6
$\begingroup$

I have asked these questions as comments here (these are related to the question there). The questions are: Let $S$ be one of the following sets of primes:

  1. All primes of the form $4k+1$ ;
  2. All primes of the form $4k+3$;
  3. All primes of the form $4k+1$ except $5, 13$;

Is there a monic integer polynomial which is reducible mod prime $p$ iff $p\in S$.

$\endgroup$
11
  • $\begingroup$ $x^2+1$ is reducible mod $p$ iff $p=2$ or $4$ divides the order of $(Z/p)^*$, iff $p=2$ or has the form $4k+1$. This is fairly close to (1), but I understand from (3) that you really mean the given subset and not the subset modulo finitely many exceptions. $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    Feb 16, 2020 at 4:03
  • $\begingroup$ $x^2+1$ was suggested as a comment in mathoverflow.net/questions/352105/… . After it was noticed there that it is reducible $\mod 2$, I suggested $4x^2+1$ but it is not monic, unfortunately. $\endgroup$
    – user6976
    Feb 16, 2020 at 4:14
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Please give some context for these questions. In particular, what kind of mathematical problem leads you to be interested in all primes of the form $4k+1$ except 5 and 13? $\endgroup$
    – KConrad
    Feb 16, 2020 at 5:52
  • $\begingroup$ @KConrad: The motivation is the question linked to in the OP. That question had a trivial and implici (my) answer. So a concrete example would be good. $4k+1$ can be replaced by any arithmetic progression containing infinitely many primes, of course (these sets have positive density and I do not know the answer for any of these sets of primes ). But this snswer (if correct) shows that these sets are indeed, the required explicit examples. $\endgroup$
    – user6976
    Feb 16, 2020 at 6:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GHfromMO: in your definition of "splitting set of primes" you want splitting into linear factors? If so, it is not the same as "reducible sets of primes" in the OP. I think the new version of SashaP's answer deals precisely with that issue. $\endgroup$
    – user6976
    Feb 17, 2020 at 1:51

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

Here is a way to argue without showing directly that the polynomial must have degree $2$. It was explained to me by Borys Kadets (all further mistakes are, of course, my contribution).

Lemma. If a set of primes $S$ of density $\frac{1}{2}$ admits such polynomial then some subset $S'\subset S$ with $\#(S\setminus S')<\infty$ admits a monic quadratic polynomial that is reducible precisely at $S'$.

Proof. Suppose that $f$ is a polynomial of degree $n$ satisfying the condition for the set $S$. Let $G$ be the Galois group of its splitting field coming with an embedding $G\subset S_n$. By Chebotarev density, exactly $\frac{1}{2}\# G$ elements of this group must be cycles of length $n$.

Since the centralizer of a length $n$ cycle $\sigma\in S_n$ is the subgroup generated by $\sigma$, the number of conjugacy classes of length $n$ cycles in $G$ is $\frac{n}{2}$. In particular, $n$ is even and $G\cap A_n$ has index $2$ in $G$ with cycles of length $n$ forming the non-trivial coset.

The subgroup $G\cap A_n\subset G$ corresponds to a degree $2$ extension $K/\mathbb{Q}$. If a prime $p$ is ramified in the splitting field of $f$ then $f$ is reducible modulo $p$. For any unramified prime $p$ the polynomial $f$ is reducible modulo $p$ iff the Frobenius element of a prime above $p$ in the splitting field is not a length $n$ cycle, the latter condition being equivalent to the fact that $p$ is split in $K$. Thus, the set of primes split (including ramified) in $K$ is equal to $S$ with the possible exception of a finite set of ramified primes.

The minimal polynomial of a generator of $\mathcal{O}_K$ satisfies the conclusion of the lemma. $\square$

Starting with any of the three sets $S$ the lemma gives a quadratic polynomial $x^2+ax+b$ with $a,b\in \mathbb{Z}$ that is reducible precisely at the primes from a set $S'$. Since we want it to be irreducible mod $2$, both $a$ and $b$ have to be odd.

This polynomial is irreducible modulo $p>2$ if and only if $D:=a^2-4b$ is not a square mod $p$.

Set 2: The number $(-D)$ is supposed to be a non-residue modulo all but finitely many primes, but that's impossible. This can be shown by a counting argument: if there was a finite set of primes $p_1,\dots, p_k$ such that $D+n^2$ is a product of powers of $p_i$'s then there would be $O((\log N)^k)$ numbers of the form $D+n^2$ in the interval $[1,\dots, N]$.

Sets 1 and 3: Here we want $(-D)$ to be a square modulo all but finitely many primes. That forces it to be a square in $\mathbb{Z}$. However, setting $-D=c^2$ gives $a^2+c^2=4b$. That is impossible for odd $a$.

$\endgroup$
22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 1) Why does the Chebotarev density theorem implies that the degree should be 2? 2) In the last paragraph, what are $a,b,c$? 3) Also in the last paragraph, why $-D$ is a square mod all but finitely many primes if $S=\{p| p=4k+1\}$? $\endgroup$
    – user6976
    Feb 16, 2020 at 4:59
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @MarkSapir For primes in $S$, $D$ is a square residue, and $-1$ is a square residue, while for primes not in $S$, $D$ is not a square residue, and $-1$ is not a square residue (with finitely many exceptions). Therefore, for all primes, $-D = -1*D$ is a square residue (with finitely many exceptions). $\endgroup$
    – user44191
    Feb 16, 2020 at 5:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @SashaP: Your answer only proves that quadratic polynomials won't work? $\endgroup$
    – user6976
    Feb 16, 2020 at 11:58
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Ah ok -- I misread the problem thinking that $f$ is assumed to have no roots mod p for $p$ not in $S$. Instead the problem gives you that $f$ is irreducible for these primes. So what you have is fine of course. $\endgroup$
    – Lucia
    Feb 17, 2020 at 16:18
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @MarkSapir: If the polynomial factors in $F_p[x]$ as $f_1 ... f_r$ with $f_i$ of degree $d_i$, then this corresponds to a conjugacy class in the Galois group with cycles of length $d_1$, $\ldots$, $d_r$. In your problem you had $f$ being irreducible for a bunch of primes; the Frobenius for these primes is therefore an $n$-cycle. $\endgroup$
    – Lucia
    Feb 17, 2020 at 19:28

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.