Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am trying to use the Chebotarev Density Theorem to say something about the Galois groups of a class of polynomials. To be more precise, by factoring a polynomial mod some prime p, I want to show that there is an element in the Galois group of the polynomial with a certain cycle structure. Unfortunately my knowledge of algebraic number theory is rather thin!

In the statement of the theorem, it is required that p be unramified. My question is this: if I can prove that there are no repeated factors in the factorization of the polynomial mod p, does it matter that I don't know whether p divides the discriminant in general or not?

In other words, is the requirement that p be unramified purely to avoid repeated factors, or is there more to it than that?

share|improve this question
8  
If there are no repeated factors of the polynomial modulo $p$ then certainly $p$ does not divide the discriminant. –  Robin Chapman Apr 13 '10 at 19:01
add comment

3 Answers 3

up vote 11 down vote accepted

Adam, the requirement that $p$ be unramified in the number field is to explain the existence of an element (really, conjugacy class) in the Galois group with a certain cycle structure on the roots of a generator for the number field. The way this element of the Galois group is constructed requires algebraic number theory, but it can be translated into a more elementary-sounding proposition about factoring a polynomial mod $p$ at the expense of giving up on being able to apply the result to a few primes for which the method really does work at a more technical level.

If $K = {\mathbf Q}(\alpha)$ and $\alpha$ is an algebraic integer with minimal polynomial $f(x)$ in ${\mathbf Z}[x]$, the elementary proposition is that if $p$ is a prime number such that $f(x) \bmod p$ is a product of distinct irreducibles with degrees $d_1,\dots,d_r$ then there's an element of the Galois group of the Galois closure of $K/{\mathbf Q}$ whose cycle structure on $\alpha$ and its ${\mathbf Q}$-conjugates consists of disjoint cycles of length $d_1,\dots,d_r$.

The more advanced proposition, which makes no reference to polynomials mod $p$, is that if $p$ is a prime number unramified in $K$, so necessarily $p{\mathcal O}_K = {\mathfrak p}_1\cdots {\mathfrak p}_r$ for some distinct primes ${\mathfrak p}_i$ with residue field degrees $d_i$, then there is an element of the Galois group of the Galois closure of $K/{\mathbf Q}$ whose permutation action on $\alpha$ and its ${\mathbf Q}$-conjugates is a product of disjoint cycles with lengths $d_i$.

The link between the elementary and advanced propositions is: $\text{disc}(f) = [{\mathcal O}_K:{\mathbf Z}[\alpha]]\text{disc}(K)$. This equation implies that if $f(x) \bmod p$ has distinct irreducible factors then $p$ doesn't divide $\text{disc}(f)$ and therefore also doesn't divide the discriminant of $K$, so $p$ is unramified in $K$. Moreover, $p$ doesn't divide that ring index, which implies that the shape of the factorization of $p{\mathcal O}_K$ matches the shape of the factorization of $f(x) \bmod p$. So under the condition that $f(x) \bmod p$ has distinct irreducible factors the elementary and advanced propositions are both applicable (their hypotheses are both satisfied) and lead to the same conclusion: both propositions imply the existence of an element of the Galois group with the same cycle structure as a permutation of the ${\mathbf Q}$-conjugates of $\alpha$. Primes at which the elementary proposition hold are always primes at which the advanced proposition holds, but not conversely: there can be primes $p$ which are unramified in $K$ (that is, $p$ doesn't divide $\text{disc}(K)$) but the reduced polynomial $f(x) \bmod p$ has multiple irreducible factors (that is, $p$ divides $\text{disc}(f)$), so the advanced proposition can be applied to this prime $p$ but the elementary one can not.

Incidentally, for a ramified prime $p$ in $K$ with ramification indices $e_1,\dots,e_r$ and respective residue field degrees $d_1,\dots,d_r$, it's natural to ask if there might be an element of the Galois group of the Galois closure of $K/{\mathbf Q}$ whose permutation action on the ${\mathbf Q}$-conjugates of $\alpha$ is a product of disjoint cycles where there are $e_i$ cycles of length $d_i$ for all $i$. I have a copy of a letter Serre sent to Thomas Hawkins in 2000 which outlines a method to give a counterexample where $[K:{\mathbf Q}] = 6$. That means this naive attempt to extend the Galois group existence technique to ramified primes doesn't generally work.

Here is an explicit example: $K = {\mathbf Q}(a)$ where $a^6 - 35a^4 + 3a^2 - 225 = 0$. This field has degree 6 and Galois group $S_4$ over ${\mathbf Q}$. This Galois group acts on the roots in the way $S_4$ naturally permutes the 6 two-elements subsets of {1,2,3,4}: this is an embedding of $S_4$ into $A_6$, which will be important.

Using PARI, 3 factors in the integers of $K$ as $P^2Q$ where $P$ and $Q$ both have residue field degree 2. Now if there were a "corresponding" element of the Galois group of $K$ over ${\mathbf Q}$ as dreamed above, it would permute the 6 roots as a product of three disjoint 2-cycles. But alas, that is not an even permutation of the roots and I already said the Galois group is $S_4$ acting on the roots as a subgroup of $A_6$, so entirely by even permutations. Thus we have a contradiction so there is no such "dream automorphism" associated to 3 in the Galois group.

By the way, this degree 6 polynomial did not come out of nowhere: it is related to a 3-adic approximation of another polynomial, but that connection would take longer to describe than I wish to write about here, as this answer is already pretty long.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Hi Adam,

I think you will be happy with Lenstra's short and beautiful text on the theorem, see here.

Look at fact 2.1.

share|improve this answer
add comment

This is not the answer you are looking for. Go read KConrad's.

share|improve this answer
1  
This is a bit subtle. The definition of unramified is that there are no repeated prime ideals in the factorization of (p). If the ring of integers of K is of the form Z[a]/f(a), then this is equivalent to saying that f(x) has no repeated factors mod p. If Z[a]/f(a) is a subring of O_K, then f(x) having no repeated factors mod p implies that p is unrammified, but not vice versa. Fortunately, the direction Adam needs is the true one. –  David Speyer Apr 13 '10 at 22:25
    
In the previous comment, "is a subring of O_K" should read "is a full rank subring of O_K". –  David Speyer Apr 13 '10 at 22:28
7  
This is not the Conrad you are looking for. –  Craig Westerland Apr 14 '10 at 4:13
    
My comment was to a previous version of Ben's answer. –  David Speyer Apr 14 '10 at 10:54
    
Ack! My brain was clearly not having a good night! –  Ben Webster Apr 14 '10 at 14:08
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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