MHB The equation has exactly m different solutions

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

Let $n=p^rm$, where $p$ is a prime, $m \in \mathbb{N}, r \geq 0$ an integer and $(p,m)=1$.
I have to show that the equation $x^n=1$ has exactly $m$ different roots in the algebraic closure $\overline{\mathbb{Z}}_p$ of $\mathbb{Z}_p$.

I have done the following:

In $\mathbb{Z}_p$ it stands that $x^p=x$.

So, we have that
$$x^{p^r}=(x^{p})^{p^r-1}=x^{p^r-1}=(x^p)^{p^r-2}=x^{p^r-2}= \dots =x^p=x$$

That means that $x^n=1 \Rightarrow x^{p^rm}=1 \Rightarrow (x^{p^r})^m=1 \Rightarrow x^m=1$

Is this correct?? Do we conclude from that, that the equation $x^n=1$ has exactly $m$ different roots in the algebraic closure $\overline{\mathbb{Z}}_p$ of $\mathbb{Z}_p$ ?? (Wondering)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You're on the right track, but all you've shown is for $x\in \mathbb{Z}_p$, $x^m=1$.
So let S be the collection of all $p^rm$ roots of unity in the algebraic closure. Clearly S is finite (it contains at most $p^rm$ elements). Then let $F$ be the field obtained by adjoining S to $\mathbb{Z}_p$. $F$ is then a finite extension of the base field and so is finite with a power of $p$ elements, say $p^s$. Assume $x\in F$ satisfies $x^{p^rm}=1$. Let $t$ be the multiplicative order of $x$. Then $t$ divides the order of the multiplicative group of $F$, namely $p^s-1$. So $t$ divides the gcd of $(p^rm,p^s-1)$, a divisor of m since $p$ is prime $p^s-1$. Thus $x^m=1$. Conversely, it is clear that $x^m=1$ implies $x^{p^rm}=1$. Since $m$ is prime to $p$, the derivative of $x^m-1$ is not 0 and so has no multiple roots. Since we started in the algebraic closure, there are exactly $m$ roots of this equation.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
688
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
801
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
739
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K