9

Let $\zeta_1, \ldots \zeta_{16}$ be the $16$th roots of unity. For the proper subset $J \subset \{1,2,\dots,16\}$ and $|J|=6$, can the following sum ever be satisfied for an integer not equal to zero? $$\left\lvert\sum_{j\in J} \zeta_j\right\rvert=C \in \mathbb{N}^+.$$

I think the answer is negative but have been unable to finish the following argument. Squaring both sides yields the real sum

$$\sum_{j,k\in J} \zeta_j \zeta_k^* = \sum_{j,k} \cos\left(\frac{2\pi(j-k)}{16}\right) = C^2 $$

which after removing the conjugate product terms yields $$ \sum_{j\neq k} \zeta_j \zeta_k^* = C^2 - |J| . $$

I was thinking of then proceeding using the cardinality of $J$ and that $ \cos\left(\frac{2\pi}{16}\right)$ is irrational to show that no such sum is possible but keep going in circles. I suspect this question is very simple using algebraic number theory but I am still a novice there. Any suggestions on how to move forward would be appreciated, particularly using number theory.

Jyrki Lahtonen
  • 140,891
  • 1
    An idea: perhaps expressing each such root as a power of a primitive root (say, $;\zeta:=e^{\pi i/8};$ could help a little to make things easier to evaluate. – DonAntonio Jun 07 '21 at 06:58
  • 3
    Explicit computation of all possible subsets of size $6$ confirms that the answer is indeed no, so you would be correct to proceed with proving this. The subsets that are closest to having an integer magnitude are ${1, 2, 5, 7, 11, 14}$ and their rotations and reflections, with magnitude $\sqrt{6-2 \sqrt{2}-2 \sqrt{4-2 \sqrt{2}}} \approx 1.00339$. – heropup Jun 07 '21 at 07:41
  • 1
    I added the missing piece to the question title (obvious from the question body). I realize that you want to be brief in the title, but this was kinda crucial. Not much harm done, though :-) – Jyrki Lahtonen Jun 08 '21 at 06:42
  • Thank you @JyrkiLahtonen, indeed it is crucial - my apologies. Your answer was very good however I thought, could the same approach not be applied to the last sum in the question given that $\zeta_j \zeta_k^* $ remains a power of a primitive root of unity and the sum over $j,k$ is still an integer? – User71942 Jun 08 '21 at 08:14

1 Answers1

1

Not a solution yet. For now I prove that $C=2$ is the only possibility, and rewrite this as a "combinatorial" problem. I hope to come back to it sooner rather than later.


Everything takes place inside the number field $K=\Bbb{Q}(2\cos(\pi/8))$, the real subfield of the sixteenth cyclotomic field. Let us denote $\zeta=e^{\pi i/8}$ and $s_k=\zeta^k+\zeta^{-k}$, $k=0,1,\ldots,15$. It is straightforward to show that $\mathcal{B}=\{1,s_1,s_2,s_3\}$ is a $\Bbb{Q}$-basis of $K$. We have the obvious relations $$ \begin{aligned} s_4&=0,\\ s_j&=-s_{8-j}, j=1,2,3,\\ s_j&=-s_{j+8}, j=0,1,\ldots,7 \end{aligned} $$ that allow us to write all the numbers $s_j$, $0\le j<16$, in terms of the basis elements.

Let $J=\{i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_6\}$ be the chosen six exponents of $\zeta$. Without loss of generality we can assume that they are sorted, so $0\le i_1<i_2<i_3<\cdots<i_6\le15$. The first observation we can make is that if $J$ is a solution, then so is $J-i_1=\{i_k-i_1\mid k=1,\ldots,6\}$ because we only rotate the sum in the complex plane by $\pi i_1/8$. So without loss of generality we can assume that $i_1=0$.

As already calculated in the question body, we have $$ C^2=6-\sum_{j,k\in J, k<j}s_{j-k}. $$ For all $\ell=1,2,\ldots,15$ let's denote by $$ N_\ell=\#\{(j,k)\in J\times J, k<j, j-k=\ell\} $$ the number of pairs $(j,k)\in J\times J$ such that $j-k=\ell$. In light of all of the above, we arrive at $$ C^2=(6-2N_8)+(N_1+N_{15}-N_7-N_9)s_1+(N_2+N_{14}-N_6-N_{10})s_2+(N_3+N_{13}-N_5-N_{11}) s_3. $$ Because $\mathcal{B}$ is a basis it follows that $6-2N_8$ must be a perfect square, and that the coefficients of $s_j, j=1,2,3$, must all vanish. Because $C=0$ is not interesting, and $C^2\le6$, this forces $C=2$ and $N_8=1$.

The problem is then to prove that it is impossible to find a set $J$ such that the constraints $N_8=1$, $N_1+N_{15}=N_7+N_9$, $N_3+N_{13}=N_5+N_{11}$, and $N_2+N_{14}=N_6+N_{10}$ all hold.

