Proving the Primality of a Polynomial over Finite Fields

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Hello Kitty
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Polynomial Primitive
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the primality of a polynomial f = X^n + a_{n-1}X^{n-1} + ... + a_1X + a_0 over the finite field \mathbb{F}_q. It establishes that if the least common multiple of the orders of its roots in \mathbb{F}_{q^n} equals q^n - 1, then at least one root must have this order, confirming the polynomial's primitiveness. The key argument hinges on the irreducibility of f, with the conclusion that if f can be expressed as a product of irreducible polynomials, a contradiction arises regarding the orders of their roots.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of finite fields, specifically \mathbb{F}_q and \mathbb{F}_{q^n}
  • Knowledge of irreducible polynomials and their properties
  • Familiarity with the concept of orders of elements in finite fields
  • Basic grasp of the subfield theorem for finite fields
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of irreducible polynomials over finite fields
  • Learn about the structure of finite fields and their extensions
  • Explore the concept of primitive elements and their significance in field theory
  • Investigate the implications of the subfield theorem in polynomial factorization
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, algebraists, and computer scientists focused on number theory, particularly those researching polynomial properties in finite fields and their applications in cryptography and coding theory.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K