This must be well-known to everyone but me, but here goes: take a general (monic) polynomial $p(x) = x^d + a_{d-1} x^{d-1} + \dotsc + a_0.$ The discriminant is a polynomial $D(a_0, \dotsc, a_{d-1}).$ Is this irreducible (over $\mathbb{C},$ or in general over algebraic closure of whatever the polynomial is defined over)?

  • 10
    $\begingroup$ Yes, this is true: the discriminant is geometrically irreducible. This is proved, in higher generality, on page 15 (Ch. 1.1. B) of Gelfand, Kapranov and Zelevinsky's book, Discriminants, Resultants and Multidimensional Determinants. $\endgroup$ – Vesselin Dimitrov Oct 24 '15 at 22:35
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @VesselinDimitrov Thanks! I will look, but is there some conceptual reason why something like this should be true (other than it would be shocking otherwise)? $\endgroup$ – Igor Rivin Oct 24 '15 at 22:56
  • $\begingroup$ The conceptual reason is geometric. I wrote an answer outlining it. $\endgroup$ – Vesselin Dimitrov Oct 24 '15 at 23:35

The discriminant locus has the following geometric interpretation, given in the introductory chapter of [Gelfand, Kapranov, Zelevinsky: Discriminants, Resultants and Multidimensional Determinants].

Let $X \subset \mathbb{P}^d$ be the rational normal curve, $[u:v] \mapsto [u^d:u^{d-1}v:\cdots : v^d]$. We may view a linear form $l \in \Gamma(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^d}(1))$ as filling in coefficients for a degree-$d$ polynomial, viz. restricting $l$ to $X$. This identifies the space of non-zero polynomials (modulo scalars) of degree $\leq d$ as the projective linear dual $P^{\vee}$ of $P := \mathbb{P}^d$. The roots of a polynomial are the (preimages on $\mathbb{P}^1 \hookrightarrow \mathbb{P}^d$ of) the intersection points of $X$ with the hyperplane $\{l = 0\}$. The discriminant locus is then the closure $X^{\vee} \subset P^{\vee}$ of the set of all the hyperplanes of $P$ that are tangent to $X$.

This gives the conceptual reason, since the following straightforward geometric argument (Prop. 1.3 in [GKZ]) proves in general that $X^{\vee} \subset P^{\vee}$ is irreducible whenever $X \subset P = \mathbb{P}^d$ is irreducible. Assuming WLOG that $X$ is regular, the incidence variety $W \subset P \times P^{\vee}$ of pairs $(x,H)$ with $x \in X$ and $H$ a hyperplane tangent to $X$ at $x$, is a projective bundle over the irreducible variety $X$, and hence irreducible. It follows that $X^{\vee}$, being the image $W \hookrightarrow P \times P^{\vee} \to P^{\vee}$ of an irreducible variety, is itself irreducible.

The geometric interpretation applies to more general discriminants, studied in [GKZ].


(N.B.: I have modified this answer to take into account the comments below about the case of characteristic $2$, when in fact, the discriminant is the square of an irreducible polynomial.)

The discriminant is defined by the property that, when $$ p(x) = x^d - s_1 x^{d-1} + \cdots + (-1)^ds_d = (x-t_1)(x-t_2)\cdots(x-t_d) $$ (i.e., when one substitutes the $i$th elementary symmetric function of the $t_k$ for $s_i$), the discriminant becomes $$ D(s_1,\ldots,s_d) = \prod_{i<j} (t_i-t_j)^2. $$ Suppose there were a factorization $D(s_1,\ldots,s_d) = D_1(s_1,\ldots,s_d)D_2(s_1,\ldots,s_d)$ where each $D_i$ had positive degree. Then by unique factorization, when one substitutes as above, one must be able to write, for $a = 1,2$, $$ D_a(s_1,\ldots,s_d) = c_a \prod_{(i,j)\in S_a} (t_i-t_j) $$ where $c_1$ and $c_2$ are (nonzero) constants and $S_1$ and $S_2$ are disjoint nonempty subsets of the set of pairs $(i,j)$ in $\{1,\ldots,d\}$ whose union is the entire set of distinct pairs in this set. Thus, for example, $D_1(s_1,\ldots,s_d)$ will vanish when $t_i=t_j$ (for $i\not=j)$ only if $(i,j)$ or $(j,i)$ belongs to $S_1$. Since one can't detect which of the $t_i$ are equal using only $s_1,\ldots, s_d$, it follows that $S_1$ must contain either $(i,j)$ or $(j,i)$ for each distinct pair. The same argument applied to $D_2$ shows that $S_2$ also must contain either $(i,j)$ or $(j,i)$ for each distinct pair. Thus, one must have, for $a = 1,2$, $$ D_a(s_1,\ldots,s_d) = c'_a \prod_{i<j} (t_i-t_j) $$ for some constants $c'_1$ and $c'_2$.

