5
$\begingroup$

I would like to show the irreducibility of $x^8 - 60 x^6 + 1160 x^4 - 7800 x^2 + 8836$ and $x^8 - 120 x^6 + 4360 x^4 - 45600 x^2 + 15376$ in $\mathbb{Q}[x]$. In both cases Eisenstein criterion fails. I also attempted some linear changes of variables but nothing seems to work. Any help?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What is the origin of these two polynomials? They are similar in many ways. In addition to those congruences I looked at in my answer and the comments under it, they share the prme factors of the discriminants: $2,3,7,31,47$ (by Mathematica). I would bet against that being a coincidence. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Jan 12 '19 at 19:14
  • $\begingroup$ Further toying: Both have eight real zeros. Also, both have the curious property that the four local minima are all equal, $-8064$ for the former and $-129024$ for the latter. Speak up, man! It is not given that I can reverse engineer them, even when aided by Mathematica :-) It's just that their origin may also simplify the irreducibility proofs. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Jan 12 '19 at 19:47
  • $\begingroup$ I'm fairly sure that both the polynomials have Galois group isomorphic to $D_4$ (Chebotarev density analysis). Meaning that they are solvable in radicals (square roots actually). $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Jan 12 '19 at 22:37
  • $\begingroup$ Are these polynomials constructed to have an element $\alpha$ of a field $L$ such that $Gal(L/\Bbb{Q})\simeq D_4$ as a zero? And you want a confirmation of irreducibility to conclude that you have found a primitive element? $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Jan 12 '19 at 22:42
  • $\begingroup$ Ok. The depressing trick let's us easily find the zeros of both polynomials. I'm still curious about how you found them. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Jan 13 '19 at 16:26
4
$\begingroup$

Irreducibility of the first polynomial $$f(x) = x^8 - 60 x^6 + 1160 x^4 - 7800 x^2 + 8836$$ can also be deduced as follows.

Recall the usual business with Gauss's lemma. If $f(x)$ factors in $\Bbb{Q}[x]$, it also factors in $\Bbb{Z}[x]$. Let's assume contrariwise that a non-trivial factorization $f(x)=g(x)h(x),g(x),h(x)\in\Bbb{Z}[x]$ exists. Without loss of generality the leading coefficients of both $g$ and $h$ are equal to one.

A potentially useful feature of $f(x)$ is that modulo five it becomes very sparse. More precisely $$ f(x)\equiv x^8+1\pmod 5. $$ In $\Bbb{F}_5[x]$ we have the factorization $$ x^8+1=x^8-4=(x^4-2)(x^4+2). $$ These quartic polynomials are actually irreducible in $\Bbb{F}_5[x]$. We have $$x^8+1\mid x^{16}-1.$$ Therefore any zero of either factor (in some extension field of $\Bbb{F}_5$) must be a root of unity of order sixteen. But $16\nmid 5^\ell-1$ for $\ell=1,2,3$ meaning that the field $\Bbb{F}_{5^4}$ is the smallest extension field containing such roots of unity. Therefore their minimal polynomials over $\Bbb{F}_5$ have degree four.

At this point we can conclude that the only remaining way $f(x)$ can factor in $\Bbb{Z}[x]$ is as a product of two irreducible factors of degree four, and $$ g(x)\equiv x^4+2\pmod 5,\qquad h(x)\equiv x^4-2\pmod 5. $$

Another feature of $f(x)$ is that it has even degree terms only. In other words, $f(x)=f(-x)$. Therefore $f(x)=g(-x)h(-x)$ is another factorization. But, factorization of polynomials is unique, so we can deduce that either $h(x)=g(-x)$ (when also $h(-x)=g(x)$), or we have both $g(x)=g(-x), h(x)=h(-x)$.

Claim. It is impossible that $h(x)=g(-x)$.

Proof. Assume contrariwise that $h(x)=g(-x)$. If $g(x)=x^4+Ax^3+Bx^2+Cx+D$, then $h(x)=x^4-Ax^3+Bx^2-Cx+D$. Expanding $g(x)h(x)$ we see that the constant term is $D^2=8836=94^2$. Therefore we must have $D=\pm94$. But, earlier we saw that the constant terms of $g,h$ must be congruent to $\pm2\pmod5$. This is a contradiction.

Ok, so we are left with the possibility $g(x)=g(-x)$, $h(x)=h(-x)$. In other words, both $g(x)$ and $h(x)$ share with $f(x)$ the property that they have even degree terms only. Let's define $F(x),G(x),H(x)$ by the formulas $$f(x)=F(x^2),\quad g(x)=G(x^2),\quad h(x)=H(x^2).$$ The above considerations can be summarized as follows. If $$ F(x)=x^4-60x^3+1160x^2-7800x+8836 $$ is irreducible, then so is $f(x)=F(x^2)$. Furthermore, the putative factors must satisfy the congruences $$G(x)\equiv x^2+2\pmod5,\quad H(x)\equiv x^2-2\pmod5.$$

A miracle is that depressing $F(x)$ produces a surprise: $$ R(x)=F(x+15)=x^4-190x^2+961. $$ The substitution $x\mapsto x+15$ does not change anything modulo five, so the only possible factors of $R(x)$ must still be congruent to $x^2\pm2\pmod5$.

