Suppose $c$ is not a complete square integer, ${a_0},{a_1} \in \mathbb{Q}$, we have $$ \frac{1}{{{a_0} + {a_1}\sqrt c }} = \frac{{{a_0} - {a_1}\sqrt c }}{{a_0^2 - a_1^2c}}. $$

We need to show ${{a_0} + {a_1}\sqrt c } = 0$ iff ${a_0} = {a_1} = 0$. I know it's not hard.

Suppose $c$ is not a complete cube integer, ${a_0},{a_1},{a_2} \in \mathbb{Q}$, how can we deal with $$ \frac{1}{{{a_0} + {a_1}\sqrt[3]{c} + {a_2}\sqrt[3]{{{c^2}}}}} $$ similarly?

Any help will be appreciated.

  • $\begingroup$ If we show $a_0,a_1=0$ wont it be like that number is $\infty$ $\endgroup$ – Archis Welankar Nov 19 '15 at 6:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Let $\lambda$ and $\mu$ be the two other cube roots (complex) of $c$. To rationalize, multiply top and bottom by $(a_0+a_1\lambda+a_2\lambda^2)(a_0+a_1\mu+a_2\mu^2)$. There is a lot of simplification, but it is still somewhat messy. $\endgroup$ – André Nicolas Nov 19 '15 at 6:24
  • $\begingroup$ Hint for the first part: if $a_0+a_1\sqrt c=0$, then $-a_0/a_1 = \sqrt c$. $\endgroup$ – Greg Martin Nov 19 '15 at 6:42
  • $\begingroup$ I think you mean $\frac1{a_0+a_1\sqrt[3]{c}+a_2\sqrt[3]{c^2}}$. $\endgroup$ – marty cohen Nov 19 '15 at 7:25

Rationalizing a quadratic surd $a+b\sqrt{d}$ entails multiplying it by its conjugate. In this case, the word "conjugate" is as simple as replacing a binomial sum $A+B$ with a difference $A-B$ and vice versa. However, the word "conjugate" has a much more advanced generalization in the contexts of field theory and Galois theory.

Suppose that $K$ is a field (like $\mathbb{Q},\mathbb{R},\mathbb{C}$), and $f(x)$ is a polynomial in the variable $x$ with coefficients from $K$. If $f(x)$ is irreducible (cannot be factored using other polynomial also with coefficients from $K$) and $\alpha$ is a root of $f(x)$ (so $\alpha$ may not be in $K$, it may be in a bigger field $L$ containing $K$), then the nontrivial conjugates of $\alpha$ are all the other roots of $f(x)$.

If $L$ is a sufficiently nice "extension" of $K$, there are a set of "symmetries" of $L$ (functions $L\to L$) which do nothing to the elements of $K$, preserve the arithmetic operations of addition and multiplication on $L$, and in particular it follows that they permute the roots of $f(x)$. Indeed, they will permute them "transitively," meaning given any two roots $\alpha,\alpha'$ there is a "symmetry" $\sigma:L\to L$ for which $\sigma(\alpha)=\alpha'$.

Let's see this concretely. Say $K=\mathbb{Q}$ and $f(x)=x^2+1$. One root is $\alpha=i$, the other is $\alpha'=-i$, and there is a "symmetry" $\sigma:\mathbb{C}\to\mathbb{C}$ which does nothing to real numbers and $\sigma(i)=-i$. In fact, this is just complex conjugation $\sigma(a+bi)=a-bi$. It "preserves the operations" of addition and subtraction in the sense that $\sigma(z+w)=\sigma(z)+\sigma(w)$ and $\sigma(zw)=\sigma(z)\sigma(w)$ for all $z,w\in\mathbb{C}$.

One thing to notice is that $\sigma(r)=r$ is not only true for $r\in\mathbb{R}$, it is only true for real numbers $r$.

Another example. Let $K=\mathbb{Q}$ and $f(x)=x^2-2$. The roots are $\alpha=\sqrt{2}$ and $\alpha'=-\sqrt{2}$. These exist in the bigger field $L=\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2})$. (By definition this means "the smallest field containing $\sqrt{2}$ and $\mathbb{Q}$ within $\mathbb{C}$," but this happens to be the same as $\{a+b\sqrt{2}:a,b\in\mathbb{Q}\}$, which you can prove as an exercise). Once again there is a nontrivial symmetry $\sigma:\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2})\to\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2})$ which does nothing to rationals, preserves operations, and $\sigma(\sqrt{2})=-\sqrt{2}$. The function is given by the "conjugate," as in $\sigma(a+b\sqrt{2})=a-b\sqrt{2}$; you can check by hand this satisfies the properties $\sigma(x+y)=\sigma(x)+\sigma(y)$ and $\sigma(xy)=\sigma(x)\sigma(y)$ for all $x=a+b\sqrt{d}$, $y=p+q\sqrt{d}$.

Now let $K=\mathbb{Q}$ and $f(x)$ be any irreducible rational-coefficient polynomial, $\alpha$ a root, and $L$ the smallest subfield of $\mathbb{C}$ containing all of the roots of $\mathbb{Q}$. (Note this may be bigger than $\mathbb{Q}(\alpha)$; there may be some other roots $\alpha'$ of $f(x)$ that cannot be expressed in terms of $\alpha$ using rational functions as every element in $\mathbb{Q}(\alpha)$ is.) There may be more than one symmetry $\sigma$, there could be multiple. In any case, if we apply all of the symmetries $\sigma_1,\sigma_2,\cdots$ to $\alpha$ we get all of the roots $\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\cdots$ of the polynomial $f(x)$. Then if we multiply them all together, by Vieta's formulas we find the product of all the zeros $\alpha_1\cdots\alpha_n$ is $\pm$ the constant coefficient of $f(x)$, in particular the product is rational.

