e\circ\epsilon &=\mu\circ(S\otimes id_A)\circ\Delta&\text{antipode},\\ \end{align*} where $\tau : A\otimes A\to A\otimes A$ denotes the "switching coordinates" map $x\otimes y\mapsto y\otimes x$. $A$ is already a commutative $\Bbb Z$-algebra, so the first three conditions do not add anything new. The condition you mentioned, that $f$ has a linear factor, arises immediately as a result of existence of a counit, since a map $A\to\Bbb Z$ must send [the class of] $x$ in $A$ to an integer root of $f$.

If you write out the potential comultiplication on $x$ as $\Delta(x) = \sum_{i,j\geq 0} n_{i,j} x^i\otimes x^j$ and use the other conditions, you might get some things. For example, $$ (id_A\otimes\Delta)\circ\Delta(x)= (\Delta\otimes id_A)\circ\Delta(x) $$ implies that $$ \sum_{i,j\geq 0}\left[n_{i,j} x^i\otimes\left(\sum_{k,\ell\geq 0} n_{k,\ell} x^k\otimes x^\ell\right)^j\right]= \sum_{i,j\geq 0}\left[n_{i,j} \left(\sum_{k,\ell\geq 0} n_{k,\ell} x^k\otimes x^\ell\right)^i\otimes x^j\right], $$ and $$ id_A(x) = (A\otimes\Bbb Z\xrightarrow{\sim}A)\circ(id_A\otimes\epsilon)\circ\Delta(x) $$ implies that $$ x = \sum_{i,j\geq 0} n_{i,j}\epsilon(x)^j x^i, $$ so that $\sum_{j\geq 0} n_{1,j}\epsilon(x)^j = 1,$ and for $i\geq0$, $i\neq 1$, you have $\sum_{j\geq 0} n_{i,j}\epsilon(x)^j = 0.$ $\tau\circ\Delta = \Delta$ implies that $n_{i,j} = n_{j,i}$, and so on.

Perhaps a good place to start would be by fixing $\epsilon$ (or fixing the distinguished root of $f$, if you like): say that $\epsilon(x) = 0$. Then $f$ has no constant term, and some of the above results become particularly simple. You get that $$ 1 = \sum_{j\geq 0} n_{1,j}\epsilon(x)^j = n_{1,0}, $$ and for $i\geq0$, $i\neq 1$, you have $$ 0 = \sum_{j\geq 0} n_{i,j}\epsilon(x)^j = n_{i,0}. $$

Of course, it remains to be seen how you can interpret the existence of such a $\Delta$ (and $S$) as a condition on $f$ itself.

Stahl
  • 23,855
  • In general the classification of hopf algebra may be hard, I wonder whether we can find some strong restriction on f in our special case, –  Jul 24 '17 at 13:13