Question. Is the polynomial $x^{2k+1} - 7x^2 + 1$ irreducible over $\mathbb{Q}$ for every positive integer $k$?

It is irreducible for all positive integers $k \leq 800$.

  • 5
    $\begingroup$ What's the motivation for asking this question? $\endgroup$ Jan 6, 2017 at 10:44
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @René motivation comes from various well studied directions: enriching the existing criteria for irreducibility, analogies with formulas for prime numbers (irreducibles in the ring $\mathbb{Z}$), the study of trinomials (and their Galois groups), and so on. Sometimes, polynomials similar to these pop-up in questions related to combinatorics and dynamics. I did not want to elaborate on these too much since the question is, in my opinion, of independent interest. $\endgroup$
    – Pablo
    Jan 6, 2017 at 10:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Could it be that the answer is yes if 7 is replaced by any odd prime? $\endgroup$ Jan 6, 2017 at 16:25
  • $\begingroup$ @TimothyChow I believe that it could indeed be the case. $\endgroup$
    – Pablo
    Jan 6, 2017 at 16:35

3 Answers 3


Here is a proof, based on a trick that can be used to prove that $x^n + x + 1$ is irreducible when $n \not\equiv 2 \bmod 3$.

We work with Laurent polynomials in $R = \mathbb Z[x,x^{-1}]$; note that $R$ has unit group $R^\times = \pm x^{\mathbb Z}$. We observe that for $f \in R$, the sum of the squares of the coefficients is given by $$\|f\| = \int_0^1 |f(e^{2 \pi i t})|^2\,dt = \int_0^1 f(e^{2 \pi i t}) f(e^{-2 \pi i t})\,dt = \int_0^1 f(x) f(x^{-1})\big|_{x = e^{2 \pi i t}}\,dt .$$ Now assume that $f(x) = g(x) h(x)$. Then, since $f(x) f(x^{-1}) = \bigl(g(x)h(x^{-1})\bigr)\bigl(g(x^{-1})h(x)\bigr)$, $G(x) := g(x) h(x^{-1})$ satisfies $\|G\| = \|f\|$ and $G(x) G(x^{-1}) = f(x) f(x^{-1})$.

Now we consider $f(x) = x^n - 7 x^2 + 1$; then $\|f\| = 51$. If $f = g h$ as above, then write $G(x) = \pm x^m(1 + a_1 x + a_2 x^2 + \ldots)$ and $G(x^{-1}) = \pm x^l(1 + b_1 x + b_2 x^2 + \ldots)$. The relation $G(x) G(x^{-1}) = f(x) f(x^{-1})$ translates into (equality of signs and) $$(1 + a_1 x + \ldots)(1 + b_1 x + \ldots) = 1 - 7 x^2 + O(x^{n-2}).$$ Assuming that $n > 40$ and considering terms up to $x^{20}$, one can check (see below) that the only solution such that $a_1^2 + a_2^2 + \ldots + a_{20}^2 + b_1^2 + b_2^2 + \ldots + b_{20}^2\le 49$ is, up to the substitution $x \leftarrow x^{-1}$, given by $1 + a_1 x + \ldots = 1 - 7x^2 + O(x^{21})$, $1 + b_1 x + \ldots = 1 + O(x^{21})$. Since the $-7$ (together with the leading and trailing 1) exhausts our allowance for the sum of squares of the coefficients, all other coefficients must be zero, and we obtain that $G(x) = \pm x^a f(x)$ or $G(x) = \pm x^a f(x^{-1})$. Modulo interchanging $g$ and $h$, we can assume that $g(x) h(x^{-1}) = \pm x^a f(x)$, so $h(x^{-1}) = \pm x^a f(x)/g(x) = \pm x^a h(x)$, and $x^{\deg h} h(x^{-1})$ divides $f(x)$. This implies that $h(x)$ divides $x^n f(x^{-1})$, so $h(x)$ must divide $$f(x) - x^n f(x^{-1}) = 7 x^2 (x^{n-4} - 1).$$ So $h$ also divides $$f(x) - x^4 (x^{n-4} - 1) = x^4 - 7 x^2 + 1 = (x^2-3x+1)(x^2+3x+1).$$ Since $h$ also divides $f$, it must divide the difference $x^n - x^4$, which for $n \neq 4$ it clearly doesn't, since the quartic has no roots of absolute value 0 or 1; contradiction.

