6
$\begingroup$

I came up with the following proposition, but don't know how to prove it. I used Maple to see that it holds when $ a + b + c + d <300 $.

Let $a,b,c$ and $d$ be non-negative integers such that $d\geq1$ and $a+b+c\geq1$.

If $a+b+c+d$ is a prime number other than $2$, the polynomial $ax^3+bx^2+cx+d$ is irreducible over $Z[x]$.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ The sum of the coefficients of $$(\alpha x^2 + \beta x + \gamma)(ux +v)$$ is $$(\alpha+\beta+ \gamma)(u+v).$$ $\endgroup$ Jul 7, 2020 at 16:26
  • $\begingroup$ @FrancescoPolizzi: do we know anything about positivity of the factors? $\endgroup$ Jul 7, 2020 at 16:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @R.vanDobbendeBruyn: in fact no, and I am not claiming that this is a proof of anything. For a counterexample (if exists) we must have either $\alpha+\beta+\gamma$ or $u+v$ invertible in $\mathbb{Z}$, and the other quantity an odd prime number. Moreover, the four quantities $$\alpha u, \quad \alpha v + \beta u, \quad \beta v + \gamma u, \quad \gamma v$$ must be all non-negative. $\endgroup$ Jul 7, 2020 at 17:03

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

Francesco Polizzi's idea is enough to solve the problem:

Lemma. Let $f = ax^3 + bx^2 + cx + d \in \mathbf Z_{\geq 0}[x]$ nonconstant with $d > 0$, such that $f(1)$ is a prime $p > 2$. Then $f$ is irreducible in $\mathbf Z[x]$.

Proof. Suppose $f = gh$ for $g,h \in \mathbf Z[x]$; we must show that $g \in \{\pm 1\}$ or $h \in \{\pm 1\}$.

First assume $\deg g > 0$ and $\deg h > 0$. Since $\deg f \leq 3$, without loss of generality we may assume $\deg g = 1$ and $m = \deg h \in \{1,2\}$; say \begin{align*} g = ux + v, & & h = \alpha x^2 + \beta x + \gamma , \end{align*} with $u > 0$ and $\alpha > 0$ or $\alpha = 0$ and $\beta > 0$. If $v \leq 0$, then $f$ has a nonnegative real root, which is impossible because $f$ has non-negative coefficients and $f(0) > 0$. Thus, $v > 0$, and therefore $g(1) \geq 2$, forcing $g(1) = p$ and $h(1) = 1$. By symmetry, this rules out the case $\deg h = 1$. Thus, we may assume $\alpha > 0$. The formulas \begin{align*} a = \alpha u, & & b = \beta u + \alpha v, & & c = \gamma u + \beta v, & & d = \gamma v \end{align*} give \begin{align*} \alpha > 0, & & \alpha v \geq -\beta u, & & \gamma u \geq -\beta v, & & \gamma > 0.\label{1}\tag{1} \end{align*} We will show that $h(1) \geq 2$, contradicting the earlier assertion that $h(1) = 1$. This is clear if $\beta \geq 0$, since we already have $\alpha > 0$ and $\gamma > 0$. If $\beta < 0$, then \eqref{1} shows $$\frac{\gamma}{-\beta} \geq \frac{v}{u} \geq \frac{-\beta}{\alpha} > 0,\label{2}\tag{2}$$ hence \begin{align*} h(1) = \alpha + \beta + \gamma &= \left(1 - \left(\frac{-\beta}{\alpha}\right) + \left(\frac{\gamma}{-\beta}\right)\left(\frac{-\beta}{\alpha}\right)\right)\alpha\\ &\geq \left(1 - \left(\frac{-\beta}{\alpha}\right) + \left(\frac{-\beta}{\alpha}\right)^2 \right)\alpha. \end{align*} The function $1-x+x^2$ attains a minimum of $\tfrac{3}{4}$ at $x = \tfrac{1}{2}$, and is bigger than $1$ on $(1,\infty)$. Thus, we only have to consider $x = \tfrac{-\beta}{\alpha} \in (0,1]$. For $x < 1$, we must have $\alpha \geq 2$, so $(1-x+x^2)\alpha \geq \tfrac{3}{2} > 1$. Finally, for $x = 1$, i.e. $\beta = -\alpha$, \eqref{2} shows that $v \geq u$. Since $p = v+u$ is odd, we must have $v > u$, so \eqref{2} gives $\gamma > -\beta$, so $h(1) = \gamma \geq 2$.

Thus, we conclude that $\deg g = 0$ or $\deg h = 0$; say $g = n$ for $n \in \mathbf Z_{>0}$ without loss of generality. If $n > 1$, then $n = p$, which is impossible since $f(0) = d \in \{1, \ldots, p-1\}$ is not divisible by $p$. So we conclude that $g = 1$. $\square$

Remark. The argument above relies crucially on the assumption $\deg f \leq 3$. More importantly, for higher degree polynomials the same result is false without a lower bound on $p$ that grows at least linearly in $\deg f$:

Example. Let $p$ be an odd prime. Then the polynomial $f = x^{2p-2} + x^{2p-4} + \ldots + x^2 + 1$ has $f(1) = p$, but it factors as $$\Big(x^{p-1}+x^{p-2}+\ldots+x+1\Big)\Big(x^{p-1}-x^{p-2}+\ldots-x+1\Big).$$ Indeed, the above reads $$\zeta_p(x^2) = \zeta_p(x)\zeta_{2p}(x) = \zeta_p(x)\zeta_p(-x),$$ which is true because both sides are monic and have the same roots in $\mathbf C$ (namely the $2p^\text{th}$ roots of unity except $\pm 1$, all with multiplicity $1$).

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

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

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