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 have polynomial of the form :

$ f_n= x^n+x^{n-1}+\cdots+x^{k+1}+ax^k+ax^{k-1}+\cdots+a$

where $\gcd(n+1,k+1)=1$ , $ a\in \mathbb{Z^{+}}$ , $a$ is odd number , $a>1$, and $a_1\neq 1$

and I want to show that :


In order to do that I have expressed polynomial in the form of sums :

$f_n=\displaystyle \sum_{i=k+1}^n x^{i}+\displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^k ax^i$

Applying formulas for sum of geometric progression I got following expression :


So :

$f_n(2)=P(a)=2^{n+1}+(a-1)\cdot 2^{k+1}-a$

$f_n(3)=Q(a)=\frac{3^{n+1}+(a-1)\cdot 3^{k+1}-a}{2}$

$f_n(4)=R(a)=\frac{4^{n+1}+(a-1)\cdot 4^{k+1}-a}{3}$

Any idea how to prove that :

$\gcd(P(a),Q(a),R(a))=1$ ?

share|cite|improve this question
Where does that question come from? (i.e. where did you find it) It is very... weird. =) – Patrick Da Silva Nov 22 '11 at 7:49
@PatrickDaSilva,There is strong heuristic evidence that $f_n$ is irreducible.If one can prove this statement then according to Bunyakovsky conjecture polynomial $f_n$ produces infinitely many prime numbers.. – pedja Nov 22 '11 at 8:07
up vote 1 down vote accepted

Further conditions are needed. For example, let $$f(x)=x^{10}+x^9+x^8+x^7+x^6+x^5+3x^4+3x^3+3x^2+3x+3.\qquad\qquad (\ast)$$ Then for every integer $i$, $f(i)$ is divisible by $3$.

There is nothing special about $a=3$. Similar examples can be constructed for any odd prime $a$, and probably for every odd $a$.

By putting suitable conditions on $n-k$ (the number of terms that are pure powers of $x$), one should be able to avoid constructions similar to the one that produced $(\ast)$.

Added: The OP suggested that it is sufficient to assume that $n$ and $k$ are of different parity. Indeed it is.

First we show that if $p$ is a prime that doesn't divide $a$, then there is a positive integer $i$ such that $p$ does not divide $f_n(i)$. This is easy, since if we put $i=p$, every term is divisible by $p$ except possibly the rightmost term $a$. So if $p$ does not divide $a$, then $p$ does not divide $f_n(p)$.

If $n$ and $k$ have different parity, the "head" $x^n+\cdots +x^{k+1}$ consists of $n-k$ terms, where $n-k$ is odd. Let $i=a-1$. Since $a-1 \equiv -1 \pmod {a}$, the sum $(a-1)^n+\cdots +(a-1)^{k+1}$ is congruent to $(-1)^n +\cdots +(-1)^{k+1}$ modulo $a$. There is obvious cancellation, and since $n-k$ is odd, we conclude that the sum is congruent to $1$ or $-1$ modulo $a$. The "tail" $a(x^k+\cdots+1)$ does not change the situation modulo $a$. We conclude that $f_n(a-1)$ is congruent to $\pm 1$ modulo $a$. In particular, $f_n(a-1)$ is relatively prime to $a$.

This ends things. If $d$ is the greatest common divisor of the $f_n(i)$, and $p$ divides $d$, then $p$ must divide $a$. But if $p$ divides $a$, then $p$ cannot divide $f_n(a-1)$, since $f_n(a-1)$ is of the shape $ak \pm 1$.

Comment: Let $p_1, p_2, \cdots, p_k$ be the prime divisors of $a$. We have shown that if $n$ and $k$ have opposite parity, then $$\gcd(f_n(p_1), f_n(p_2), \dots, f_n(p_k), f_n(a-1))=1.$$

share|cite|improve this answer
,if $a_1=1$ then $f_n$ isn't always irreducible...what kind of conditions on $n-k$ do you suggest ? I am looking for family of n_th degree univariate polynomials which satisfaying conditions of Bunyakovsky conjecture... – pedja Nov 22 '11 at 12:47
@pedja: Don't know. The gcd of function values being $1$ should not be hard to satisfy. I was kind of surprised that making all function values congruent to $0$ modulo $p$ was so easy. $x^n+a(x^{n-1}+\cdots +1)$ should give relatively prime function values. – André Nicolas Nov 22 '11 at 16:45
Andre,Maybe you can give answer to my previous question related to this – pedja Nov 22 '11 at 17:05
$f_n=a_nx^n+a_{n-1}x^{n-1}+....a_1x+a_0$ , $a_1\neq 1$ means that $k \geq 1$ – pedja Nov 22 '11 at 17:26
,It seems that $n-k\equiv 1 \pmod 2$ is sufficient condition... – pedja Nov 30 '11 at 9:19

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.