Irreducibility of $R(x)$ follows from this. The constant term of $R(x)$ is $$ R(0)=961=31^2, $$ and this has no factors $\equiv\pm2\pmod5$.


The other octic surrenders to similar tricks: $$f(x)=x^8 - 120 x^6 + 4360 x^4 - 45600 x^2 + 15376.$$ Again, $f(x)\equiv(x^4-2)(x^4+2)\pmod 5$. The constant term $15376=(2^2\cdot31)^2$ is a square of an integer $\equiv\pm1\pmod5$, ruling out a factorization of the form $g(x)g(-x)$. Again, we are reduced to proving that $$ F(x)=x^4-120x^3+4360x^2-45600x+15376 $$ is irreducible. Depressing this gives $$ R(x)=F(x+30)=x^4-1040x^2+141376\equiv(x^2-2)(x^2+2)\pmod5. $$ This time the constant term $R(0)=2^6\cdot47^2=376^2$ has more factors, so we need a different argument. However, we can repeat the dose! $\pm 376\equiv\pm1\pmod5$, ruling out the possibility of a factorization of the form $R(x)=G(x)G(-x)$ as above. So the remaining possibility is a factorization of the form $$ R(x)=(x^2-A)(x^2-B) $$ with integers $A$ and $B$. But, the equation $$ x^2-1040x+141376=0 $$ has no integer roots. Irreducibility follows.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Let $f(x)=x^8 - 60 x^6 + 1160 x^4 - 7800 x^2 + 8836$.

$f$ has degree $8$ and assumes prime values at these $18 > 2 \cdot 8$ points and so must be irreducible: $$ \begin{array}{rl} n & f(n) \\ \pm 1 & 2137 \\ \pm 3 & -4583 \\ \pm 5 & -8039 \\ \pm 7 & 1117657 \\ \pm 13 & 557943577 \\ \pm 15 & 1936431961 \\ \pm 33 & 1330287723097 \\ \pm 37 & 3360699226777 \\ \pm 55 & 82083690591961 \\ \end{array} $$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Adapted from math.stackexchange.com/a/2942032/589 $\endgroup$ – lhf Jan 10 '19 at 13:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Very interesting idea, didn't know about this test. It seems it requires too much computing, though $\endgroup$ – Ray Bern Jan 10 '19 at 21:29
  • $\begingroup$ @RayBern, it's one line in Mathematica. Too bad it does not work in WA. Select[Table[x^8-60x^6+1160x^4-7800x^2+8836,{x,0,100}],PrimeQ]. $\endgroup$ – lhf Jan 10 '19 at 23:07
-1
$\begingroup$

Both these polynomials have irreducible remainders in $\mathcal{F}_2[x]$, field of integers modulo 2, when we try to divide each by $x^2+x+1$.

The reference is to Artin's Algebra, Proposition 12.4.3

Let $f(x) = a_n x^n + \dots + a_0$ be an integer polynomial, and let $p$ be a prime integer that does not divide the leading coefficient $a_n$. If the residue $\bar{f}$ of $f$ modulo $p$ is an irreducible element of $\mathcal{F}_p[x]$, then $f$ is an irreducible element of $\mathcal{Q}[x]$.

This means if we divide our polynomials in field $\mathcal{F}_2[x]$, and we are lucky (= this often works) to get a remainder which is an irreducible polynomial in this field, then the original polynomial is irreducible.

In field $\mathcal{F}_2[x]$ the following polynomials are irreducible, $x^2+x+1$ and $x+1$.

If we divide the original polynomials by $x^2+x+1$, the remainders are

$$16575 + 8959 x \equiv 1+x \mod 2$$

$$60855 + 49959 x \equiv 1+x \mod 2$$

Note

If any of these two polynomials had proper divisors in $\mathcal{Q}[x]$, then it had proper divisors in $\mathcal{Z}[x]$ as well, Artin 12.3.6.

This might suggest that if any of these polynomials had proper divisors in $\mathcal{Z}[x]$, then divisors would be monic polynomials with limited choice of the last term, ie $8836=2^2 \times 47^2$. But I do not have a deep insight to pursue it further.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ -1 You seem to have misunderstood the proposition you quote. None of this is logically sound. $\endgroup$ – Servaes Jan 8 at 11:17

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.