That is: the product of an algebraic number and all of its conjugates will be rational.

Let's apply this with $f(x)=x^3-d$, where $d$ is not a perfect cube. Without loss of generality, $d$ is just an integer. The roots are $\sqrt[3]{d},~\omega\sqrt[3]{d}$, and $\omega^2\sqrt[3]{d}$, where $\sqrt[3]{d}$ is the real cube root of $d$ and $1,\omega,\omega^2$ are the three cube roots of unity. In particular, $\omega=\exp(2\pi i/3)$.

The two nontrivial symmetries $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$ satisfy $\sigma_1(\sqrt[3]{d})=\omega\sqrt[3]{d}$ and $\sigma_2(\sqrt[3]{d})=\omega^2\sqrt[3]{d}$, so

$$\begin{array}{ll} \sigma_1(a+b\sqrt[3]{d}+c\sqrt[3]{d^2}) & =a+b\sigma_1(\sqrt[3]{d})+\sigma_1(\sqrt[3]{d})^2 \\ & = a+b\omega\sqrt[3]{d}+b\omega^2\sqrt[3]{d^2} \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{ll} \sigma_2(a+b\sqrt[3]{d}+c\sqrt[3]{d^2}) & =a+b\sigma_2(\sqrt[3]{d})+c\sigma_2(\sqrt[3]{d})^2 \\ & = a+b\omega^2\sqrt[3]{d}+\omega\sqrt[3]{d^2} \end{array} $$

because $\sigma_{1,2}$ preserve addition and multiplication and $(\omega^2)^2=\omega$ at the end. Of course the trivial symmetry $\sigma_0$ doesn't do anything, $\sigma_0(a+b\sqrt[3]{d}+c\sqrt[3]{d^2})=a+b\sqrt[3]{d}+c\sqrt[3]{d^2}$.

Thus to rationalize $x=a+b\sqrt[3]{d}+c\sqrt[3]{d^2}$, one multiplies it by its conjugates $\sigma_1(x)$ and $\sigma_2(x)$.

While $\sigma_1(x)$ and $\sigma_2(x)$ may not be real numbers, the product $\sigma_0(x)\sigma_1(x)\sigma_2(x)$ will be rational, and further since $\sigma_0(x)$ is rational, the product $\sigma_1(x)\sigma_2(x)$ will be rational as well, which is what we would multiply the numerator by if $x$ was in the denominator.

(I make no claim this is the easiest or most efficient way of rationalizing the denominator - I'm sure it isn't. I just wanted to showcase some Galois theory.)


You want to invert $a_0+a_1r+a_2r^2$, where $r^3=c$. This means finding $b_0$, $b_1$ and $b_2$ such that $$ (a_0+a_1r+a_2r^2)(b_0+b_1r+b_2r^2)=1 $$ and this translates into a linear system, because $a_0+a_1r+a_2r^2=0$ if and only if $a_0=a_1=a_2=0$. This follows from the fact that $x^3-c$ is irreducible (it has no rational root by assumption), so no polynomial of degree less than $3$ can have $r$ as root.

The system can be written down and the solution even explicitly expressed via Cramer's rule: just some patience is needed.


I found a way. Let ${p^3} = c$, we write

$\left\{ \begin{gathered} {a_0} + {a_1}p + {a_2}{p^2} = S \hfill \\ {a_2}c + {a_0}p + {a_1}{p^2} = pS \hfill \\ {a_1}c + {a_2}cp + {a_0}{p^2} = {p^2}S \hfill \\ \end{gathered} \right.$


$\left| {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {{a_0} - S}&{{a_1}}&{{a_2}} \\ {{a_2}c - pS}&{{a_0}}&{{a_1}} \\ {{a_1}c - {p^2}S}&{{a_2}c}&{{a_0}} \end{array}} \right| = \left| {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {{a_0}}&{{a_1}}&{{a_2}} \\ {{a_2}c}&{{a_0}}&{{a_1}} \\ {{a_1}c}&{{a_2}c}&{{a_0}} \end{array}} \right| - S\left| {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} 1&{{a_1}}&{{a_2}} \\ p&{{a_0}}&{{a_1}} \\ {{p^2}}&{{a_2}c}&{{a_0}} \end{array}} \right| = 0$


$\frac{1}{S} = \left| {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} 1&{{a_1}}&{{a_2}} \\ p&{{a_0}}&{{a_1}} \\ {{p^2}}&{{a_2}c}&{{a_0}} \end{array}} \right|{\left| {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {{a_0}}&{{a_1}}&{{a_2}} \\ {{a_2}c}&{{a_0}}&{{a_1}} \\ {{a_1}c}&{{a_2}c}&{{a_0}} \end{array}} \right|^{ - 1}}$

But I cannot see why $\left| {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {{a_0}}&{{a_1}}&{{a_2}} \\ {{a_2}c}&{{a_0}}&{{a_1}} \\ {{a_1}c}&{{a_2}c}&{{a_0}} \end{array}} \right| \ne 0$.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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