Understand Irreducibility in Zp: What is Zp^x? Order of Elements in Zp

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bachelier
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the irreducibility of the polynomial x^2 + 1 in the context of Zp, particularly regarding the existence of roots and the order of elements in Zp^x. It is clarified that Zp^x refers to the group of invertible elements in Zp under multiplication. The key point is that for x^2 + 1 to have a root in Zp, the prime p must be of the form 4k + 1; primes of the form 4k + 3 do not allow for such roots. Examples are provided using Z5 and Z7 to illustrate the orders of various elements and confirm the absence of elements of order 4 in Z7. The conversation concludes with a request for proof regarding the condition on p for the existence of roots of x^2 + 1.
Bachelier
Messages
375
Reaction score
0
I came across this while doing some research. Can someone help me understand this concept.

x^2+1 has a root in Zp, is equivalent to having an element of order 4 in Zp^x

First, what is Zp^x,
Second are we considering the order under the multiplicative operation. So in this case, if I consider Z5, then no element has order 4 yet x= 2, and x =3 are both solution for x^2+1 !

thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you mean \mathbb{Z}_{p}^{\times}? This is just the group of invertible elements of \mathbb{Z}_{p} under multiplication. So in \mathbb{Z}_{5}^{\times}, for instance, 2 has order 4 (since 2^4 = 1 mod 5, but 2^2 = 4 ≠ 1 mod 5.

As for the other statement, if x^2 + 1 = 0, then x^2 = -1, so x^4 = 1 but x^2 does not, so x has order 4. Conversely, if x has order 4, then x^4 = 1, so x^2 = 1 or -1, but x^2 ≠ 1 since x does not have order 2, hence x^2 = -1 and is a root of x^2 + 1.
 
for a prime p, Zp has two operations we can consider.

addition mod p
multiplication mod p.

it just so happens that Zp - {0} (this is what is meant by (Zp)x. for a general n, it means only the elements in Zn, co-prime to n, but with a prime, this is every non-zero element) also forms a group, under multiplication mod p.

thus we can speak of order, just as we can with any group.

for example, in (Z7)x (everything is mod 7)

1 has order 1.
22 = 4
23 = 1, 2 has order 3.

32= 2
33= 6
34= 4
35= 5
36= 1, 3 has order 6 (3 is a "primitive root", a generator)

similarly, 4 has order 3, 5 has order 6 (another "primitive root"), and 6 has order 2.

(Z7)x has no elements of order 4, which means we don't have any solutions of x2+1 = 0, which we can verify:

12+1 = 2
22+1 = 5
32+1 = 3
42+1 = 3
52+1 = 5
62+1 = 2

in fact, for Zp to have a root of x2+1, p must be a prime of the form 4k+1, for some positive integer k (none of the primes of the form 4k+3 will work).
 
Both Thank you so much.

Deveno, How do I prove your last result. For Zp to have a root of x2+1, p must be a prime of the form 4k+1, for some positive integer k (none of the primes of the form 4k+3 will work).
 
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 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
7K
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
10K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
829
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K