  • The second observation I make is that by rotational invariance we can now actually assume that both $0$ and $8$ are in $J$.
  • The next observation is that it is impossible for the set $J$ to consist of only even numbers. For otherwise the numbers in $J$ fall into at most four distinct residue classes modulo eight, forcing $N_8\ge2$.
  • A corollary of the previous bullet is that without loss of generality we can assume that $1\in J$. This is because the condition on the sum is clearly invariant under the Galois group $G=Gal(\Bbb{Q}(\zeta)/\Bbb{Q})$, and $G$ acts transitively in the set $\{\zeta^j\mid \text{$j$ odd}\}$. Furthermore, all the elements of $G$ have $\zeta^0$ and $\zeta^8$ as their fixed points.

If we end up doing a brute force search, knowing that it suffices to check the sets containing all of $0,1,8$ but not containing $9$ will reduce the complexity of the search.

Jyrki Lahtonen
  • 140,891
  • 1
    The next simplification may be to throw away $0$ and $8$ (their contributions cancel), and work with $|J|=4$ instead. – Jyrki Lahtonen Jun 08 '21 at 12:38
  • I'm not sure I follow the counting step equivalency. Why must the coefficients for $s_{j\neq 0}$ vanish if $\mathcal{B}$ is a basis? – User71942 Jun 08 '21 at 13:03
  • 1
    @User71942 The basis property means that $a_0+a_1s_1+a_2s_2+a_3s_3$, $a_j\in\Bbb{Q}$ for all $j$, is rational if and only if $a_1=a_2=a_3=0$. – Jyrki Lahtonen Jun 08 '21 at 17:09
  • Ah of course. As in your previous answer this property seems to be key point. Is this rationality requirement a consequence of the degree being prime or a general property of the basis for cyclotomic fields? – User71942 Jun 09 '21 at 03:03
  • 1
    @User71942 It is a property of all simple field extensions. If $K=\Bbb{Q}(\alpha)$ is an algebraic extension with the minimal polynomial of $\alpha$ of degree $n$, then automatically ${1,\alpha,\alpha^2,\cdots,\alpha^{n-1}}$ is a basis of $K$ over $\Bbb{Q}$. And consequently every element $z$ of $K$ can be written in the form $z=\sum{i=0}^{n-1}c_i\alpha^i$ with $c_i\in\Bbb{Q}$ in a unique way. In particular, $z$ is rational if and only if $z=c_0$, whence $c_1=c_2=\cdots=c_{n-1}=0$. – Jyrki Lahtonen Jun 09 '21 at 04:21
  • 1
    I used a slightly different basis. We do have $K=\Bbb{Q}(s_1)$, but this time I used $s_2=s_1^2-2$, $s_3=s_1^3-s_1$ as the remaining basis elements instead of $s_1^2$ and $s_3^2$. As $1$ was still included in the basis, the uniqueness of the coordinates still allows us to conclude. – Jyrki Lahtonen Jun 09 '21 at 04:24
  • Very interesting - I look forward to studying this further. Forgive my ignorance but the uniqueness of the construction seems like the proof structure is to construct a basis (any basis) over the field extension with $c_0$ set to the desired constant and the remaining $c_i$ set to zero (always a solution and thus the only one) and then show that the summation terms corresponding to basis element either can or cannot be zero. All of the above work after the basis construction is towards this latter point? – User71942 Jun 09 '21 at 08:10
  • 1
    @User71942 That's because $1$ was the first element of the basis. So any rational number $q$ can be written in the form $q=q\cdot1$. If there is no rational number in the basis, then this is not so. For example, with the simpler field $F=\Bbb{Q}(\sqrt2)$ if we use a basis like ${b_1=1+\sqrt2,b_2=1-\sqrt2}$ then the number $c_1b_1+c_2b_2$ is rational if and only if the coordinates satisfy $c_1=c_2$. – Jyrki Lahtonen Jun 09 '21 at 08:51
  • 1
    (cont'd) It is not unlike identifying the vectors $v$ of $\Bbb{R}^3$ that are on the $x$-axis. They have the form $v=c_1b_1+c_2b_2+c_3b_3$ with respect to any basis ${b_1,b_2,b_3}$. But you can identify the points on the $x$-axis as those with $c_2=c_3=0$ only when $b_1=(1,0,0)$ (or a scalar multiple of it). Think of $\Bbb{Q}$ inside a bigger field like the $x$-axis inside $\Bbb{R}^n$. – Jyrki Lahtonen Jun 09 '21 at 08:52
  • That makes a great deal of sense thank you. While you have said you would like to come back to this question, I think you have thoroughly answered my original question and given me a clear idea of how I might proceed. Many thanks. – User71942 Jun 09 '21 at 10:57
  • 1
    Fixed a typo. Sorry about the bump. – Jyrki Lahtonen Jun 19 '21 at 08:28