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? $\endgroup$ Commented 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.
    Commented 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
    Commented 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
    Commented 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
    Commented 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
    Commented 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
    Commented 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 $x^4+1=(x^2+x-1)(x^2-x-1)$ $\endgroup$ Commented 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
    Commented Jun 5, 2015 at 12:50

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .