5

We have, $f(x)=x^n + a_{n-1}x^{n-1} + \cdots + a_0 \in \mathbb{Z}[x]$, with $\alpha_i\in\mathbb{C},\ 1\leq i\leq n$ being all the roots of $f(x)$. If we have $|\alpha_i|=1$, for every $i$, then $\alpha_i$ is a root of 1.

Edit: As discussed in comments, I seem to have interpreted the problem incorrectly the first time around.

Essentially, we have to show that ${\alpha_i}^k =1$, for some $k>n$.

Note: This question was posed after a class on Units, including Dirichlet's Unit Theorem.

So I need some hint to help me get to the answer

J. W. Tanner
  • 60,406
Naweed G. Seldon
  • 2,635
  • Are you supposed to show that $\alpha_j$ is an $n$th root of unity? That's not the same as just "root of unity". – David C. Ullrich Dec 25 '17 at 16:14
  • My bad, I'll edit the question to reflect the same. The question was framed using the word root of 1, instead of root of unity. I'll just write that – Naweed G. Seldon Dec 25 '17 at 16:15
  • 1
    It might be useful to notice that $f(x)\in\mathbb{Z}[x]$ and Newton's formulas imply that the power sum $$\alpha_1^k+\alpha_2^k+\ldots+\alpha_n^k$$ is an integer for every $k\in\mathbb{N}$. – Jack D'Aurizio Dec 25 '17 at 16:23
  • You missed my point. It looks like you're trying to show that $\alpha_j^n=1$. But that's not required by the problem as stated; you just have to show that $\alpha_j^k=1$ for some $k$. (The zeroes of $x^2+x+1$ are cube roots of $1$, not square roots...) – David C. Ullrich Dec 25 '17 at 16:23
  • Ah! Yes. I think I understand my folly. How do I approach this problem then? – Naweed G. Seldon Dec 25 '17 at 16:39
  • Consider that if $\alpha$ is a root, then $\overline{\alpha}=\alpha^{-1}$ is also a root, so your polynomial is a palindromic polynomial and the previous (integral) power sum is $(\pm 1)+2\cos(k\theta_1)+2\cos(k\theta_2)+\ldots$ – Jack D'Aurizio Dec 25 '17 at 16:49
  • These angles have to conspire pretty good to ensure such trigonometric sum is an integer number for every $k\in\mathbb{N}$. Assume that some angle is not a rational multiple of $\pi$ and try to derive a contradiction. – Jack D'Aurizio Dec 25 '17 at 16:50
  • No, you don't have to show what you said. You just have to show that $f$ divides $x^k-1$ for some $k$. (I'm not saying that that's how you should approach the problem, just that your "we have to show" isn't right.) – David C. Ullrich Dec 25 '17 at 16:52
  • @JackD'Aurizio Didn't understand the power sum part – Naweed G. Seldon Dec 25 '17 at 16:55
  • @junkquill: the power sums are integers due to Newton's identities. – Jack D'Aurizio Dec 25 '17 at 16:56
  • Linked. – Alex Ravsky Oct 23 '23 at 11:11

4 Answers4

7

Let us collect the comments into an answer. By Newton's identities the power sums $$ p(k) = \alpha_1^k+\ldots+\alpha_n^k $$ are integer numbers, and they belong to the $[-n,n]$ interval by the triangle inequality.

If $\alpha$ is a root of $f(x)$ then $\overline{\alpha}=\alpha^{-1}$ is also a root of $f(x)$ and by letting $\theta_i=\text{Arg}(\alpha_i)$ we have $$ \cos(k\theta_1)+\ldots+\cos(k\theta_n)\in [-n,n]\cap\mathbb{Z} $$ for any $k\in\mathbb{N}$. If all the angles $\theta_i$ are rational multiples of $\pi$ there is nothing to prove.
Let us assume that $\theta_1\not\in\pi\mathbb{Q}$. In such a case, by the Lindemann-Weierstrass theorem we have that $\cos(k\theta_1)$ is a trascendental number over $\mathbb{Q}$ for any $k\in\mathbb{N}^+$. On the other hand $p(k)$ may only take a finite number of values, so for some $j\in[-n,n]$ there are infinite $k\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $p(k)=j$. Additionally $\cos(k\theta)=T_k(\cos\theta)$, hence by elimination of variables we get that some algebraic combination (with coefficients in $\mathbb{Q}$) of $\cos(k_1\theta_1),\cos(k_2\theta_1),\ldots,\cos(k_M \theta_1)$ equals zero. This contradicts the fact that $\cos(\theta_1)$ is trascendental over $\mathbb{Q}$, proving the claim.

Dmoreno
  • 7,517
Jack D'Aurizio
  • 353,855
6

We may suppose that all $\alpha_j$ are distincts. Put $b_k=\alpha_1^k+...+\alpha_n^k$. Then the $b_k$ are in $\mathbb{Z}$, as noticed by @Jack d'Aurizio, and clearly $|b_k|\leq n$ for all $k$. Now writing that the $\alpha_j$ are roots of $f$, multiplying by $\alpha_j^k$ and summing, we get that $$b_{k+n}+a_{n-1}b_{k+n-1}+...+a_0b_k=0$$ for all $k$. Put $w_k=(b_k,b_{k+1},..,b_{k+n-1})$. By the above, the $w_k$ take only a finite number of values. Hence there exists $m$ and $h\geq 1$ such that $w_m=w_{m+h}$. This imply by the recurrence relation that we have $b_{k}=b_{k+h}$ for all $k\geq m$. Hence for all $k$ we have $$(\alpha_1^h-1)\alpha_1^m\alpha_1^k+...+(\alpha_n^h-1)\alpha_n^m\alpha_n^k=0$$

Writing this for $k=0,...,n-1$ gives a linear system in the unknowns $x_j=(\alpha_j^h-1)\alpha_1^m$, with for determinant a Van der Monde determinant, hence non zero as the $\alpha_j$ are distincts. This imply that the $x_j$ are all $0$, and it is easy to finish.

