Is x^6-2x^3-1 Irreducible Over Q?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter T-O7
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on determining the irreducibility of the polynomial x^6-2x^3-1 over the rational numbers Q. Participants explore various methods, including Eisenstein's criterion and reductions modulo different primes, to assess the polynomial's properties.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that Eisenstein's criterion does not apply since there is no prime p such that p divides -1.
  • Another participant suggests reducing the polynomial modulo 3, leading to a new polynomial x^6+x^3+2, which they initially believe to be irreducible in Z_2[x].
  • A participant expresses uncertainty about how to show that the polynomial cannot factor into cubic terms over F3, indicating a lack of familiarity with irreducible cubic polynomials in that field.
  • Another participant mentions that there are only 18 candidates for monic irreducible polynomials of degree 3 over F3, and discusses strategies for narrowing down candidates based on constant terms.
  • A later reply confirms that after further analysis, the polynomial x^6+x^3+2 is indeed irreducible over F3, leading to the conclusion that the original polynomial is irreducible over Q.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the irreducibility of the original polynomial until the final post, where one participant claims it is irreducible over Q after confirming the irreducibility over F3.

Contextual Notes

The discussion involves various assumptions about polynomial factorization and the properties of irreducible polynomials in different fields, which may not be fully resolved or universally agreed upon.

T-O7
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Hi,
I need to figure out whether or not the polynomial
[tex]x^6-2x^3-1[/tex]
is irreducible (over Q).
I don't think Eisenstein works in this case, and performing modulo 2 on this i get [tex]x^6-1[/tex]
which is reducible over F2.
Any ideas? Incidently, if i let y=x^3, then i get
[tex]y^2-2y -1[/tex]
which is irreducible over Q...but I'm not sure if that means anything about the original polynomial.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sure enough, Eisenstein doesn't work as there is no prime [tex]p[/tex] such that [tex]p\mid -1[/tex]. However if you reduce modulo 3, you get (i hope)
[tex]x^6-[2]x^3-[1] = x^6+[-2]x^3+[-1] = x^6+x^3+[2][/tex] and this polynomial in [tex]Z_2[x][/tex] seems to be irreducible (at a first try I couldn't factor it in 2 polynomials of smaller degree, but you can try yourself). So if that polynomial is irreducible in [tex]Z_2[x][/tex] then [tex]x^6-2x^3-1[/tex] is irreducible in [tex]Q[x][/tex].
 
Hmm..okay. I was hoping I wouldn't have to resort to brute force hehe
OK, so I have shown that the polynomial [tex]x^6+x^3+2[/tex] has no linear or quadratic factors over F3, but how did you show it can't factor into cubic terms? I don't really know the irreducible cubic polynomials over F3, and it seems like there might be quite a few of them?
 
T-O7 said:
I don't really know the irreducible cubic polynomials over F3, and it seems like there might be quite a few of them?

It won't be horrid, there are only 18 candidates for monic irreducibles of degree 3 (constant term must be non-zero), 10 of them will have roots. Trial division by the remaining 8 will be tedious though. Actually you can cut this down quite a lot, if you check that none of the monic irreducibles with constant term 2 divide your polynomial, then you know none with constant term 1 do (do you see why?).

Sorry, I don't have anything quicker to offer.
 
Yes, great, thanks for the tip. After a little tedious work, it turns out that it is irreducible over F3, so my original polynomial was irreducible over Q. Yay, thanks a lot :biggrin:
 

Similar threads

Replies
48
Views
7K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K