Let $w = \sqrt[3]{1}+\sqrt[3]{2}+\sqrt[3]{4}$.
How to prove that there are no triples $(a,b,c)$, such that

  • $a,b,c \in \mathbb{Q}$;
  • $a \leqslant b \leqslant c$;
  • $(a,b,c)\ne (1,2,4)$;
  • $w = \sqrt[3]{a}+\sqrt[3]{b}+\sqrt[3]{c}$.

Or maybe there exists one?


Everything will follow from the iteration of the following lemma (whose proof is explained at the very end of this answer) :

FUNDAMENTAL LEMMA. Let ${\mathbb K}$ be a field, and let $a$ be a non-cube in ${\mathbb K}$. Then all the “new” cubes in ${\mathbb K}(\sqrt[3]a)$ are made up of $a$ and “old” cubes : they can be written as $w^3,aw^3$ or $a^2(w^3)$ for some $w\in {\mathbb K}$.

COROLLARY 1. Let ${\mathbb K}$ be a subfield of $\mathbb R$, and let $a_1,a_2, \ldots, a_n$ be a sequence of real numbers such that for any $i$, $a_i$ is a non-cube in ${\mathbb K}(\sqrt[3]{a_1},\sqrt[3]{a_2}, \ldots ,\sqrt[3]{a_{i-1}})$. Then all the cubes in ${\mathbb K}(\sqrt[3]{a_1},\sqrt[3]{a_2}, \ldots ,\sqrt[3]{a_{n}})$ can be written as $a_1^{i_1}a_2^{i_2} \ldots a_n^{i_n}(w^3)$ where $w\in {\mathbb K}$ and each $i_k$ is $0,1$ or $2$.

COROLLARY 2. Let $r_1,r_2, \ldots ,r_n$ be positive rational numbers
such that there is no-nontrivial relationship between them of the form $r_1^{i_1}r_2^{i_2} \ldots r_n^{i_n}=w^3$, where each $i_k$ is $0,1$ or $2$, and $w$ is rational (non-trivial means that not all the $i_k$ are zero). Then the $3^n$ algebraic numbers $s_1^{i_1}s_2^{i_2} \ldots s_n^{i_n}$ (where $s_i=\sqrt[3]{r_i}$) are linearly independent over the rationals.

Now, suppose that $\sqrt[3]{a}+\sqrt[3]{b}+\sqrt[3]{c}=\sqrt[3]{1}+\sqrt[3]{2}+\sqrt[3]{4}$. The degree of the extension ${\mathbb Q}(\sqrt[3]{2},\sqrt[3]{4},\sqrt[3]{a},\sqrt[3]{b},\sqrt[3]{c})$ (call it $d$) is a power of three. If it were strictly greater than $3$, then $d\geq 9$ and by corollary 2, any non-trivial relation between cube roots would need at least nine terms, which is too much for the six we've got. So $d=3$, which means that $a,b,c$ must all be, up to sign, (possibly negative) powers of $2$. So there are essentially three cases :

$$ \begin{eqnarray} \sqrt[3]{2^i}+\sqrt[3]{2^j}+\sqrt[3]{2^k}&=& \sqrt[3]{1}+\sqrt[3]{2}+\sqrt[3]{4} \\ \sqrt[3]{2^i}+\sqrt[3]{2^j}-\sqrt[3]{2^k}&=& \sqrt[3]{1}+\sqrt[3]{2}+\sqrt[3]{4} \\ \sqrt[3]{2^i}-\sqrt[3]{2^j}-\sqrt[3]{2^k}&=& \sqrt[3]{1}+\sqrt[3]{2}+\sqrt[3]{4} \\ \end{eqnarray} $$ where $i,j,k$ are integers. It is easy now to see then that $i,j,k$ must form a complete system of residues modulo $3$, and to check that $(1,2,4)$ is indeed the only solution to the original problem.

