Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I was “playing” with Eisenstein's criterion and the polynomials $X^n-p$ ($p$ being a prime number).

Over $\mathbf Z$, the classical Eisenstein's criterion directly applies and shows that $X^n - p$ is an irreducible element of $\mathbf Z[X]$. The question was “what happens over $\mathbf Z[i]$?”

We know that in this new ring, a prime number $p$ has one of three different fates:

  • if $p \equiv -1\ (\mathrm{mod}\, 4)$, $p$ still is an irreducible element of $\mathbf Z[i]$, or equivalently $(p) \subset \mathbf Z[i]$ still is prime. (Unless I'm mistaken, number theorists say that $p$ is inert). Eisenstein's criterion still applies and the polynomial is irreducible over $\mathbf Z[i]$.

  • if $p \equiv 1\ (\mathrm{mod}\, 4)$, $p$ can be written as a sum of two squares: $p = n^2 + m^2$ and is therefore reducible on $\mathbf Z[i]$: $p = (n+im)(n-im)$. These two factors aren't associated (the units in $\mathbf Z[i]$ being $\pm 1$ and $\pm i$) so $(p)$ splits: $(p) = (n+im)(n-im)$ is the product of two different prime ideals. One can still use Eisenstein's criterion with either of these prime ideals, and $X^n - p$ is irreducible over $\mathbf Z[i]$.

  • if $p = 2$, the oddest of all primes, one still has a factorisation $p = (1+i)(1-i)$ but this time, $1+i$ and $1-i$ are associated. In NT slang, $(2)$ is ramified: $(2) = (1+i)(1-i) = (1+i)^2$ and one cannot directly use Eisenstein's criterion.

So here's my question: how do we prove (or disprove) the irreducibility of $X^n - 2$ over $\mathbf Z[i]$?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 10 down vote accepted

Let $\alpha=\sqrt[n]{2}$ then $L=\mathbb Q(\alpha)$ is a purely real extension of $\mathbb Q$. So we have that $i \notin L$ in particular $x^2+1$ is irreducible over $L$. It follows that $[L(i):L]=2$ and so $[\mathbb Q(i,\alpha):\mathbb Q(i)]=n$. Thereby $\alpha$ has degree $n$ over $\mathbb Q(i)$ so its minimum polynomial has degree $n$ which must be $x^n-2$. Since $x^n-2$ is irreducible over $\mathbb Q(i)$ it must be irreducible over its ring of integers, i.e. the Gaussian integers.

You'll notice that nothing here directly relates to $2$. We only needed that the extension $\mathbb Q(\alpha)$ was real of degree $n$. In particular this method demonstrates that if $x^n-k$ is irreducible over $\mathbb Z$ then it's irreducible over $\mathbb Z[i]$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.