Proof of Roots of Unity: Solving a Missing Step

gonzo
Messages
277
Reaction score
0
I'm having trouble following one step in a proof I'm studying. I'm sure I'm missing something obvious, but I just can't get it to work out (it supposed to be "obvious" which is why they left out the details).

Anyway, it's part of a proof showing that if you have a monic polynomial with all integer coefficients and all the zeros have absolute value 1 then all the zeros are roots of unity.

So say we have our polynomial:

f(t)=(t-\alpha_1)...(t-\alpha_k)

A simple argument is then used to show that you can create new monic integer polynomials from this by raising the alpha's to powers. For example:

f_m(t)=(t-\alpha^m_1)...(t-\alpha^m_k)

Then it's easy to put a finite limit on the the absolute value of the coefficients, from which you get a finite set of inequalities which have a finite set of solutions, and then it is an easy leap to see that there must be two different of these "power polynomials" that are equal, for different m.

So far so good (rushing through the proof here). We then create a permutation function \pi so we end up with for m not equal to g:

\alpha^m_j = \alpha^g_{\pi (j)}

And then comes the next step that I don't really see. I think you only need the above, and not all the background. But my book claims that a simple induction argument gives you from the above that:

\alpha^{m^r}_j = \alpha^{g^r}_{\pi^r (j)}

And I just can't see how to get this. The rest of the proof is also easy. It's just this one step that is bugging me. So I would really appreciate an explanation. Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
nevermind, it was trivial. I just had a blind spot.
 
Lol I've had those before, It laster much longer and it was much more obvious though. It was proving the identity for cos(x-y) and I couldn't see why the angle between the y angle and x angle was x-y...took me 6 months to realize :D
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...
Back
Top