12
$\begingroup$

The degree 10 polynomial $$\displaystyle x^{10} + x^9 - x^7 - x^6 - x^5 - x^4 - x^3 + x + 1$$

given by D.H. Lehmer in 1933 has the property that its largest real root, $\beta = 1.176280 \cdots$ is the smallest known Salem number. Moreover, it is a folklore conjecture that $\beta$ is in fact the smallest Salem number.

However, it is curious that one cannot find a reference for the explicit value of $\beta$. I suspect that this is because Lehmer's polynomial is not solvable. Is this the case? If so, is there a reference/relatively simple argument? Furthermore, if Lehmer's polynomial is in fact not solvable, then what is its Galois group?

Thanks for your time.

$\endgroup$
11
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ Magma quickly computes that it's a nonsolvable group of order 1920. $\endgroup$
    – rlo
    Dec 1, 2015 at 21:44
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @PerAlexandersson I was hoping that such a nice polynomial would be solvable, and therefore one can find an explicit algebraic expression for $\beta$ $\endgroup$ Dec 1, 2015 at 21:57
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Quintic equations are solvable by radicals and modular functions. As for Galois groups $G$ of irreducible polynomials $P \in \mathbb{Z}[x]$ with small Mahler measure, there are results to the effect that either $G$ is "large" or $P = Q(x^m)$ for a large $m$. So no surprise that the polynomial with smallest known Mahler measure has a large Galois group (as large as possible for a reciprocal polynomial). $\endgroup$ Dec 1, 2015 at 22:37
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @rlo I am surprised that the Galois group is not the whole hyperoctahedral group! $\endgroup$
    – Igor Rivin
    Dec 1, 2015 at 23:22
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @igor If you run computations on Galois groups of reciprocal polynomials of degree 2n, you'll find that having a "half full" Galois group is quite common. The "full" group is $C_2 \wr S_n$, corresponding to the "full permutation module" for $S_n$ over $\mathbb{F}_2$, whereas the "half full" group corresponds to the "standard module" (of dimension $n-1$). It was shown by McKee and Christopoulos that these two situations are the only ones that can happen for Salem numbers (although the $S_n$ can be replaced by a smaller transitive group of degree $n$. $\endgroup$ Dec 7, 2015 at 14:04

1 Answer 1

26
$\begingroup$

Lehmer's polynomial is symmetrical, so $x + x^{-1} =: y$ satisfies a polynomial of half the degree. It turns out that this is the quintic $y^5 + y^4 - 5y^3 - 5y^2 + 4y + 3 = 0$, whose Galois group is the unsolvable $S_5$ (for instance, it's irreducible $\bmod 2$ and decomposes as $(y^2-2y-1)(y^3-2y^2+2y+2)$ $\bmod 5$, so the Galois group is a subgroup of $S_5$ of order divisible by $30$ that contains an odd permutation, and the only such subgroup is $S_5$ itself). Hence Lehmer's polynomial is not solvable either.

[It turns out that $y$ generates the totally real quintic field of third-smaller discriminant $36497$. By the way, even if a polynomial is solvable, exhibiting a solution in radicals may not be of much use; for instance, the Salem root of $x^8 - x^5 - x^4 - x^3 + 1 = 0$ satisfies $x + x^{-1} = y$ where $y$ is a solution of the quartic $y^4 - 4y^2 - y + 1 = 0$ with Galois group $S_4$, but even though this group (and thus also the octic $x^8 - x^5 - x^4 - x^3 + 1$) is solvable I doubt that you really want to ponder the explicit formula for $x$ involving things like the cube roots of $187/54 \pm \sqrt{-1957/108}$ . . .]

$\endgroup$
6
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ "a subgroup of $S_5$ of order divisible by $30$, and the only such subgroup is $S_5$ itself".. I guess such things happen even to the best of us :) $\endgroup$ Dec 1, 2015 at 22:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Oops, corrected now. I noticed this soon after posting (but by then I was e-incommunicado for an hour or so). I had already checked that the Galois group is not contained in $A_5$ (either because the discriminant is not square, or because the cycle structure $\{2,3\}$ is odd), and forgot to mention this argument that the Galois group cannot be $A_5$. Not that it matters for the present application because $A_5$ is also unsolvable . . . $\endgroup$ Dec 1, 2015 at 23:58
  • $\begingroup$ Why is the homomorphism from the Galois group of the degree 10 Lehmer polynomial P(x) given by the OP to the Galois group of your degree 5 polynomial Q(y) is surjective? $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    Dec 2, 2015 at 1:17
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ If you insist on fully expanding them in all their glory, expressions such as the Salem root $x$ in the second paragraph are indeed rather fearsome, but they are not so bad if obtained in a sequence of steps, such as (I hope I got this right): $$ \eqalign{a_1 &= (748 + 12 i \sqrt{5871})^{1/3}\cr a_2 &= \sqrt{a_1 + 16 + 112/a_1}\cr a_3 &= \sqrt{12 \sqrt{6}/a_2 + 32 - a_1 - 112/a_1}\cr y &= (a_2 + a_3) \sqrt{6}/12\cr x &= \left(y + \sqrt{y^2-4}\right)/2\cr}$$ $\endgroup$ Dec 2, 2015 at 1:35
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @YCor already answered by David Speyer, but not necessary for the original question once you know that solvable Galois $\Leftrightarrow$ solvable by radicals: clearly if $x$ satisfied this condition then so would $y = x + x^{-1}$. $\endgroup$ Dec 2, 2015 at 1:40

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.