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'm trying to prove that the following polynomial is not solvable by radicals:

$$p(x) = x^5 - 4x + 2 $$

First, by Eisenstein is irreducible.

(It is not difficult to see that this polynomial has exactly 3 real roots)

How can I proceed?

Thank you!

share|cite|improve this question
Isn't the general method that of computing the Galois group of the polynomial and showing it is not solvable as a group? – user99680 Jun 18 '14 at 1:09
Do you mean to say that by Eisenstein this is IRREDUCIBLE? – Vladhagen Jun 18 '14 at 1:09
One or more of the techniques in might be helpufl. – Qiaochu Yuan Jun 18 '14 at 1:12
Where did this example come from? I found it as exactly the nonsolvable quintic mentioned by Rotman in his textbook Galois Theory (2nd edition). See Theorem 75 on page 74. – KCd Jun 18 '14 at 3:22
up vote 13 down vote accepted

Roadmap for work below: It will suffice to show that the polynomial has Galois group $S_5$, which is an unsolvable group. To do this, we will show that the Galois group, when viewed as a permutation group, has a $5$-cycle and a $2$-cycle (this serves as a generating set for $S_5$).

Let $K$ be the splitting field of $f$. Going forward, it will be helpful to think of the Galois group $G(K/\mathbb{Q}) \subseteq S_5$ as a permutation group acting on the five roots of $f$.

Now, since $f$ is an irreducible quintic, we can adjoin one of its real roots to $\mathbb{Q}$ to yield a degree-$5$ extension, and we have the tower of fields $\mathbb{Q} \subset \mathbb{Q}[\alpha] \subset K$. Since $|G(K/\mathbb{Q})| = [K:\mathbb{Q}] = 5\cdot[K:\mathbb{Q}[\alpha]]$, we know that $5$ divides $|G(K/\mathbb{Q})|$. Therefore, by Cauchy's theorem, there must exist an element in $G(K/\mathbb{Q})$ of order $5$. That is to say, $G(K/\mathbb{Q})$ must contain a $5$-cycle.

Moving on, the polynomial has two complex roots which are necessarily complex conjugates, say $a + bi$ and $a-bi$. There exists a $\phi \in G(K/\mathbb{Q})$, namely complex conjugation, such that $\phi(a+bi) = a-bi$ and fixes the $3$ real roots. In particular, $\phi$ is a $2$-cycle.

Next, it is a theorem that any $2$-cycle together with any $p$-cycle will generate the entire symmetric group $S_p$ for all primes $p$. From this, we can conclude that $G(K/\mathbb{Q}) \cong S_5$.

All that remains is to show that $S_5$ is not a solvable group. This is because $A_5$ is the only normal subgroup of $S_5$, and since $A_5$ contains no normal subgroups, then we cannot construct a chain of groups $\{e\} \subset G_1 \subset G_2 \subset ... \subset S_5$ such that each $G_{j-1}$ is normal in $G_j$ and $G_{j}/G_{j-1}$ is abelian.

Since the Galois group of $f$ is not solvable, we can finally conclude that the roots of $f$ are not solvable by radicals.

share|cite|improve this answer
Your second paragraph is a bit misleading; it is false in general that a transitive subgroup of $S_n$ necessarily contains an $n$-cycle. For example, $V_4$ is a transitive subgroup of $S_4$ not containing a $4$-cycle. (It happens to be true for $n = 5$, though. I'm not sure how general this is.) And in your fourth paragraph I believe you need $p$ to be a prime. – Qiaochu Yuan Jun 18 '14 at 2:49
@QiaochuYuan, thanks for pointing that out. What a terrible argument in retrospect. I think I've patched it up. – Kaj Hansen Jun 18 '14 at 2:59
@QiaochuYuan: when $p$ is prime then every transitive subgroup $G$ of $S_p$ contains a $p$-cycle: the stabilizer subgroup of, say, 1 will have index $p$ in $G$, so $p$ divides $|G|$ and thus $G$ has an element of order $p$. Being a subgroup of $S_p$, an element of order $p$ is a $p$-cycle because $p$ is prime. – KCd Jun 18 '14 at 3:14
@QiaochuYuan: $p$ is not required prime, but there is a condition on the coprimality of the gap between the positions in the transposition and the length of the big cycle. Since 5 is prime, this is automatic here. See Theorem 2.8 at Corollary 2.10 is the restriction you mention. – Eric Towers Jun 18 '14 at 4:15
Interesting contribution @EricTowers. It's a shame that a question with this response is not its own thread. – Kaj Hansen Jun 18 '14 at 5:26

protected by user26857 May 28 '15 at 9:26

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.