The argument shows that $x^n - 7 x^2 + 1$ is irreducible for $n > 40$; for smaller $n$, we can ask the Computer Algebra System we trust. This gives:

Theorem. $x^n - 7 x^2 + 1$ is irreducible over $\mathbb Q$ for all positive integers $n$ except $n=4$.

ADDED 2017-01-08: After re-checking the computations, I realized that there was a small mistake that ruled out some partial solutions prematurely. It looks like one needs to consider terms up to $x^{20}$. Here is a file with MAGMA code that verifies that there are no other solutions.

  • 8
    $\begingroup$ This looks awesome and potentially quite general! The first part can be expressed without integration in a way that to me is a little more intuitive: The identity $f(x) f(x^{-1}) = G(x) G(x^{-1})$ implies that the sum of squares of coefficients of $f(x)$ equals the sum of squares of coefficients of $G(x)$ because the sum of the squares of coefficients of $p(x)$ is the coefficient of $0$ in $p(x) p(x^{-1})$ by the obvious expansion. $\endgroup$
    – Will Sawin
    Jan 7, 2017 at 9:32
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @Pablo I found it on page 97 of Zannier's "Lecture notes on Diophantine Analysis" (footnote to exercise 3.20): "Selmer proved that actually $f_n$ is irreducible for such $n$. Here is a sketch of an argument due to Ljiungrenn. ..." Alas, there is no "Ljiungrenn" in MathSciNet or ZMATH. This should be "W. Ljunggren", and the original source appears to be this: mscand.dk/article/view/10593/8614. $\endgroup$ Jan 7, 2017 at 9:47
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Ljunggren treats the case $x^n \pm x^m \pm 1$ in his paper (Theorem 3). $\endgroup$ Jan 7, 2017 at 10:00
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I am slightly confused by the condition $a_1^2 + a_2^2 + \ldots + b_1^2 + b_2^2 + \ldots \le 49$. Why is it not $a_1^2 + a_2^2 + \ldots\le 50$ and $b_1^2 + b_2^2 + \ldots \le 50$? I mean, we only know that $\|G\| = 51$. $\endgroup$
    – GH from MO
    Jan 8, 2017 at 11:30
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @GHfromMO We consider initial segments of the coefficient vector of $G$ from both ends that do not overlap (this leads to the condition $n>40$), so the sum of squares of both together is bounded by the sum of squares of all coefficients of $G$. $\endgroup$ Jan 8, 2017 at 11:32

Not an answer, but an observation, which, if proved, will probably give an answer.

For all $k$ that I have computed, your polynomial has two roots smaller than $1$ in absolute value (for large $k$ these converge to $\pm\frac{1}{\sqrt{7}}.$), and the rest of the roots are larger than $1$ in absolute value. Let's assume this is true. Since the constant term of a factor has to have absolute value $1$ each factor should have one of these roots, so there are at most $2$ irreducible factors.