However, when the characteristic of the field is not $2$, one cannot have a polynomial $E(s_1,\ldots,s_d)$ such that, after substitution, one obtains $$ E(s_1,\ldots,s_d) = \prod_{i<j} (t_i-t_j) $$ since the left hand side cannot detect permutations in the $t_i$, whereas the right hand side will change sign when one makes an odd permutation of the $t_i$. Thus, $D$ is irreducible when the characteristic of the field is not $2$.

As Jarek Kuben pointed out in the comments below, when the characteristic of the field is $2$, the expression $$ F = \prod_{i<j} (t_i-t_j) = \prod_{i<j} (t_i+t_j) $$ is symmetric in the $t_i$, so $F$ can be written as a polynomial in the $s_i$. One then has $D = F^2$, so $D$ is a square. The above argument shows, however, that $F$ must be irreducible, since any factorization $D = D_1D_2$ has to have $D_1 = D_2 = F$ (up to constant multiples).

  • $\begingroup$ As Ofir's answer implicitly suggests, this argument doesn't seem to work as it stands in characteristic 2. $\endgroup$ – Geoff Robinson Oct 25 '15 at 12:51
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Yes, of course, obviously the last step in my argument assumes that the characteristic is not $2$, but, then as Ofir's comment points out, $D$ can, in fact, be reducible in characteristic $2$, so I don't regard that as a flaw, but as a feature. The argument shows exactly where characteristic $2$ is needed. (In fact, $D$ is reducible over characteristic $2$ when $d=2$ and $d=3$, and maybe in all degrees.) $\endgroup$ – Robert Bryant Oct 25 '15 at 12:56
  • $\begingroup$ This is pretty close to the sort of thing I was thinking of (that is, a more invariant theoretic proof - the factors must be invariants of the alternating group). $\endgroup$ – Igor Rivin Oct 25 '15 at 13:00
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ In characteristic $2$ the polynomial $\prod_{i<j} (t_i-t_j)=\prod_{i<j} (t_i+t_j)$ is symmetric in $t$'s, hence a polynomial in $s$'s (the fundamental theorem of symmetric polynomials holds in all commutative rings), thus the discriminant is a square of an irreducible polynomial. $\endgroup$ – Jarek Kuben Oct 25 '15 at 13:17
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I didn't suggest it was a flaw, but felt that the exception should be noted. $\endgroup$ – Geoff Robinson Oct 25 '15 at 13:53

Some remarks:

  1. Exception: In some cases it is actually reducible: Over a finite field of characteristic 2, the discriminant of $x^2+a_1x+a_0$ is $D(a_0,a_1)=a_1^2$.

  2. (Almost) Irreducibility over finite fields: Standard $\zeta$-function manipulations show that over $\mathbb{F}_q[T]$ there are exactly $q^{d-1}$ monic non-squarefree polynomials (hint: the Dirichlet series of $\mu^2(f)=1_{f\text{ squarefree}}$ is $\frac{\zeta(u)}{\zeta(u^2)}$ where $\zeta(u) = \sum_{f \text{ monic}} u^{\deg f}$). In other words, the zero locus of $D(a_0,\cdots,a_{d-1})=0$ is of size $q^{d-1}$. On the other hand, Weil-Lang bounds express the size of the zero locus of $D=0$ over $\mathbb{F}_{q_0}$ as $q_0^{d-1} \cdot (1+O(\frac{1}{\sqrt{q_0}}))$ times the number of geometrically irreducible components of $D=0$ of dimension $d-1$. So using the information from the zeta functions for $q=q_0^k, k \to \infty$, we find that $D$ is a power of an irreducible polynomial.

  3. (Almost) Irreducibility over $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}$: This reduces to irreducibility over number fields, which reduces to irreducibility over rings of integers (Gauss lemma) which follows from irreducibility over finite fields by working modulo some prime ideal.

  • $\begingroup$ That is a nice argument! $\endgroup$ – Igor Rivin Oct 25 '15 at 13:01
  • $\begingroup$ @IgorRivin Thank you. It is not original though - many function-field number theorists know it well, but I've never seen it written down. $\endgroup$ – Ofir Gorodetsky Oct 25 '15 at 13:11
  • $\begingroup$ By the way, I assume that the formula for discriminant (as in Robert Bryant's answer) takes care of the proper power possibility. $\endgroup$ – Igor Rivin Oct 25 '15 at 20:25

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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