7
$\begingroup$

Let $f(x)$ be an irreducible polynomial of degree $n$ over a finite field $\mathbb F_p$. What can we say about $f(x^d)$? When is it irreducible ?

$\endgroup$
5
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It can only be irreducible if $d$ is prime to $p$, obviously. But that is certainly not sufficient: $x-1$ is irreducible, but $x^2-1$ is reducible. Why do you ask this question? $\endgroup$ Jun 5, 2015 at 11:32
  • $\begingroup$ Additionally to being coprime to $p$, I'd expect that $d$ also needs to be coprime to $p^n-1$. $\endgroup$
    – j.p.
    Jun 5, 2015 at 12:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @j.p., that's tempting, but not quite true; consider $d = 2$, $p = 3$, and $f(x) = x + 1$. $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Jun 5, 2015 at 12:58
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I think this is a really amusing question. I’ll give it some thought, and maybe get some partial answers. $\endgroup$
    – Lubin
    Jun 5, 2015 at 13:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Whoops — I just noticed that I was responding on MO. It’s still an interesting question, but I think not at all at research level, so I think it would have been much better on Math Stack Exchange. $\endgroup$
    – Lubin
    Jun 5, 2015 at 15:37

2 Answers 2

6
$\begingroup$

Here’s a stab at a partial answer. Let $n$ be the degree of the original polynomial $f(x)$ over $\Bbb F_p$, so that any root $\alpha$ generates the field $\Bbb F_q$, $q=p^n$. The polynomial $f(x^d)$, of degree $nd$, is irreducible over $\Bbb F_p$ if and only if a root $\beta$ generates the field $\Bbb F_{q^d}$. The polynomial for $\beta$ over $\Bbb F_q$ is $x^d-\alpha$, of course, and we’re asking, precisely, whether this is irreducible over that field.

So I think the question boils down to this apparently simpler one: If $\alpha\in\Bbb F_q$, under what conditions is $x^d-\alpha$ irreducible over that field?

This certainly depends crucially on the multiplicative period of $\alpha$, as commenters have already noted. If $\alpha=i\in\Bbb F_9$, then $\sqrt\alpha$ is already in the same field, (because the multiplicative group is of order $8$). On the other hand, if $\alpha=1+i$ in that field, this is a generator of the multiplicative group (period eight), and $x^2-\alpha$ is irreducible, generating the field of cardinality $9^2=81$. Just to bring this back to $\Bbb F_3$, this is saying (since the polynomial for $i$ is $x^2+1$) that $x^4+1$ is not irreducible over the prime field, but (since the polynomial for $1+i$ is $x^2+x+2$) the polynomial $x^4+x^2+2$ is irreducible over $\Bbb F_3$.

So far so good. What values of $d$ are good, which are bad? Certainly anything divisible by the characteristic is bad, and more generally anything prime to $q-1$ is bad too, because a cyclic group of order $m$ automatically has $n$-th roots of all elements if $\gcd(m,n)=1$.

Indeed, that same argument shows that if $d=d'r$ where $r$ is relatively prime to $q-1$, adjoining the $d$-th root of an element is the same thing as adjoining the $d'$-th root. So we want $d$ to have among its prime divisors only the prime divisors of $q-1$.

And I think this answers the question completely if $\alpha$ is a generator of the cyclic multiplicative group of the field $\Bbb F_q$: $d$ must have for its prime divisors only primes that occur in $q-1$. There are a couple of gaps that I believe I know how to fill, but this posting is already too long.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ There's a section in Lang's Algebra describing exactly when $x^m - a \in F[x]$ for $a \in F^\times$ is irreducible: it is necessary and sufficient that for every prime $\ell$ dividing $m$ we have $a \not\in F^\ell$, and if $4$ divides $m$ we also need $a \not\in -4F^4$. Lang doesn't give a name to this theorem, but it is usually attributed to Vahlen and Capelli (although they did not prove it in the context of an absolutely general field $F$). $\endgroup$
    – KConrad
    Jun 5, 2015 at 16:08
  • $\begingroup$ And of course, @KConrad, as an admirer of Lang I should have been aware of this. $\endgroup$
    – Lubin
    Jun 5, 2015 at 22:37
0
$\begingroup$

Edit: The answer is wrong (Vladimir's comment below gives a counterexample) - it only shows the following: ``Let $f(x) \in \mathbb{F}[x]$ be separable and have no root in $\mathbb{F}$. Assume $\deg(f) \geq 2$ and $d$ is coprime to the characteristic of $\mathbb{F}$. Then $f(x^d)$ is also separable and has no root in $\mathbb{F}$.'' As Loren points out, this is far from guaranteeing irreducibility.

It seems Jason's comment gives the only exceptions: assume $d$ is prime to $p$ and $\deg(f) \geq 2$. Consider the factorization of $f$ in the algebraic closure of your field $\mathbb{F}$, say $f = \prod_{i=1}^e (x-a_i)$. Since $f$ is irreducible, none of these $a_i$ are in $\mathbb{F}$ (this is where we use $\deg(f) \geq 2$) and since it is separable, $a_i \neq a_j$ for $i \neq j$. Then

$f(x^d) = \prod_{i=1}^e (x^d-a_i) = \prod_{i=1}^e \prod_{j=1}^d (x-a_{ij})$

where $a_{ij}$'s are $d$-th roots of $a_i$. None of these $a_{ij}$'s are in $\mathbb{F}$ and none of them are equal. So $f(x^d)$ is irreducible as well.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ $x^2+1$ is irreducible in $\mathbb{F}_3$, but $x^4+1=(x^2+x-1)(x^2-x-1)$ $\endgroup$ Jun 5, 2015 at 11:58
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ As @VladimirDotsenko's comment points out, it is important not to confuse "no rational or repeated roots" with "irreducible" (which is much stronger). The real problem is with non-transitivity of the Galois action on roots; in the given example, the Galois group has the two orbits $\{1 \pm 2\sqrt2\}$ and $\{2(1 \pm \sqrt2)\}$, leading to the two factors indicated. $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Jun 5, 2015 at 12:50

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.