7
$\begingroup$

In general, I would like to prove that if $m>2$ is an integer, then $(5+\sqrt[m]2)^n$ is never an integer (unless for $n=0$).

First, I'm interested in the simple case $m=3$ (I already solved it for $m=2$). I actually think that $x_n=(1+\sqrt[3]2)^n$ is never a rational.


Here is what I tried.

Suppose that $r:=x_n \in \mathbb{Q}$ for some $n>0$. Then $\sqrt[n]{r} = 5+\sqrt[3]{2}$ has degree $3$ over $\Bbb Q$ and its minimal polynomial is $x^3-15 x^2+75 x-127$. It has to divide $X^n-r$ in $\Bbb Q[X]$. Therefore, we could find three integers $0≤r_1<r_2<r_3<n$ such that $$(X-\sqrt[n]{r}\zeta_n^{r_1}) (X-\sqrt[n]{r}\zeta_n^{r_2}) (X-\sqrt[n]{r}\zeta_n^{r_3}) = X^3-15 X^2+75 X-127$$ (and the product of the other linear factors $(X-\sqrt[n]{r}\zeta_n^{j})$ should have rational coefficients). I tried to compare the constant terms... without success. Even if Galois theory was useful for the case $m=2$, I'm not sure how to possibly use it here $(m≥3)$. Computing the norms $N_{\Bbb Q(\sqrt[m]{2})/\Bbb Q}$ could give necessary conditions on $n$ for $x_n$ being a rational number.

I also tried with field extensions and degrees, but I don't know anything about the irreducibility of $X^n-r$, for instance.

Thank you in advance!

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ We notice that if $x_n$ was a rational number, then it would be an integer, since it is an algebraic integer. $\endgroup$ – Watson Oct 22 '16 at 11:40
9
$\begingroup$

Suppose $(5+\sqrt[m]{2})^n$ is rational. Then it is fixed by the Galois group of $x^m-2$. This contains $\sqrt[m]{2}\mapsto \zeta \sqrt[m]{2}$ where $\zeta=e^{2\pi i/m}$ is a primitive $m$th root of 1.

Thus $(5+\sqrt[m]{2})^n= (5+\zeta \sqrt[m]{2})^n$. This is impossible: they don't even have the same absolute value.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A very transparent approach, nice. $\endgroup$ – Hubble Sep 11 '16 at 16:33
4
$\begingroup$

In general, $(k + \sqrt[\ell]{n})^m \not \in \mathbb{Z}$ for any $k, l, m, n \in \mathbb{Z}_+$, $\ell \geq 2$, and $n$ square free (which includes the case $n = 2$).

This is seen by using the binomial formula: $$(k + \sqrt[\ell]{n})^m = \sum_{j=0}^{m}\binom{m}{j}k^{m-j}n^{j/\ell}$$

Since $x^\ell - n$ is irreducible over $\mathbb{Q}$ by eisenstein's criterion and $n^{1/\ell}$ is a root of that polynomial, $n^{1/\ell}, n^{2/\ell}, \cdots, n^{(\ell - 1)/\ell}$ are independent over $\mathbb{Q}$, since $n^{1/\ell}$ has a minimal polynomial of degree $\ell$. So, when we rewrite the above binomial expansion in terms of these powers, (if $i\equiv j$ is interpreted modulo $\ell$) $$(k + \sqrt[\ell]{n})^m = \sum_{j=1}^{m}\binom{m}{j}k^{m-j}n^{j/\ell} = \sum_{i=0}^{\ell-1}\left(\sum_{j\equiv i}\binom{m}{j}k^{m-j}n^{(j-i)/\ell}\right)n^{i/\ell}.$$

Note that $j-i$ is a multiple of $\ell$ since $i \equiv j$.

Since this is a positive integer linear combination of elements that are independent over the the rational numbers, if it were rational then all the coefficients would be zero except those of $n^{0/\ell}$, however, we see that this is not true.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ It should be $n^{j/\ell}$, though I fixed it. I copied it from above when I wrote it the first time, but realized that it was a typo. $\endgroup$ – user357980 Sep 11 '16 at 16:35
  • $\begingroup$ Eisenstein's criterion works since the leading coefficient is $1$ and there is a prime $p$ that divides $\ell$ but not twice. That is, all that I need to assume is that $\ell$ has one prime divisor that has multiplicity one. $\endgroup$ – user357980 Sep 11 '16 at 16:37
  • $\begingroup$ In fact you can get away with a weaker condition than squarefree; this proof works as long as you can write $(k + \sqrt[\ell]{n})^m$ as a positive linear combination of at least two elements independent over $\Bbb Q$: so you need that $\{1,n^{1/\ell},\dots,n^{(\ell - 1)/\ell}\}$ contains one non-rational number (which happens precisely when $n$ is not an $\ell$th power). $\endgroup$ – Stahl Sep 11 '16 at 16:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Sorry, I was editting it. Yes, I did make a mistake, but I fixed it now. The reason that it made no difference since I was adding a collection of positive terms so there was going to be no cancellation. Basically, what I did was take the polynomial like $(5 + a)^7$, where $a = 2^{1/3}$ write it as $$a^7 + 5a^6 + 5^2a^5 + 5^3a^4 + 5^4a^3 + 5^5a^2 + 5^6a + 5^7,$$ which equals $$4a + 5(4) + 5^2(2)a^2 + 5^3(2)a + 5^4(2) + 5^5a^2 + 5^6a + 5^7,$$ which equals $$ (2(5^2) + 5^5)a^2 + (4 + 2(5^3) + 5^6)a + (5(4) + 5^4(2) + 5^7)$$ and noted that this could not be rational by independence. $\endgroup$ – user357980 Sep 11 '16 at 16:46
  • $\begingroup$ If you know that one of $n^{1/\ell}, \dots, n^{(\ell-1)/\ell}$ is irrational, then that means that $n^{1/\ell}$ is irrational since they are gotten by successive powers of that term. However, I am not sure if that implies that they are linearlly independent over $\mathbb{Q}$, so I think that I might need it. I weakened it to knowing that $\ell$ has a prime divisor that has multiplicity $1$ to use Eisenstein's Criterion. If you can think of a weaker condition, that'd be cool. $\endgroup$ – user357980 Sep 11 '16 at 16:53

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.