We can treat polynomials with integer coefficients as polynomials modulo a prime , and factorize them modulo that prime. For example, the polynomial has no integer roots, but modulo 3 we can factorize it as . In this case, we say that the polynomial is reducible modulo 3. On the other hand, this polynomial is not reducible modulo 2. Note that a reducible polynomial might have no roots, for example, is reducible in the integers, but it has no integer roots.
Which of the following is true for the polynomial ?
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.
The key here is to notice that x 4 − 1 0 x 2 + 1 is the minimal polynomial of α = 2 + 3 over Q , which has four conjugates in Q ( 2 , 3 ) by Galois theory. Thus, it is irreducible. To examine the situation modulo primes, we note that α has degree 2 over all intermediate fields, which are Q ( 2 ) , Q ( 3 ) , Q ( 6 ) . Being an algebraic integer, its minimal polynomial over all of these fields has algebraic integer coefficients, therefore they can be reduced modulo primes. We may explicitly compute the factorizations as follows:
x 4 − 1 0 x 2 + 1 = ∏ ( x ± 2 ± 3 ) = ( x 2 − ( 2 + 3 ) 2 ) ( x 2 − ( 2 − 3 ) 2 ) = ( x 2 − 5 − 2 6 ) ( x 2 − 5 + 2 6 ) x 4 − 1 0 x 2 + 1 = ( ( x + 2 ) 2 − 3 ) ( ( x − 2 ) 2 − 3 ) x 4 − 1 0 x 2 + 1 = ( ( x + 3 ) 2 − 2 ) ( ( x − 3 ) 2 − 2 )
Now, the final observation is that modulo a prime, one of 2, 3 or 6 must be a quadratic residue. This follows from the multiplicativity of the quadratic character: if 2 and 3 are not residues, then χ ( 6 ) = χ ( 2 ) χ ( 3 ) = ( − 1 ) ( − 1 ) = 1 , so 6 is a residue. Therefore, at least one of these factorizations can be reduced modulo any prime, therefore our polynomial x 4 − 1 0 x 2 + 1 is reducible modulo every prime, whereas it is irreducible over Z .