Proving the Primality of a Polynomial over Finite Fields

Hello Kitty
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Let f = X^n + a_{n-1}X^{n-1} + \cdots + a_1X + a_o be a polynomial over \mathbb{F}_q for some prime power q such that the least common multiple of the (multiplicative) orders of its roots (in \mathbb{F}_{q^n}) is q^n -1. I would like to show that one of these roots has order q^n -1. (I.e. the polynomial is primitive.)

I realize that it is sufficient to show that it is irreducible since the orders of roots of irreducible polynomials are all the same.

I assume for contradiction that f= f_1 \cdots f_r, a product of \ge 2 (non-trivial) irreducible polynomials over \mathbb{F}_q. Let deg(f_i) = d_i, so d_1 + \cdots + d_r = n.

Now the roots of f_i lie in \mathbb{F}_{q^{d_i}} and so have order dividing q^{d_i} - 1.

If all of the d_i divide n then all the roots lie in \mathbb{F}_{q^{max(d_i)}} (noting the subfield theorem for finite fields) and hence all have order dividing q^{max(d_i)}-1 which is a contradiction. So we may assume that some d_i does not divide n. Does this imply that q^{d_i}-1 does not divide q^{n}-1? (Certainly the converse of this statement is true.) If it did, I'd be done.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I wonder why there's not much interest. Too hard, or boring maybe? Possibly I confused people with my erroneous statement:

If all of the d_i divide n then all the roots lie in \mathbb{F}_{q^{max(d_i)}} (noting the subfield theorem for finite fields) and hence all have order dividing : q^{max(d_i)}-1...

Anyway, just in case anyone is interested, I think I've solved it. It's easier than I thought:

Since the roots of f_i lie in \mathbb{F}_{q^{d_i}} and so have order dividing q^{d_i} - 1, the least common multiple of their orders divides the least common multiple of the q^{d_i} - 1. The latter clearly divides (q^{d_1} - 1)(q^{d_2} - 1) ... (q^{d_r} - 1), and so a sufficient condition for a contradiction would be that

(q^{d_1} - 1)(q^{d_2} - 1) ... (q^{d_r} - 1) < (q^{d_1+ d_2 + \cdots + d_r} - 1),

which is easy to verify.
 
##\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