  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I think the claim that there are exactly two roots of absolute value less than 1 in $\mathbb C$) should follow from Rouché's theorem, since $|x^{2k+1}| = 1 < 6 \le |-7x^2 + 1|$ on the unit circle. $\endgroup$ Jan 6, 2017 at 18:14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ True. Easier is (triangular inequality): $\vert x^{2k+1}+1\vert\leq 2<7=\vert 7x^2\vert$ on the unit circle. $\endgroup$ Jan 6, 2017 at 18:59
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @T.Amdeberhan I wouldn't necessarily think that $|a+b| \le |a|+|b|$ is so much easier than $|a-b| \ge |a| - |b|$; they are just two equivalent formulations of the same fact. $\endgroup$ Jan 6, 2017 at 20:14
  • $\begingroup$ I was just being picky. I agree. :-) $\endgroup$ Jan 6, 2017 at 20:27
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The statement in the ADDENDUM is wrong (for example for $2k+1 = 19$, there are six factors of degree 3). If $2k+1 = p$ is prime, the degree of the nonlinear factors mod 7 is the order of 7 in the multiplicative group mod $p$, which does not have to be $p-1$. Assuming Artin's primitive root conjecture, we get at least infinitely many $k$ such that the polynomial is irreducible. $\endgroup$ Jan 7, 2017 at 8:30

EDIT: I'm afraid that this answer is wrong and I hope you have some way of "unaccepting" it. The reason is that when taking conjugates of $\frac{1}{\sqrt{7}-\beta_1}$ we're allowed to freely change the sign of $\sqrt{7}$ (unless $\sqrt{7}$ is contained in the field generated by $\beta_1$, which seems rather unlikely). And $\frac{1}{-\sqrt{7}-\beta_1}$ is greater than $1$ in absolute value. I found this mistake only when I noticed that my "proof" gives that $x^4-7x^2+1=(x^2+3x+1)(x^2-3x+1)$ is irreducible. It should work with an integer square in place of $7$. Maybe someone can make it work also for $7$? I apologize for raising false hopes!

The question is equivalent (by replacing $x$ with $\frac{1}{x}$) to asking about the irreducibility of $A(x) = x^{2k+1}-7x^{2k-1}+1 = x^{2k-1}(x^2-7)+1$ over $\mathbb{Q}$. An application of Rouché's theorem shows that $A(x)$ has exactly $2k-1$ zeroes (counted with multiplicity) of absolute value less than $1$. There remain two real zeroes $\beta_1 < -1$ and $\beta_2 > 1$. One can deduce from the equation they satisfy that $|\beta_i - (-1)^i\sqrt{7}| \leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{7}+1}$ ($i=1,2$).

Now suppose that $A$ factorizes as $A = BC$ with monic integer polynomials $B, C$. Wlog $B(\beta_1) = 0$. If $B(\beta_2) \neq 0$, then $$\beta_1^{2k-1}(\beta_1+\sqrt{7}) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{7}-\beta_1}$$ is an algebraic integer, all conjugates of which are less than $1$ in absolute value (the right hand side is less than $\frac{1}{2\sqrt{7}-\frac{1}{\sqrt{7}+1}}<1$ and all its conjugates are of absolute value at most $\frac{1}{\sqrt{7}-1}<1$).

So it would have to be $0$, which is absurd. So $B(\beta_2)=0$. But now all roots of $C$ are less than $1$ in absolute value, while its constant term is $1$. It follows that $C=1$ is constant and so $A$ is irreducible.

  • $\begingroup$ I also completely missed the fact that when one considers Galois conjugates, it is possible also to conjugate $\sqrt{7}$ and not only $\beta_1$. $\endgroup$
    – Pablo
    Jan 6, 2017 at 13:45
  • $\begingroup$ Well, you fooled me! :-) I thought I had read your proof very carefully. So it's still instructive, in a way. $\endgroup$
    – Gro-Tsen
    Jan 7, 2017 at 11:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Gro-Tsen: Well, this general method does prove irreducibility in certain cases. AFAIK, it originates in Ankeny, Brauer, Chowla, A Note on the Class-Numbers of Algebraic Number Fields, Amer. J. Math. 78 (1956), 51-61, and I used it to prove irreducibility in Lemma 4.1(b) of my article (impan.pl/en/publishing-house/journals-and-series/…, sorry for the self-promotion, but I thought it might interest you). $\endgroup$ Jan 8, 2017 at 15:53

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.