Let $a_1,...,a_n \in \mathbb{C}$ such that $a_1 + ... + a_n = 0$. Intuitively $a_1^2,...,a_n^2$ should be algebraically dependent over $\mathbb{Q}$ as well. As I understand it, this follows from the fact that $\mathbb{Q}(a_1,...,a_n)$ has transcendence degree at most $n-1$.

However, I would like to find a concrete algebraic relation between such elements, i.e. a polynomial $f$ with rational coefficients such that $f(a_1^2,...,a_{n-1}^2,(a_1 + ... + a_{n-1})^2) = 0$ for any choice of $a_1,...,a_{n-1}$.

For $n=3$, $f(x_1,x_2,x_3)=\sum{x_i^2} - 2 \sum_{i<j}x_ix_j$ works, but the obvious generalization fails for larger $n$. I'm not sure how to proceed (besides brute computation). Is it true that we can choose such a polynomial to be symmetric? If so, can this be used to find a solution?


Let me reformulate your question slightly in a way that turns out to make it much easier: what you are looking for is a polynomial $g(a_1, a_2, \dots a_n)$ which is both

  1. divisible by $a_1 + a_2 + \dots + a_n$, and
  2. a polynomial in $a_1^2, a_2^2, \dots a_n^2$.

Exercise: $g$ has the second property if and only if it is invariant under changing the sign of each of its inputs, e.g. if and only if $g(a_1, a_2, \dots a_n) = g(\pm a_1, \pm a_2, \dots \pm a_n)$.

This suggests an obvious candidate for $g$ which works and which is in fact minimal, in that every candidate must be divisible by it, namely

$$g = \prod (a_1 \pm a_2 \dots \pm a_n).$$

(Invariance under changing the sign of $a_1$ is guaranteed by the fact that this product has $2^{n-1}$ factors in it, which when $n \ge 2$ is even. The case $n = 1$ is degenerate.)

When $n = 3$ this gives

$$\begin{eqnarray} g &=& (a_1 + a_2 + a_3)(a_1 + a_2 - a_3)(a_1 - a_2 + a_3)(a_1 - a_2 - a_3) \\ &=& ((a_1 + a_2)^2 - a_3^2)((a_1 - a_2)^2 - a_3)^2) \\ &=& (a_1^2 + 2 a_1 a_2 + a_2^2 - a_3^2)(a_1^2 - 2a_1 a_2 + a_2^2 - a_3^2) \\ &=& (a_1^2 + a_2^2 - a_3^2)^2 - 4 a_1^2 a_2^2 \\ &=& a_1^4 + a_2^4 + a_3^4 - 2 a_1^2 a_2^2 - 2 a_2^2 a_3^2 - 2 a_3^2 a_1^2 \end{eqnarray} $$

which agrees with your answer. A similar trick works for higher powers instead of squares, where instead of $\pm$ signs we have suitable roots of unity.

  • $\begingroup$ This is extremely neat, thank you! $\endgroup$ – Dániel G. Nov 6 '18 at 14:17

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.