5
$\begingroup$

Let $\zeta_n = e^{i2\pi/n}$. What is the group of all units in the integral cyclotomic ring $\mathbb{Z}[\zeta_n]$?

Here I like to know all the group elements for small $n$'s. For $n=1$ and $n=2$, the group is given by $\{1,-1\}$. For $n=3$, the group appears to be $\{\pm 1,\pm \zeta_3, \pm \zeta_3^2\}$. For $n=4$, the group is $\{\pm 1,\pm \zeta_4\}$. What are the groups for larger $n$?

$\endgroup$
10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Dirichlet's unit theorem tells you the structure of this group, but describing all the elements explicitly is not easy. See here though: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotomic_unit $\endgroup$
    – Wojowu
    Commented Jul 26, 2022 at 12:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Indeed, describing all the elements explicitly is not easy. So here I ask the results for small $n$'s. Cyclotomic units only give a subset of all units. Here I ask for all the units. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 26, 2022 at 12:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There are plenty of computer programs (Sage, Pari, Magma) which will spit out generating sets of the unit group, at least for small values of n. But there's no simple formula which will give generating sets for all n uniformly. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 26, 2022 at 13:00
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ You could try: lmfdb.org/NumberField, which is a database. If you scroll to the bottom you can enter the minimal polynomial and it will take you to the entry for that splitting field. This will have the generators for the units. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 26, 2022 at 13:18
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ The group of cyclotomic units has index $2^b h^+$ in the full group of units, where $h^+$ is the class number of $\mathbb{Q}(\zeta_n+\zeta_n^{-1})$ and $b=0$ if $n$ is a prime power and otherwise $b=2^{g-2}+1-g$ if $g \geq 2$ is the number of distinct primes dividing $n$. This is a theorem of Sinnott mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=485778 , see also Chapter 8.1 of Washington "Cylotomic Fields". Giving explicit non-cyclotomic units, or even computing $h^+$, is hard, See mathoverflow.net/questions/294410/… $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 26, 2022 at 16:59

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

As you suspect, identifying all the units in cyclotomic rings of order greater than $4$ is a non-trivial problem (I am ignoring order $6$ because, of course $\mathbb Z[\zeta_6]$ is the same as $\mathbb Z[\zeta_3]$, and similarly for all other orders twice an odd number.)

We can get just a taste of what is involved by considering order $5$, that is $\mathbb Z[\zeta_5]$ = $\mathbb Z[\zeta_{10}]$. Taking into account arithmetic inverses, we can identify a set of units given by $\zeta_{10}^k$ where $\zeta_{10}$ is any primitive tenth root of unity and $k$ is any integer. This gives a finite set of ten units.

But wait, there's more. If we add any complex conjugate pair, that is $\zeta_{10}^k+\zeta_{10}^{-k}$ for $k$ not a multiple of $5$, we will get a real sum having one of the forms

$\pm\tau,\pm(1/\tau)$

where $\tau=(1+\sqrt5)/2$ is the golden ratio (I am using an older notation here to avoid confusion with $\phi$ for the Euler totient function, which soon enters the discussion). And of course the presence of these reciprocal pairs implies that they are units, and so are their powers and products with the units derived from the tenth roots of unity. We are suddenly confronted with an infinite set all of whose elements must be units in $\mathbb Z[\zeta_5]$:

$\color{blue}{\zeta_{10}^k\tau^m}$

where $\zeta_{10}, k, \tau$ are defined above and $m$ is another integer independent of $k$.

If we plot these points on a two-dimensional complex plane, we see that they are actually a subset of the tenfold symmetric quasilattice (the set of all elements in this ring would appear as the entire quasilattice). As such, they cannot all appear at unit distance from the origin when rendered onto the paper. We need the parent lattice having $\phi(5)=4$ dimensions to see geometrically that these elements all have equal norms.

Might there be more points than even these? Since $\phi(5)=4$, or in geometric terms four dimensions are sufficient to render the true unit norms, the set described in blue above (products formed from the primitive roots and one additional generator) turns out to be all the units in $\mathbb Z[\zeta_5]$. Similarly we may construct four-dimensionally based sets using the roots of unity and one additional generator for $\mathbb Z[\zeta_8]$ and $\mathbb Z[\zeta_{12}]$ as $\phi(8)$ and $\phi(12)$ are also $4$ (again, $10$ is twice an odd number and thus $\mathbb Z[\zeta_{10}]$ is not a distinct ring). For $\mathbb Z[\zeta_{12}]$ the additional generator would actually be a complex number, as the real quasiperiodic ratio we might expect ($2+\sqrt3$) splits into two nonprimitive factors in the full cyclotomic field. We end with these:

$\mathbb Z[\zeta_5]: \zeta_{10}^k[(1+\sqrt5)/2]^m$

$\mathbb Z[\zeta_8]: \zeta_8^k(1+\sqrt2)^m$

$\mathbb Z[\zeta_{12}]: \zeta_{12}^k(1+\zeta_{12})^m$

But these are the only cases which are that simple. With other orders having higher Euler totient functions, we need more complex (and geometrically higher-dimensional) structures to capture all the units.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "Since $\phi(5) = 4$, [...] the set described in blue turns out to be all the units in $\mathbb{Z}[\zeta_5]$." This is a non sequitur. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 22, 2022 at 6:07
  • $\begingroup$ I made some modifications. Since the entire ring in these cases has to fit into a projected four-dimensional lattice, so do the units and I cannot find any more that do so than are now quoted. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 22, 2022 at 9:26
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You seem to leap straight from "I cannot find any more" to "no more exist". (As has already been pointed out, there exist computer programs which will compute generators of the unit group of $\mathbb{Z}[\zeta_N]$, for any given $N$, in a fraction of a second. So what exactly do you think this 'answer' adds?) $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 22, 2022 at 9:39
  • $\begingroup$ @OscarLanzi Are you saying computational number theory is not research? Or that previous work is no longer research? Neither is true, nor inappropriate for this site. $\endgroup$
    – Kimball
    Commented Aug 22, 2022 at 23:36

You must log in to answer this question.

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