What Is the Symmetry Group of the Equation \( x^4 + a^2 = 0 \)?

zetafunction
Messages
371
Reaction score
0
my question is , given the Group G of symmetries for the equation

x^{4} + a^{2}=0

for some 'a' Real valued i see this equation is invariant under the changes

x \rightarrow -x

x \rightarrow ix

x \rightarrow -ix

x \rightarrow -x

x \rightarrow i^{1/2}x

x \rightarrow (-i)^{1/2}x

under this symmetries we can see that we ONLY can have imaginary roots, since from the symmetries above any complex number solution to x^{4} + a^{2}=0 should have an argument 4\phi = 2\pi this is deduced from the base that x^{4} + a^{2} is a real function for real 'x' , of course this example is TRIVIAL to prove to be true , but how about a more important case, could we deduce from my idea that ALL the roots of the function x^{-1}sinh(x)=0 are ALL imaginary numbers ?

given any Polynomial K(x) with the following properties

* K(x) have ONLY pure imaginary roots (A)

* degre of K(x) is a multiple of '4' (B)

could we proof by any REDUCIBILITY theorem (over Real numbers) that the irreducible factors of K(x) over the field R are or will be of the form (the best possible chance) x^{4} + (a_i)^{2} for some a_i ??

Another question is are conditions (A) and (B) equivalent ??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A few places where you're not quite right:

1) This equation is not invariant under the transformations x \mapsto \pm i^{ \frac{1}{2} } x since ( \pm i^{\frac{1}{2}} x )^4 = i^2 x^4 = -x, not x.

2) Do you mean that x^4 + a^2 = 0 as only pure imaginary roots? Because that's not true for a = 2, so your two *-ed conditions are certainly not equivalent.

3) No, even under those assumptions the irreducible factors do not have to be of that form. Consider for example (x-i)^4, or if you want one that doesn't split, (x^2 + 1)^2.
 
##\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