Let $f$ be a polynomial with a non-zero constant term and define its reciprocal polynomial $f^*=x^nf(\frac{1}{x})$.
(Here $\deg {f}=n$. I see several other names like "reverse/inverse polynomial", and in the following case "self-inverse".)
We say a polynomial $f$ is primitive over a field $F_p$(p is prime) iff $f$ is irreducible and has its degree $n$ with $k=p^n-1$the lowest one satisfies $f|x^k-1$. Please prove the following:

$f=f^*$and $\deg f>2$ $\Rightarrow$ $f$ is not primitive.

I don't have any specific idea. If some properties or definition of the primitive polynomial are used, you can just state it. And hints will also be apprciated.
Thanks in advance.

Edit: assuming $\deg f>2$
Edit2: the definition of "primitive"

  • $\begingroup$ I think it may relate to the roots: $f(u)=0\iff f^*(u^{-1})=0$ and $f(u)=0$ then $ u,u^p \cdots ,u^{p^{n-1}}$ are the roots of $f$. $\endgroup$ – Oolong milk tea Jun 3 at 8:14
  • $\begingroup$ With the properties above, we can find a solution considering its roots in $\mathbb{F_{p^n}}$. $\endgroup$ – Oolong milk tea Jun 3 at 9:05

Original Answer: The claim is false.

Take $p=2$, the polynomial $x^2+x+1$ is irreducible over $\mathbb{F}_2$ (hence primitive) and self-reverse.

Addendum: With the constraint $\deg f>2$ the result is still false. The self-reverse polynomial $x^4+x^3+x^2+x+1$ is irreducible degree 4 over $\mathbb{F}_2$ so is primitive.

There seems to be something wrong with your definition of primitive. Over finite fields, an irreducible polynomial having a root in a finite extension implies the polynomial splits completely in that extension, we have $f\mid x^{p^n-1}-1$ automatically if $f\in\mathbb{F}_p[x]$ irreducible degree $n$.

Addendum 2: Now with the new definition of primitive it is easy. Every self-reverse irreducible polynomial $f$ of degree $2n$ over $\mathbb{F}_p$ is actually a factor of $$ x^{p^n+1}-1\in\mathbb{F}_p[x] $$ (in fact also works for $q$) because if $\lambda$ is a root of $f$, then $\lambda^p, \lambda^{p^2}, \dots, \lambda^{p^{2n-1}}$ are the other roots of $f$. Because this set is invariant under inversion, $\lambda^{-1}=\lambda^{p^j}$ for some $j\in\{0,1,\dots,2n-1\}$. Do that again, $$(\lambda^{p^j})^{-1}=(\lambda^{-1})^{p^j}=(\lambda^{p^j})^{p^j}=\lambda^{p^{2j}},$$ so we must have $2j=2n$ and hence $f\mid x^{p^n+1}-1$.

  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I missed something. I'll edit the question. $\endgroup$ – Oolong milk tea Jun 3 at 7:59
  • $\begingroup$ Still doesn't work, see edit/addendum $\endgroup$ – user10354138 Jun 3 at 8:26
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, there is something wrong with the definition I wrote. I'll edit it. Sorry for my carelessness. $\endgroup$ – Oolong milk tea Jun 3 at 8:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ +1 for a correct and nice argument. FYI this notion of primitive is standard in the context of finite fields. E.g. Lidl & Niederreiter uses it. See also my answer here. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Jun 3 at 10:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It may also be worth pointing out that there are no odd degree ($>2$) irreducible palindromic polynomials as such a polynomial has $-1$ as a zero. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Jun 3 at 11:02

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.