Tag Archives: integers

FLT for rational functions

Standard

Following is the problem 2.16 in The Math Problems Notebook:

Prove that if n>2, then we do not have any nontrivial solutions of the equation F^n + G^n = H^n where F,G,H are rational functions. Solutions of the form F = aJ, G=bJ, H=cJ where J is a rational function and a,b,c are complex numbers satisfying a^n + b^n = c^n, are called trivial.

This problem is analogous to the Fermat’s Last Theorem (FLT) which states that for n> 2, x^n + y^n = z^n has no nontrivial integer solutions.

The solution of this problem involves proof by contradiction:

Since any rational solution yields a complex polynomial solution, by clearing the denominators, it is sufficient to assume that (f,g,h) is a polynomial solution such that r=\max(\deg(f),\deg(g),\deg(h)) is minimal among all polynomial solutions, where r>0.

Assume also that f,g,h are relatively prime.  Hence we have f^n+g^n = h^n, i.e. f^n-h^n = g^n. Now using the simple factorization identity involving the roots of unity, we get:

\displaystyle{\prod_{\ell = 0}^{n-1}\left(f-\zeta^\ell h\right) = g^n}

where \zeta = e^{\frac{2\pi i}{n}} with i = \sqrt{-1}.

Since \gcd(f,g) = \gcd(f,h) = 1, we have \gcd(f-\zeta^\ell h, f-\zeta^k h)=1 for \ell\neq k. Since the ring of complex polynomials has unique facotrization property, we must have g = g_1\cdots g_{n-1}, where g_j are polynomials satisfying \boxed{g_\ell^n = f-\zeta^\ell h}.

Now consider the factors f-h, f-\zeta h, f-\zeta^2 h. Note that, since n>2, these elements belong to the 2-dimensional vector space generated by f,h over \mathbb{C}.  Hence these three elements are linearly dependent, i.e. there exists a vanishing linear combination with complex coefficients (not all zero) in these three elements. Thus there exist a_\ell\in\mathbb{C} so that a_0g_0^n + a_1g_1^n = a_2g_2^n. We then set h_\ell = \sqrt[n]{a_\ell}g_\ell, and observe that \boxed{h_0^n+h_1^n = h_2^n}.

Moreover, the polynomials \gcd(h_\ell,h_k)=1 for \ell \neq k and \max_{\ell}(h_\ell) = \max_{\ell} (g_\ell) < r since g_\ell^n \mid f^n-h^n. Thus contradicting the minimality of r, i.e. the minimal (degree) solution f,g,h didn’t exist. Hence no solution exists.

The above argument fails for proving the non-existence of integer solutions since two coprime integers don’t form a 2-dimensional vector space over \mathbb{C}.

Advertisements

Rational input, integer output

Standard

Consider the following polynomial equation [source: Berkeley Problems in Mathematics, problem 6.13.10]:

f(t) = 3t^3 + 10t^2 - 3t

Let’s try to figure out the rational values of t for which f(t) is an integer. Clearly, if t\in\mathbb{Z} then f(t) is an integer. So let’s consider the case when t=m/n where \gcd(m,n)=1 and m\neq \pm 1. Substituting this value of t we get:

\displaystyle{f\left(\frac{m}{n}\right) = \frac{3m^3}{n^3} + \frac{10m^2}{n^2} - \frac{3m}{n}= \frac{m(3m^2+10mn-3n^2)}{n^3}=k \in \mathbb{Z}}

Since, n^3\mid (3m^2+10mn-3n^2) we conclude that n\mid 3. Also it’s clear that m\mid k. Hence, n=\pm 3 and we just need to find the possible values of m.

For n=3 we get:

\displaystyle{f\left(\frac{m}{3}\right) =  \frac{m(m^2+10m-9)}{9}=k \in \mathbb{Z}}

Hence we have 9\mid (m^2+10m). Since \gcd(m,n)=\gcd(m,3)=1, we have 9\mid (m+10), that is, m\equiv 8\pmod 9.

Similarly, for m=-3 we get n\equiv 1 \pmod 9. Hence we conclude that the non-integer values of t which lead to integer output are:

\displaystyle{t = 3\ell+ \frac{8}{3}, -3\ell-\frac{1}{3}} for all \ell\in\mathbb{Z}

 

Polynomials and Commutativity

Standard

In high school, I came to know about the statement of the fundamental theorem of algebra:

Every polynomial of degree n with integer coefficients have exactly n complex roots (with appropriate multiplicity).

In high school, a polynomial = a polynomial in one variable. Then last year I learned 3 different proofs of the following statement of the fundamental theorem of algebra [involving, topology, complex analysis and Galois theory]:

Every non-zero, single-variable, degree n polynomial with complex coefficients has, counted with multiplicity, exactly n complex roots.

A more general statement about the number of roots of a polynomial in one variable is the Factor Theorem:

Let R be a commutative ring with identity and let p(x)\in R[x] be a polynomial with coefficients in R. The element a\in R is a root of p(x) if and only if (x-a) divides p(x).

A corollary of above theorem is that:

A polynomial f of degree n over a field F has at most n roots in F.

