1
$\begingroup$

In the proof of proposition 13.2.8 of Ireland and rosen they consider some $m$ and $m_0$ such that $m=2m_0$ and $m_0$ is odd. They then state that a primitive $m_0$th root of unity is a primitive $m$th root of unity. I don't see this.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Use the example of $m=3$. If $\omega$ is a primitive cube root of $1$, then $-\omega$ is a primitive sixth root. Maybe that’s what they meant? $\endgroup$ – Lubin Feb 6 '14 at 4:00
6
$\begingroup$

That's not quite what it says.

           enter image description here

Since $m_0$ is odd, $$(-\zeta_{m_0})^{m_0}=(-1)^{m_0}\zeta_{m_0}^{m_0}=(-1)\cdot 1=-1$$ and thus $$(-\zeta_{m_0})^{m}=(-\zeta_{m_0})^{2m_0}=1.$$


To see that in fact $-\zeta_{m_0}$ is a primitive $m$th root of unity, we can proceed as follows:

  • Of course $\zeta_{m_0}^k\neq 1$ for any $1\leq k\leq m_0-1$, and since $m_0$ is odd, it is clear that $\zeta_{m_0}^k\neq -1$ for any $1\leq k\leq m_0-1$, so that $$(-\zeta_{m_0})^k=(-1)^k\zeta_{m_0}^k=\pm\zeta_{m_0}^k\neq 1$$ for any $1\leq k\leq m_0-1$.

  • We already showed above that $(-\zeta_{m_0})^{m_0}=-1\neq 1$.

  • For any $m_0+1\leq k\leq 2m_0-1$, we have $$(-\zeta_{m_0})^k=(-\zeta_{m_0})^{m_0}(-\zeta_{m_0})^{\ell}=(-1)(-\zeta_{m_0})^{\ell}=\pm\zeta_{m_0}^{\ell}\neq 1$$ for $1\leq\ell=k-m_0\leq m_0-1$ (by the first case).

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Always good to go back to the source! $\endgroup$ – Lubin Feb 6 '14 at 4:01
  • $\begingroup$ thanks, as you pointed out i misread it-didn't make out the -1 before $\zeta$ $\endgroup$ – animalcroc Feb 6 '14 at 14:40

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.