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

In connection with the Galois theoretic results surrounding the irreducibility of $f(x)= x^{N}-x-1$ over $\mathbb{Q}$, I've been trying to prove for a while that the discriminant of $f$ is actually squarefree as it sounded plausible. After failed attemps I started believing that this might not be actually true so I did a computer verification which showed that for $N=257$ this is actually wrong (however not too wrong; there was just a square of a prime that appeared). So now I was wondering whether the discriminat of the truncanted exponential, i.e. $$g(x) = \frac{x^{n}}{n!} + \ldots + \frac{x^{2}}{2!} + x+1,$$ is squarefree or if in general the discriminants of polynomials of type $$\pm \frac{x^{n}}{n!} + a_{n-1} \frac{x^{n-1}}{(n-1)!} + \ldots + a_{2} \frac{x^{2}}{2!} + 1,$$ where the $a_{i}$'s are integers, are squarefree (question motivated of course by the fact that they are irreducible over $\mathbb{Q}$ with Galois group $S_{n}$ - Schur).

//Of course this is harder to verify since we no longer have a "nice" formula for polynomials of this form.

share|improve this question
    
The discriminant of $g(x)$ is not an integer but is the reciprocal of an large integer all of whose prime factors are $n$ or smaller. [The exact formula can be obtained form $g'(x) = g(x) - x^n/n!$.] What would it mean for such a number to be "squarefree"? –  Noam D. Elkies Oct 21 '11 at 4:29
    
Embarassing moment: Sorry, I meant the discriminants the polynomials obtained after multiplying by $n!$, as Gjergji point out, and the answer in general is indeed straightforward. I just didn't see that. –  Cosmin Pohoata Oct 21 '11 at 4:59
    
Concerning the discriminant of $x^n-x-1$, David Boyd asked whether it was squarefree for prime $n$ at the Western Number Theory meeting of December, 2000. The following February, Greg Martin proved that there are an infinity of primes $n$ for which the discriminant is not squarefree. In particular, he found the example $n=257$, which entails divisibility by $59^2$. See ma.utexas.edu/users/goddardb/WCNT11/2000.PDF problem 9. –  Gerry Myerson Oct 21 '11 at 5:00
    
A small comment: if $p$ exactly divides the discriminant of a monic $f(x)\in\mathbf{Z}[x]$, then there are precisely $n-1$ distinct homomorphism from $\mathbf{Z}[x]/(f(x))$ to $\overline\mathbf{F}_p$, where $n$ is the degree of $f(x)$. If $p>n$ then this condition suffices to ensure that $p$ exactly divides the discriminant of $f(x)$. May be this is of no use for you, or you might already be perfectly aware of this. –  Tommaso Centeleghe Oct 21 '11 at 8:26
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 7 down vote accepted

My two cents: Schur proved that the discriminant of $$n!\left(\frac{x^{n}}{n!} + \ldots + \frac{x^{2}}{2!} + x+1\right),$$ is equal to $(-1)^{n(n-1)/2}(n!)^n$, which is not a perfect square as long as $n\neq 0\pmod{4}$. See this note by K. Conrad for references. On the other hand the discriminant is a polynomial in the coefficients of the given polynomial, so the answer is negative for your general family. This is because a polynomial cannot take only squarefree values at integer tuples unless it is constant. (I'm assuming that you are considering the scaled version of these polynomials, $x^n+na_{n-1}x^{n-1}+\cdots+n!a_1x+n!$)

Explicitly constructing infinitely many polynomials of fixed degree with squarefree discriminant is a very non-trivial task. See the recent article "A construction of polynomials with squarefree discriminants" by K. Kedlaya.

share|improve this answer
    
What does it mean for a polynomial in several variables to be monic? –  Gerry Myerson Oct 21 '11 at 4:44
    
Fixed. $ $ –  Gjergji Zaimi Oct 21 '11 at 4:52
    
Nice. Thanks. By the way, is there any elementary way to prove the irreducibility of the truncanted exponential? //elementary in the sense of the proof for xN−x−1 (by Selmer?) which just exploited some inequalities between the absolute values of the roots. I just realized that the only way I know to do this is with Newton polygons. –  Cosmin Pohoata Oct 21 '11 at 5:07
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.