PROOF OF FUNDAMENTAL LEMMA . Let ${\mathbb L}={\mathbb K}(\sqrt[3]a)$. We have $[{\mathbb L}:{\mathbb K}]=3$. Let $c$ be a cube in $\mathbb L$. Then, there are $x_1,x_2,x_3 \in K$ such that $c=(x_1+x_2\sqrt[3]{a}+x_3\sqrt[3]{a^2})^3$. Expanding, we find $c=C_0+3C_1\sqrt[3]a+3C_2\sqrt[3]{a^2}$, with

$$ \begin{eqnarray} C_0&=&\bigg(x_1^3 + 6ax_1x_2x_3 + (ax_2^3 + a^2x_3^3)\bigg), \\ C_1&=&\bigg(x_1^2x_2 + ax_1x_3^2 + ax_2^2x_3\bigg), \\ C_2&=&\bigg(x_1^2x_3 + x_1x_2^2 + ax_2x_3^2\bigg) \end{eqnarray} $$

So $C_1$ and $C_2$ must both be $0$, and hence

$$ ax_2x_3(x_2^3-ax_3^3)=(x_2^2+x_1x_3)C_1-(ax_3^2+x_1x_2)C_2=0 $$

Since $a$ is not a cube in $\mathbb K$, we must have $x_3=0$ or $x_2=0$. If $x_3=0$, $C_2$ simplifies to $x_1x_2^2$, and if $x_2=0$, $C_2$ simplifies to $x_1^2x_3$. So at least two of $x_1,x_2,x_3$ are zero, which means that $x_1+x_2\sqrt[3]{a}+x_3\sqrt[3]{a^2}$ is a multiple (by some element of $\mathbb K$) of $1,\sqrt[3]{a}$, or $\sqrt[3]{a^2}$, as wished.


Denote $t=\sqrt[3]2,w=e^{\frac{2\pi i}{3}}=-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\sqrt3}{2}i,A=\sqrt[3]a,B=\sqrt[3]b,C=\sqrt[3]c.$

If $A,B,C$ are all $\notin \mathbb{Q},$ rewrite the equation as $$A+B+C-t-t^2=1.\tag1$$

Lemma: Every number $g(\theta)$ of the field $K(\theta)$ is likewise an algebraic number over $k$ of degree at most $n$. The relative conjugates of a number $a=g(\theta)$ are the distinct numbers among the numbers $g(\theta_i)\ (i=1,2,\dots, n)$. Each conjugate to $a$ appears equally often among the $g(\theta_i).$

You can find this lemma in Erich Hecke, Lectures on the theory of algebraic numbers, page 61.

Denote $K=\mathbb{Q}(A,B,C,t)=\mathbb{Q}(\theta)$ for some algebraic number $\theta.$ Assume $[K:\mathbb{Q}]=n=3^r,$ where $r$ is an integer and $1\leq r \leq4.$

Now the conjugates to $A$ with respect to $\mathbb{Q}$ are $A,Aw,Aw^2,$ so do $B,C,t.$ If $A=g_1(\theta),$ and $\theta_i\ (i=1,2,\dots, n)$ are the conjugates to $\theta$ with respect to $\mathbb{Q},$ then $g_1(\theta_i) (i=1,2,\dots, n)$ are the conjugates to $A$ with respect to $\mathbb{Q},$ and each of $A,Aw,Aw^2$ appears equally often among the $g_1(\theta_i),$ namely $3^{r-1}$ times.

Assume that $A+B+C-t-t^2=g_1(\theta)+g_2(\theta)+g_3(\theta)-g_4(\theta)-g_4(\theta)^2=G(\theta).$ If $\theta$ goes over $\theta_i\ (i=1,2,\dots, n)$ then $g_1(\theta)$ goes over $A,Aw,Aw^2,$ and each of them appears $3^{r-1}$ times. So do $B,C,t.$

Since $A,B,C,t$ are all $\notin \mathbb{Q},$we have $$\sum_{i=1}^{n}g_1(\theta_i)=\frac{n}{3}\sum_{i=0}^{2}Aw^i=0.$$ So do $B,C,t.$ Hence we get $$\sum_{i=1}^{n}G(\theta_i)=0.$$ But $$\sum_{i=1}^{n}G(\theta_i)=\sum_{i=1}^{n}1=n,$$ a contradiction. Hence $A,B,C$ are all $\notin \mathbb{Q}$ is impossible. WLOG we assume that $A \in \mathbb{Q}.$ If $B,C$ are all $\notin \mathbb{Q},$ then $$\sum_{i=1}^{n}G(\theta_i)=nA=n, A=1.$$ Now rewrite $(1)$ to $$B+C-t-t^2=0.$$

We get $$B/t+C/t-t/t-t^2/t=0.$$ $$\sqrt[3]{\frac{b}{2}}+\sqrt[3]{\frac{c}{2}}-t=1.$$ For the same reason we get $\dfrac{b}{2}=1$ or $\dfrac{c}{2}=1.$ Now we are done.

