7
$\begingroup$

It's known that sum of all $n$'th roots of some $z \in \mathbb C$ with $|z| = 1$ is zero (if $n \geqslant 2$).

Is it true that any zero sum of roots of unity can be decomposed in this way? That is if we have $\zeta_1 + \ldots + \zeta_s = 0,$ where $\zeta_i^n = 1,$ then we can partition it in groups $\{\xi_1, \ldots, \xi_k\}$ of all $k$'th roots of some $z$ with $|z| = 1$ (with zero sum of elements in this group), with possibly different $k$ for different groups?

UPD

Example: if $\zeta_1 + \zeta_2 = 0,$ then $\zeta_1^2 = \zeta_2^2 = z,$ so $\zeta_1, \zeta_2$ are square roots of this $z.$ Is it not hard to show that if $\zeta_1 + \zeta_2 + \zeta_3 = 0,$ then $\zeta_1^3 = \zeta_2^3 = \zeta_3^3 = z,$ so $\zeta_1, \zeta_2, \zeta_3$ are cubic roots of some $z$.

If $\zeta_1 + \zeta_2 + \zeta_3 + \zeta_4 = 0,$ it seems there are two possiblities - like $\{1, i, -1, -i\}$ (one part), or like $\{e^{\pi i/3}, e^{4\pi i/3}\}, \{e^{2\pi i/3},e^{10\pi i/3}\}.$ But I don't know what is the argumentation for the general case.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Consider the 8-th root of unity $r_k=e^{k 2\pi i/8}$ for $k=0\cdots 7$. The sum of roots at $k=1,3,5,7$ is zero but this is not all the roots. Did I misunderstand the question? $\endgroup$ – Maesumi Aug 30 '13 at 18:14
  • $\begingroup$ ) Yes. They all are 4-th roots of $e^{2\pi i}{2} = i$ The question is: is it possible to decompose any zero sum of unity's roots in symmetric ones or not? $\endgroup$ – ptashek Aug 30 '13 at 19:12
  • $\begingroup$ The $r_k$ in Maesumi's comment are $4$th roots of $-1$, not of $i$. $\endgroup$ – anon Aug 31 '13 at 15:59
  • $\begingroup$ Yes. There are some typos in the comment. $\endgroup$ – ptashek Aug 31 '13 at 16:22
3
$\begingroup$

No, for example pick $\zeta = \exp \frac{i\pi}{15}$, a primitive $30$th root of unity.

Then $0 = (1 + \zeta^{10} + \zeta^{20}) + \zeta^{15}(1 + \zeta^6 + \zeta^{12} + \zeta^{18} + \zeta^{24}) - (1 + \zeta^{15}) \\ = \zeta^3 + \zeta^9 + \zeta^{10} + \zeta^{20} + \zeta^{21} + \zeta^{27}$

But you can't partition those $6$ roots into vertices of regular $k$-gons.


However, it is true that you can always add vertices of regular $k$-gons to your set of roots (possibly adding the same root multiple times) to obtain a new multiset that you can then arrange into a sum of vertices of regular $k$-gons (possibly using the same $k$-gon multiple times).

Let $\zeta_n = \exp{\frac{2i\pi}n}$ and $f$ be the map $\Bbb Z^n \to \Bbb Z[\zeta_n]$ given by $(a_i) \mapsto \sum a_i \zeta_n^i$.
The minimal polynomial of $\zeta_n$ over $\Bbb Q$ is the cyclotomic polynomial $\Phi_n$, of degree $\varphi(n)$. Hence $\Bbb Z[\zeta_n]$ is free of rank $\varphi(n)$.

If $n = \prod p_i^{d_i}$, then $\zeta$ is a primitive $n$th root of unity iff it is of order exactly $n$, and not $n/p$ for any $p$, iff $\zeta^{n/p}$ is a primitive $p$th root, for all $p$. Hence $\Phi_n$ is the gcd of the $\Phi_p(X^{n/p}) = 1 + X^{n/p} + X^{2n/p} + \ldots + X^{(p-1)n/p}$, and $\ker f$ is generated by those relations, which correspond to vertices of regular $p$-gons.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you! But about your note about decomposition with possible adding regular $k$-gons - I have the dimension argument which says that its not true: consider module $A$ generated by all 14-th roots of unity. You say that all relations in is are generated by "regular" sums, representing regular $k$-gons. But we have only $7 + 2 + 1$ such sums (some of which are linearly depended). $\endgroup$ – ptashek Sep 3 '13 at 17:24
  • $\begingroup$ Its not enougth. Consider the map $f\colon \mathbb Z^{14} \to A.$ $A$ has rank 2, $\mathbb Z^{14}$ has rank 14, so $\ker f$ must have rank $12,$ and regular sums span only module of rank 10. So there are some non-regular zero sums. $\endgroup$ – ptashek Sep 3 '13 at 17:27
  • $\begingroup$ So, if my conclusions are correct, we have another, non-constructive proof of this negative result. $\endgroup$ – ptashek Sep 3 '13 at 17:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ptashek : $A$ has rank $\varphi(14)=6$ and not $2$. There is no counterexample with $14$th roots. You need at least $3$ distinct prime factors in $n$ if you want to find a counterexample with $n$th roots, so my example was the smallest one. $\endgroup$ – mercio Sep 4 '13 at 6:37
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you again, my intuition for some reason tells me that $A$ is discrete in $\mathbb C = \mathbb R^2$) $\endgroup$ – ptashek Sep 4 '13 at 14:35

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.