Basic Fundamentals...?

When x 9 x x^9 - x is factorized as completely as possible into polynomials and monomials with integral coefficients, how many factors are there?

3 8 5 9 7 2

This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and, finally, (c) loading the non-javascript version of this page . We're sorry about the hassle.

2 solutions

Mark Hennings
Aug 9, 2019

We can certainly write x 9 x = x ( x 1 ) ( x + 1 ) ( x 2 + 1 ) ( x 4 + 1 ) x^9 - x \; = \; x(x-1)(x+1)(x^2+1)(x^4+1) We need to know that x 2 + 1 x^2+1 and x 4 + 1 x^4+1 are irreducible over Z [ x ] \mathbb{Z}[x] . The first is easy, but it is simplest to use Eisenstein's Irreducibility Criterion to handle x 4 + 1 x^4 + 1 , and x 2 + 1 x^2+1 can be dealt with the the same manner. Since ( x + 1 ) 2 + 1 = x 2 + 2 x + 2 ( x + 1 ) 4 + 1 = x 4 + 4 x 3 + 6 x 2 + 4 x + 2 (x+1)^2 + 1 \; = \ x^2 + 2x + 2 \hspace{2cm} (x+1)^4 + 1 \; = \; x^4 + 4x^3 + 6x^2 + 4x + 2 and since 2 2 divides 2 , 4 , 6 2,4,6 , while 2 2 does not divide 1 1 and 4 = 2 2 4=2^2 does not divide 2 2 , we deduce that x 2 + 1 x^2 + 1 and x 4 + 1 x^4 + 1 are both irreducible over Z [ x ] \mathbb{Z}[x] . This makes the answer 5 \boxed{5} .

Recall that ( a 2 b 2 ) = ( a + b ) ( a b ) \left( a^2 - b^2 \right) = \left( a + b \right) \left( a - b \right) thus we have ( x 9 x ) = x ( x 8 1 ) = x ( x 4 + 1 ) ( x 4 1 ) \left( x^{9} - x \right) = x\left( x^{8} -1 \right) = x\left( x^{4} + 1 \right) \left( x^{4} - 1 \right) continuing, in a similar fashion, we have x ( x 4 + 1 ) ( x 2 + 1 ) ( x 2 1 ) = x ( x 4 + 1 ) ( x 2 + 1 ) ( x + 1 ) ( x 1 ) x\left( x^{4} + 1 \right) \left( x^{2} + 1 \right) \left( x^{2} - 1 \right) = x\left( x^{4} + 1 \right) \left( x^{2} + 1 \right) \left( x + 1 \right) \left( x - 1 \right) we observe there are 5 \boxed{5} factors.

... but you need to show that x 2 + 1 x^2+1 and x 4 + 1 x^4+1 cannot be factorised as well...

Mark Hennings - 1 year, 10 months ago

Hmm yes I see now. I'm not sure if I have the tools to do so, can you give me a suggestion on how to continue?

Callum Cassidy-Nolan - 1 year, 10 months ago

Log in to reply

Well, you could do it by hand...

If x 2 + 1 x^2+1 could be factorised over the integers, it would have to have a linear factor x + a x+a . But then a a would divide 1 1 , and hence a = ± 1 a=\pm1 . We can of course check that neither x + 1 x+1 nor x 1 x-1 are factors. That handles the case of x 2 + 1 x^2+1 ,

x 4 + 1 x^4+1 could be factorised over the integers, it would either have a linear factor, or be the product of two quadratics. Just as in the previous paragraph, we can argue that it cannot have a linear factor. Try writing x 4 + 1 x^4+1 as the product of two quadratics. Since there are no x 3 x^3 and x x terms, and since the constant term is 1 1 , these two quadratics would have to be x 2 + a x + u x^2 + ax + u and x 2 a x + u x^2 - ax + u for some a a , where u = ± 1 u = \pm1 . But then the coefficient of x 2 x^2 would have to be 0 = 2 u a 2 0 = 2u - a^2 , and this is not possible.

Eisenstein's Irreducibility Criterion says that if f ( x ) = a 0 + a 1 x + a 2 x 2 + + a n 1 x n 1 + a n x 2 f(x) = a_0 + a_1x + a_2x^2 + \cdots + a_{n-1}x^{n -1} + a_nx^2 is a polynomial with integer coefficients, and if p p is a prime number such that:

  • p p divides a 0 , a 1 , a 2 , . . . , a n 1 a_0,a_1,a_2,...,a_{n-1} ,
  • p p does not divide a n a_n ,
  • p 2 p^2 does not divide a 0 a_0 ,

then f ( x ) f(x) is irreducible over the integers. That is what I used.

Mark Hennings - 1 year, 10 months ago

0 pending reports

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...