(In case you know undergraduate level algebra, recall that R[x] is a Principal Ideal Domain if and only if R is a field.)

The key fact that many times go unnoticed regarding the number of roots of a given polynomial (in one variable) is that the coefficients/solutions belong to a commutative ring (and \mathbb{C} is a field hence a commutative ring). The key step in the proof of all above theorems is the fact that the division algorithm holds only in some special commutative rings (like fields). I would like to illustrate my point with the following fact:

The equation X^2 + X + 1 has only 2 complex roots, namely \omega = \frac{-1+i\sqrt{3}}{2} and \omega^2 = \frac{-1-i\sqrt{3}}{2}. But if we want solutions over 2×2 matrices (non-commutative set) then we have at least  3 solutions (consider 1 as 2×2 identity matrix and 0 as the 2×2 zero matrix.)

\displaystyle{A=\begin{bmatrix} 0 & -1 \\1 & -1 \end{bmatrix}, B=\begin{bmatrix} \omega & 0 \\0 & \omega^2 \end{bmatrix}, C=\begin{bmatrix} \omega^2 & 0 \\0 & \omega \end{bmatrix}}

if we allow complex entries. This phenominona can also be illusttrated using a non-commutative number system, like quaternions. For more details refer to this Math.SE discussion.

Arithmetic Operations

Standard

There are only 4 binary operations which we call “arithmetic operations”. These are:

  • Addition (+)
  • Subtractions (-)
  • Multiplication (×)
  • Division (÷)

Reading this fact, an obvious question is:

Why only four out of the infinitely many possible binary operations are said to be arithmetical?

Before presenting my attempt to answer this question, I would like to remind you that these are the operations you were taught when you learnt about numbers i.e. arithmetic.

In high school when \sqrt{2} is introduced, we are told that real numbers are of two types: “rational” and “irrational”. Then in college when \sqrt{-1} is introduced, we should be told that complex numbers are of two types: “algebraic” and “transcendental“.

As I have commented before, there are various number systems. And for each number system we have some valid arithmetical operations leading to a valid algebraic structure. So, only these 4 operations are entitled to be arithmetic operations because only these operations lead to valid algebraic numbers when operated on algebraic numbers.

Now this leads to another obvious question:

Why so much concerned about algebraic numbers?

To answer this question, we will have to look into the motivation for construction of various number systems like integers, rational, irrationals, complex numbers… The construction of these number systems has been motivated by our need to be able to solve polynomials of various degree (linear, quadratic, cubic…). And the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra says:

Every polynomial with rational coefficients and of degree n in variable x has n solutions in  complex number system.

But, here is a catch. The number of complex numbers which can’t satisfy any polynomial (called transcendental numbers) is much more than the number of complex numbers which can satisfy a polynomial equation (called algebraic numbers). And we wish to find solutions of a polynomial equation (ie.e algebraic numbers) in terms of sum, difference, product, division or m^{th} root of rational numbers (since coefficients were rational numbers). Therefore, sum, difference, product and division are only 4 possible arithmetic operations.

My previous statement may lead to a doubt that:

Why taking m^{th} root isn’t an arithmetic operation?

This is because it isn’t a binary operation to start with, since we have fixed m. Also, taking m^{th} root is allowed because of the multiplication property.

CAUTION: The reverse of m^{th} root is multiplying a number with itself m times and it is obviously allowed. But, this doesn’t make the binary operation of taking exponents, \alpha^{\beta} where \alpha and \beta are algebraic numbers, an arithmetic operation. For example, 2^{\sqrt{2}} is transcendental (called Gelfond–Schneider constant or Hilbert number) even though 2 and \sqrt{2} are algebraic.

Rationals…

Standard

A few days ago I noticed some fascinating properties of so called rational numbers.

Natural Bias:

Our definition of a number being rational or irrational is very much biased. We implicitly assume our numbers to be in decimals (base 10), and then define rational numbers as those numbers which have terminating or recurring decimal representation.

But it is interesting to note that, for example, √5 is irrational in base-10 (non-terminating, non-repeating decimal representation) but if we consider “golden-ratio base“, √5 = 10.1, has terminated representation, just like rational number!!

Ability to complete themselves:

When we construct numbers following Peano’s Axioms we can “easily” create (set of) natural numbers (\mathbb{N}), and from them integers (\mathbb{Z}) and rational numbers (\mathbb{Q}). Notice that \mathbb{N} \subset \mathbb{Z} \subset \mathbb{Q}.

But it is comparatively difficult to create real numbers (\mathbb{R}) from rational numbers (\mathbb{Q}) although still we want to create a set from its subset. Notice that unlike previous cases, to create \mathbb{R} we will first have to create so-called irrational numbers (\overline{\mathbb{Q}}) from \mathbb{Q}. The challenge of creating the complementary set (\overline{\mathbb{Q}}) of a given set (\mathbb{Q}) using the given set (\mathbb{Q}) itself makes it difficult to create \mathbb{R} from \mathbb{Q} . We overcome this difficulty by using specialized techniques like Dedekind cut or Cauchy sequences (the process is called “completion of rational numbers”).