5

For example, $x^2 - 1$ factors over $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-1}]$.

I would like to ask if the polynomial $x^6 + x^2 + 1$ can be factored over an extension of $\mathbb{Z}$ by roots of unity.

EDIT: The community has requested I elaborate on what I've already tried.

I have tried many things, such as analyzing how the polynomial factors over $\mathbb{F}_p$, but nothing seems like it leads anywhere. The following is the motivation for the question:

The polynomial $x^6 + x^2 + 1$, evaluated at x = 2, returns $69 = 3 \times 23$. Performing this in the inverse for $3$ leads to $x + 1$, and for $23$ leads to $x^4 + x^2 + x + 1$, for coefficients in $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$. Looking at the polynomial representation for binary representations of semiprimes, most of them seem to have some multiplicative-ish structure going on. For example, $21 = 3 \times 7$ leads to $(x^2 - x + 1)(x^2+x+1)$, which evaluate to 3 and 7 respectively at x = 2.

By asking the question, I wish to come across more intuition as to whether this multiplicative structure holds for extensions of $\mathbb{Z}$.

The given polynomial is among the first corresponding to an odd semiprime that does not factor in $\mathbb{Z}$:

enter image description here

While some of these factors include negative coefficients, to ensure uniqueness corresponding to the binary representation of $pq$, the full expansion of the polynomial enforced coefficients of $0$ or $1$.

L. E.
  • 780
  • 2
    What have you tried? – Dietrich Burde Aug 14 '23 at 11:37
  • It seems this question has been mistaken as homework help. I genuinely have no idea how to approach the problem. I will edit the post with motivation, I suppose. – L. E. Aug 14 '23 at 18:42
  • @OscarLanzi Please take a look at the revision. – L. E. Aug 14 '23 at 18:50
  • @DietrichBurde I have attempted to factor the polynomial in various extensions of $\mathbb{Z}$ using sage math, and scoured the Internet for related topics before posting the question. My apologies if my efforts aren't up to your standards. – L. E. Aug 14 '23 at 18:55
  • 1
    What kind of number theoretical results can you use? This is important for people who want to answer your question. Therefore I was asking for more context and to see what you already have tried. – Dietrich Burde Aug 14 '23 at 19:48
  • My apologies, I did not consider how further context could lead to a more appropriate answer. – L. E. Aug 14 '23 at 19:53

2 Answers2

7

No.

We have $x^6+x^2+1=y^3+y+1$ where $y=x^2$. Now $y^3+y+1=0$ has Galois group $S_3$ (guaranteed by one real root and a pair of complex conjugates), which is not abelian, and from here that means its zeroes cannot be expressed in terms of roots of unity. Thus $y^3+y+1$ where $y=x^2$ cannot be factored in terms of such roots, leaving no hope for $x^6+x^2+1$.

Your polynomial for 55 ($x^5+x^4+x^2+x+1$) won't work either. This quintic factors modulo $5$ to give an irreducible cubic factor ($(x+3)(x+4)(\color{blue}{x^3+4x^2+3})$), so the Galois group must include a $3$-cycle. With an irreducible quintic that means it cannot be solved by radicals, whereas a factorization into lower-degree polynomials with roots of unity would imply solvability by radicals.

Oscar Lanzi
  • 48,208
  • Was surprised to see such a straightforward answer with Galois theory. It's a learning opportunity. Regarding your second paragraph, here I was interested only in how the binary representations of $pq$ factor as polynomials, so my investigation allowed negative coefficients in the factors but not in the expansion. – L. E. Aug 15 '23 at 12:52
  • 1
    I don't quite see how $y^3 + y + 1$ being irreducible over every cyclotomic field implies $x^6 + x^2 + 1$ being irreducible over every cyclotomic field. For all I can tell, something might happen such as the famous example of $x^4 + 4 = (x^2 + 2x + 2) (x^2 - 2x + 2)$ where the factors aren't polynomials in $x^2$ but the product is a polynomial in $x^2$. – Daniel Schepler Aug 15 '23 at 23:53
  • 1
    The Galois theory argunent still places a burden. If the polynomial is $P(y)=y^3+y+1$ for $y$ a rational function of $x$ and $y^3+y+1$ has Galois group $S_3$, the originalpolynomial's group should also contain $S_3$ which makes ot non-abelian. Also I found another example that evidently does not factor with any roots of unity. – Oscar Lanzi Aug 16 '23 at 02:14
1

$u=x^2$

We need a $u$ so that: $u^3+u+1=0$. By Descartes' Sign Rule, there are one negative real root and two complex roots.

$(u+a)(u-b-ci)(u-b+ci)=0$

$(u+a)(u^2-bu+icu-bu+b^2-icb-icu+ibc+c^2 )=(u+a)(u^2+b^2+c^2-2bu)=0$

$u^3+ub^2+uc^2-2bu^2+au^2+ab^2+ac^2-2abu=0$

$u^3+(a-2b)u2+u(b^2+c^2-2ab)+a(b^2+c^2)=0$


$a=2b$

$b^2+c^2-2ab=1$

$a(b^2+c^2)=1$

$c^2-3b^2=1$ :condition for complex number b+ic to solve $u^3+u+1=0$

$c^2+b^2=1$ : necessary condition for complex solution to be a root of unity.

Simultaneous solutions only occur for $b^2=0$ and $c^2=1 \implies u=\pm i$.

By inspection no values of $u$ having modulus 1 solve $u^3+u+1=0$. Taking a square root preserves the modulus and halves the argument, so no modulus=1 solutions for one imply no such solutions for the other.

Finally, the reals 1 and -1 do not solve $x^6+x^2+1=0$.


Alternatively:

There are only 8 possible candidates of modulus 1 and they don't work.

$x^6+x^2+1=0$

$z^6+z^2+1=0$

$\bar{z}^6+\bar{z}^2+1=0$

$(z^6-\bar{z}^6)+(z^2-\bar{z}^2)=0$

$(z^3-\bar{z}^3)(z^3+\bar{z}^3)+(z+\bar{z})(z-\bar{z})$

$(z^2-\bar{z}^2)=0 \implies $ z is real or totally imaginary. Only candidates of modulus one are $1,-1,i, -i$.

$(z-\bar{z})(z^2+z\bar{z}+\bar{z}^2)(z+\bar{z})(z^2-z\bar{z}+\bar{z}^2)+(z+\bar{z})(z-\bar{z})=0$

$(z^2+z\bar{z}+\bar{z}^2)(z^2-z\bar{z}+\bar{z}^2)+1=0$

$(z^2+r^2+\bar{z}^2)(z^2-r^2+\bar{z}^2)+1=0$

$z^4-z^2r^2+z^2\bar{z}^2+r^2z^2-r^4+r^2\bar{z}^2+\bar{z}^2z^2-r^2\bar{z}^2+\bar{z}^4+1=0$

$z^4+r^4+\bar{z}^4+1=0$

$r^4e^{4i\theta}+r^4+r^4e^{-4i\theta}+1=0$

Let $ r=1$

$2\cos 4\theta+2=0$

$\cos 4\theta=-1$

$\theta = \pi/4 + 2\pi k/4, k\in \{0,1,2,3\}$

These produce complex numbers of the form $\pm\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}\pm\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}$ which aren't extension of the integers without introducing radicals.

TurlocTheRed
  • 6,458
  • 2
    More significantly, this doesn't really answer the question. $u$ could easily be a rational combination of roots of unity without itself being a root of unity. And a sextic can factor into smaller polynomials over a ring without admitting any linear factors (i.e. roots in that ring). – Erick Wong Aug 15 '23 at 01:10