Kelenner
  • 18,734
  • 26
  • 36
  • (+1) I started writing my answer before you, and I finished later. We used similar ideas, but your proof is cleaner and more elementary. – Jack D'Aurizio Dec 25 '17 at 17:17
  • Probably I'm just being stupid again: Why may we suppose the $\alpha_j$ are distinct? – David C. Ullrich Dec 25 '17 at 17:23
  • @David C Ullrich We have only to show that the different values of the $\alpha_j$ are roots of unity, – Kelenner Dec 25 '17 at 17:26
  • ??? Say $n=3$, $\alpha_1\ne\alpha_2=\alpha_3$. Then yes of course we need only show that $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ are roots of unity. But how do we know that for example $\alpha_1^k+\alpha_2^k\in\mathbb Z$? – David C. Ullrich Dec 25 '17 at 17:34
  • Ok. Put $f=P_1^{n_1}...P_s^{n_s}$, with the $P_i$ are irreductible in $\mathbb{Z}[x]$, and distincts, and the $n_j$ integers $\geq 1$. Do you agreed that we may replace $f$ by $g=P_1...P_s\in \mathbb{Z}[x]$ ? – Kelenner Dec 25 '17 at 17:37
  • Yes, I can see that. – David C. Ullrich Dec 25 '17 at 17:54
  • But I confess I don't see why the complex roots of $P_1\dots P_s$ must be simple. Doubtless this is something very basic - I really don't know much algebra. – David C. Ullrich Dec 25 '17 at 18:04
  • As the $P_i$ are irreductibles, they have simple roots, and as the $P_i$ are distincts, they cannot have commun roots – Kelenner Dec 25 '17 at 18:22
  • So I conjectured. If they were irreducible in $\mathbb C[x]$ that would be clear even to me -- maybe even for $\mathbb R[x]$. Like I said, there must be some basic fact I don't know - why must the complex roots of a polynomial irreducible in $\mathbb Z[x]$ be simple? – David C. Ullrich Dec 25 '17 at 19:43
  • OH. I got the first assertion: If $P(\alpha)=0$ and $P$ is irreducible then $P$ must be the minimal polynomial for $\alpha$. Hence $P'(\alpha)\ne0$, since $\deg(P')<\deg(P)$. – David C. Ullrich Dec 25 '17 at 19:57
  • 1
    Oops. Since $\mathbb Z[x]$ is not a PID it's not clear what I mean by minimal polynomial. Ah - Gauss' Lemma: Irreducible in $\mathbb Z[x]$ implies irreducible in $\mathbb Q[x]$ - so I say what I said but for $\mathbb Q[x]$, fine. – David C. Ullrich Dec 25 '17 at 20:09
6

Let me reformulate your question for security : If $\alpha$ is an algebraic integer all of whose conjugates have absolute value $1$, then $\alpha$ is a root of unity. Right ? Let us consider all the powers $\alpha^k$ for $k\in \mathbf N$. Such a power $\alpha^k$ is an algebraic integer, whose irreducible polynomial $f_k \in \mathbf Z[X]$ has degree less than the degree $n$ of $\alpha$ over $\mathbf Q$. But these coefficients are symmetric functions of the conjugates of $\alpha^k$, hence by the hypothesis and the triangle inequality, they are bounded by bounds depending only on $n$. It follows that there are only a finite number of possible $f_k$'s when $k$ varies. Therefore there are only finitely many distinct powers of $\alpha$, hence, after simplification, one of these powers must be $1$ .

nguyen quang do
  • 14,578
5

For $k$ natural number consider the monic polynomial $f_k$ with the roots $\alpha_i^k$, $i=1, \ldots, n$. The coefficients of $f_k$ are integers (as integral polynomials in the coefficients of $f$) and bounded in absolute value ( $\le \binom{n}{ [\frac{n}{2}]}$ ), since all the $\alpha_i$ have absolute value $\le 1$. Therefore, there exist $0\le k < l $ so that $f_k=f_l$. This means that the roots of these polynomials are equal, that, is, there exists a permutation $\sigma$ of $\{1, \ldots, n\}$ such that $\alpha_i^k= \alpha_{\sigma(i)}^l$ for $i=1, \ldots, n$. From here we get $$\alpha_i^{km}= \alpha_{\sigma(i)}^{lm}$$ for all $m$, and hence, by induction on $t$ $$\alpha_i^{k^tm}= \alpha_{\sigma^t(i)}^{l^t m}$$ for all possible $i$, $m$, $t$. Take now $t>1$ so that $\sigma^t=1$. We get $$\alpha_i^{k^t}= \alpha_{i}^{l^t }$$

orangeskid
  • 53,909