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

Consider the polynomial $$p(x)=x^9+18x^8+132x^7+501x^6+1011x^5+933x^4+269x^3+906x^2+2529x+1733$$ Is there a way to prove irreducubility of $p(x)$ in $\mathbb{Q}[x]$ different from asking to PARI/GP?

share|cite|improve this question
$1733$ is a prime. – Inceptio Mar 19 '13 at 10:46
@Inceptio: But then $3$ divides the leading coefficient, and you can't apply this criterion... – Lior B-S Mar 19 '13 at 11:13
This looks (but I have only experiments, no proof) like one of those polynomials that are irreducible over the rationals, but is reducible modulo each prime. – Andreas Caranti Mar 19 '13 at 11:27
This polynomial is probably the one OP is discussing here. At least it has the prescribed zero (also sprach Mathematica 3.0). AFAICT that also explains the observation made by @AndreasCaranti - over a finite prime field the two polynomials either split or don't, and you never get more than a sextic extension as their compositum. – Jyrki Lahtonen Mar 19 '13 at 11:54
@Inceptio. No! The polynomial $x^2+4x$ is reducible. Adding the prime $3$ to it gives us another reducible polynomial $x^2+4x+3=(x+3)(x+1)$. No such simple rule holds. – Jyrki Lahtonen Mar 19 '13 at 12:38

A starting point: Modulo $3$ the polynomial $p$ takes the form $$ red_3(p) = x^9-x^3-1\in \mathbb{F}_3[x]. $$ Since raising to $3$ is the frobenius automorphism we have $$ red_3(p) = (x^3-x-1)^3. $$ The polynomial $x^3-x-1$ is irreducible modulo three.

From all of this we get that if $p$ factors to a product $$ p=p_1\cdots p_r, $$ with $p_1, \ldots, p_r\in \mathbb{Z}[x]$ monic and irreducible over $\mathbb{Q}$, then $r\leq 3$ and the degree of each factor is at least $3$.

share|cite|improve this answer
why the last line of your answer implies $p$ irreducible? – bateman Mar 19 '13 at 11:04
It doesn't. As I wrote in the first line, it's just a starting point... – Lior B-S Mar 19 '13 at 11:08
ok, thank you for suggestion – bateman Mar 19 '13 at 11:12
@bateman: This route (reduce modulo a prime) will never prove this polynomial to be irreducible. – Jyrki Lahtonen Mar 19 '13 at 12:02
@JyrkiLahtonen: True, proves it is irreducible for certain modulo prime. – Inceptio Mar 19 '13 at 12:04

This polynomial has the element $\alpha^2+\beta$ described in this question as a root. My answer to that question implies among other things that the minimal polynomial of that element is of degree 9, so this polynomial has to be irreducible.

share|cite|improve this answer
Is there any different way? Using the fact that $1733$ is a prime. And other coefficients of $x^n(n \epsilon 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)$ are divisible by $3$? – Inceptio Mar 19 '13 at 15:00
@Inceptio: I'm sure there are other ways, but I don't see a cleaner one. The coefficient of the cubic term, 269, is not divisible by three. Modulo 3 information is already utilized in Lior's answer. That shows that it suffices to exclude the possibility of a cubic factor. May be you can do that by some brute force trick? The constant term of such a factor would have to be $\pm1$ or $\pm 1733$, so there are only those four cases, each with two unknown parameters. Go for it :-) – Jyrki Lahtonen Mar 19 '13 at 15:06
Yeah, I always miss a fact. And the cases you're talking about. I assumed $(\pm1+a_1x+a_2x^2+a_3x^3+...a_nx^n)(\pm 1733+b_1x+b_2x^2+b_3x^3+...b_kx^k)=p(x)$. I just need to prove this it is impossible.? – Inceptio Mar 19 '13 at 15:12

If you don't mind evaluating $p(x)$ several times and factoring large numbers, you could find $10$ values for $x$ which are separated by more than $2$, for which $p(x)$ is prime (or a unit). This would imply that $p(x)$ (having degree $9$) is irreducible.

The logic being: If $p(\alpha)$ is prime and if $p(x) = q(x) r(x)$, then $q(\alpha)$ or $r(\alpha)$ must be a unit ($\pm1$). Given that $q(x), r(x)$ must also have degrees that sum to that of $p(x)$, the number of times they can take the value of a unit is restricted - maximum is two times the degree of $p(x)$, to account for two possible signs for the units. However, if the $x$ values are separated by more than $2$, then for any of $q(x)$ and $r(x)$ the sign of the unit must be the same, and then there cannot be then more prime values than the degree of $p(x)$.

Here, we have $p(x)$ prime for $x \in \mathrm{A} = \{-16, -10, -3, 0, 3, 6, 14, 17, 28, 39 \}$. (I have omitted values such as $\{-12, -4, -2, -1, 5\}$ which also give primes but are too close to elements of $\mathrm{A}$, to avoid having to find $19$ prime values). As these are $10$ values separated by more than $2$, $p(x)$ is irreducible.

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.