This method can easily generalize to other cases. For example, we can prove that $\sqrt[3]{3},\sqrt[5]{23},\sqrt[11]{24}$ are linearly independent in $\mathbb{Q}.$


This isn't a complete answer but I'm curious to see if this strategy could be made to work:

Suppose there existed such a triple. Note that

$$w = \sqrt[3]{1}+\sqrt[3]{2}+\sqrt[3]{4} \in \mathbb{Q}\left[\sqrt[3]{2}\right]=K.$$

Since $a$, $b$, and $c$ are rational, we can pull out cubes and write


where $a'$, $b'$, $c'$ are cube-free integers and $q_{a}$, $q_{b}$ $q_{c}$ $\in \mathbb{Q}$. Thus, $w \in \mathbb{Q}\left[\sqrt[3]{a'},\sqrt[3]{b'},\sqrt[3]{c'}\right]=L$. Since $\mathbb{Q}[w]=\mathbb{Q}[\sqrt[3]{1}+\sqrt[3]{2}+\sqrt[3]{4}]=\mathbb{Q}[\sqrt[3]{2}]=K$, we see that $L$ extends $K$.

$\Delta_{K}=-108=-2^2\cdot3^3$. I wrote some code to compute $\Delta_{L}$ for various $a'$, $b'$, $c'$ and noticed that the primes dividing $a'$, $b'$, $c'$ always appear in factorization of $\Delta_{L}$ along with an additional factor of at least $3^3$. For instance, if $(a',b',c')=(3,5,7)$ then $\Delta_{L}=-3^{31}\cdot 5^{18} \cdot 7^{18} \cdot 11^{18}$.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, @JacksonWalters, for your answer. $\Delta_K$ is discriminant, right? If so, I'd like to know more about discriminants and how its factors are related to this question? Maybe you know some good literature/links? $\endgroup$ – Oleg567 Jun 17 '13 at 20:32
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, $\Delta_{K}$ is the discriminant of the number field $K$. I think the question is really driving at the linear independence of radicals for the case $n=3$, from which it would follow that $(1,2,4)$ is the unique solution (see this question: math.stackexchange.com/questions/158722/…). To actually prove the linear independence you need to circle back to field theory and Galois theory, which I am only just beginning to learn about. $\endgroup$ – Jackson Jun 17 '13 at 23:50
  • $\begingroup$ A tiny note (mostly because I needed to convince myself): the reason that $\mathbb{Q}[w]=\mathbb{Q}[\sqrt[3]{2}]$ is that since $w-1=\sqrt[3]{2}+\sqrt[3]{4}$, $(w-1)^2=\sqrt[3]{2}^2+2\sqrt[3]{2}\sqrt[3]{4}+\sqrt[3]{4}^2 = \sqrt[3]{4}+4+2\sqrt[3]{2}$ and so $\sqrt[3]{2} = (w-1)^2-4-(w-1)$, which is clearly polynomial in $w$. $\endgroup$ – Steven Stadnicki Jun 19 '13 at 5:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @StevenStadnicki Or you could say $1+\sqrt[3]{2}+\sqrt[3]{4}=\frac{2-1}{\sqrt[3]{2}-1}$ by geo sum / difference of cubes. $\endgroup$ – anon Jun 19 '13 at 5:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @StevenStadnicki Useful fact to always have on-hand: $K(a)=K[a]$ whenever $a$ is algebraic over a field $K$ and not a zero divisor. Proof: multiplication-by-$a$ is a linear map on the finite-dimensional $K$-vector space $K[a]$, it is injective since $a$ is not a zero divisor, hence (by finite-dimensionality) it is an isomorphism, hence $1\in K[a]$ has a preimage under this map, which must be $a^{-1}$. Alternatively, take the minimal polynomial $p(\cdot)$ for $a$ over $K$, then rearrange the relation $p(w)/w=0$ to get $1/w$ as a polynomial in $w$. $\endgroup$ – anon Jun 19 '13 at 5:42

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.