Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Newton's theorem of symmetric polynomials says that every symmetric polynomial can be written as a polynomial in elementary symmetric polynomials. Hence when $S_n$ acts on $\mathbb{Q}(x_1,...,x_n)$ naturally then the fixed field under this action is $\mathbb{Q}(e_1,...,e_n)$ where $e_1,...,e_n$ are elementary symmetric polynomials. Let $C_p$(realised as a permutation group generated by a $p$-cycle), where $p$ is a prime act on $\mathbb{Q}(x_1,...,x_p)$ what can be said about the fixed field under this action? Is there an analog of Newton's theorem for this?

Thanks

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Let me pretend that when you said $\mathbb{Q}$ you actually meant $\mathbb{C}$. You did mean $\mathbb{C}$, right? In that case, fix a primitive $n^{th}$ root of unity $\zeta_n$. Let me rename your variables to $x_0, x_1, ... x_{n-1}$, then ignore them to introduce a different set of variables

$$y_i = \zeta_p^0 x_0 + \zeta_p^i x_1 + \zeta_p^{2i} x_2 + ... + \zeta_p^{(n-1)i} x_{n-1}, 0 \le i \le n-1.$$

Then a generator of $C_n$ sends $y_i$ to $\zeta_p^i y_i$. (This is essentially the discrete Fourier transform.) Consequently, a generator of $C_n$ acts on a monomial by

$$\prod y_i^{m_i} \mapsto \prod \zeta_p^{i m_i} \prod y_i^{m_i}.$$

Thus it fixes precisely those monomials which satisfy $\sum i m_i \equiv 0 \bmod n$. Linear combinations of these monomials precisely describe the polynomials in $\mathbb{C}[x_0, ... x_{n-1}]$ invariant under $C_n$, and quotients of these polynomials precisely describe the invariant subfield. (There is no need for the additional hypothesis that $n$ is prime.)

Example. When $n = 3$, we look at monomials in $y_0, y_1, y_2$. The first few invariant monomials are $y_0, y_1 y_2, y_1^3$ and products of these and their inverses give all invariant monomials (exercise), so these generate the invariant subfield.

Example. When $n = 4$, we look at monomials in $y_0, y_1, y_2, y_3$. The first few invariant monomials are $y_0, y_1 y_3, y_2^2, y_1^2 y_2$ and products of these and their inverses give all invariant monomials (exercise), so these generate the invariant subfield.

(The answer over $\mathbb{Q}$ seems more complicated to me. If I finish writing it up, it will be in a separate answer.)

share|improve this answer
    
Okay, so here is a short but unsatisfying answer over $\mathbb{Q}$: write out the invariant monomials as polynomials in the $x_i$. These will be linear combinations of invariant polynomials in $\mathbb{Q}(x_0, ... x_{n-1})$ with coefficients in $\{ 1, \zeta_n, ... \zeta_n^{n-1} \}$ and taking all of the corresponding invariant polynomials gets you generators of the invariant polynomials over $\mathbb{Q}$, but there are relations between them... –  Qiaochu Yuan Aug 23 '12 at 22:42
    
Qiaochu Yuan Thanks for your answer. I really meant $\mathbb{Q}$ not $\mathbb{C}$ , though it is interesting to note how it really matters and I am wondering how it does not matter in the case $S_{n}$. The motivation behind this question is Noether's formulation of inverse Galois problem( see 'Introduction' in Serre's Topics in Galois thory). It says that when a permutation group $G$ acts on $\mathbb{Q}(x_1,..x_n)$ and if its fixed field is rational over $\mathbb{Q}$ then via Hilbert's irreducibility theorem we can realize $G$ over $\mathbb{Q}$. –  Dinesh Aug 24 '12 at 9:41
    
..contd. In fact it gives an explicit polynomial for $G$ (when we have enough information). So if I know the analog of newton's theorem for $C_p$ then I can realize $C_p$ and might also be able to produce an explicit polynomial for it. The reason I chose $n$ to be prime is that, Lenstra showed that the fixed field of $C_8$ is not rational over $\mathbb{Q}$ (Reference: Serre's Topics in Galois theory). –  Dinesh Aug 24 '12 at 9:43
    
@Dinesh: it doesn't matter for $S_n$ because all of the irreducible representations of $S_n$ are defined over $\mathbb{Q}$. What do you mean by rational over $\mathbb{Q}$? –  Qiaochu Yuan Aug 24 '12 at 15:30
    
By a field rational over $\mathbb{Q}$ I mean a field of the form $\mathbb{Q}(t_1,...,t_n)$ where $t_1,...,t_n$ are algebraically independent. –  Dinesh Aug 25 '12 at 3:32
show 1 more comment

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.