5

Clearly, none of the roots are in $\mathbb{Q}$ so $f(x) = x^4 + 1$ does not have any linear factors. Thus, the only thing left to check is to show that $f(x)$ cannot reduce to two quadratic factors.

My proposed solution was to state that $f(x) = x^4 + 1 = (x^2 + i)(x^2 - i)$ but $\pm i \not\in \mathbb{Q}$ so $f(x)$ is irreducible.

However, I stumbled across this post $x^4 + 1$ reducible over $\mathbb{R}$... is this possible? with a comment suggesting that $x^4 + 1 = (x^2 + \sqrt{2}x + 1)(x^2 - \sqrt{2}x + 1)$ which turns out to be a case that I did not fully consider. It made me realize that $\mathbb{Q}[x]$ being a UFD only guarantees a unique factorization of irreducible elements in $\mathbb{Q}[x]$ (which $x^2 \pm i$ nor $x^2 \pm \sqrt{2} x + 1$ aren't in $\mathbb{Q}[x]$) so checking a single combination of quadratic products is not sufficient.

Therefore, what is the ideal method for checking that $x^4 + 1$ cannot be reduced to a product of two quadratic polynomials in $\mathbb{Q}[x]$? Am I forced to just brute force check solutions of $x^4 + 1 = (x^2 + ax + b)(x^2 + cx + d)$ don't have rational solutions $(a,b,c,d) \in \mathbb{Q}^4$?

Sil
  • 16,612
mathlover314
  • 619
  • 3
  • 8
  • The only non-trivial irreducibles over $\mathbb R$ are quadratics ($\mathbb C$ is the only finite extension). – lulu Jan 02 '23 at 23:13
  • @lulu The question seems to be about $\mathbb Q$ ? – lisyarus Jan 02 '23 at 23:16
  • 2
    @lisyarus Yes, but the OP expressed some surprise that this particular quartic was reducible over $\mathbb R$. I'm just pointing out that all quartics with real coefficients are reducible over $\mathbb R$ (as are all polynomials over $\mathbb R$ with degree $>2$). – lulu Jan 02 '23 at 23:18
  • @lulu Oh, I see, thanks. – lisyarus Jan 02 '23 at 23:21
  • To the question, we know that the roots come in conjugate pairs and we know that $i$ is a root, so one of the monic quadratic factors must be $x^2+1$. The rest follows quickly. – lulu Jan 02 '23 at 23:22
  • @lulu +1 That is really interesting... I did not know all real polynomials with degree > 2 are reducible. Of course, complex roots come in pairs so if the degree is odd, we must have a real root so that is a trivial statement. Why aren't we allowed to have a real polynomial of degree > 2 with only complex roots? – mathlover314 Jan 02 '23 at 23:24
  • You can. $x^4+1$ is a real polynomial with degree $>1$ with only complex roots. They still come in conjugate pairs though. – lulu Jan 02 '23 at 23:25
  • 1
    @lulu Ahh I see now. You are allowed to have only complex roots but those "linear conjugates factors" together become a real polynomial I presume. – mathlover314 Jan 02 '23 at 23:26
  • 1
    In this case you can also use Cohn's irreducibility criterion since $f(2)=17$ is a prime. – Sil Jan 03 '23 at 15:32
  • You may also use the standard irreducibility criteria for $x^n-a$. Here $n=4,a=-1$ and $-1$ is neither a square in $\mathbb{Q} $ nor of the form $-4c^4$ for any rational $c $. – Paramanand Singh Jan 07 '23 at 08:35

7 Answers7

5

I'd say it's easiest to use Eisenstein's criterion after a shift, although this might be a sledgehammer. $$(x+k)^4 + 1 = x^4 + 4k x^3+6k^2 x^2 + 4k^3 x + k^4 +1$$ So we want a prime $p$ dividing each of $\{4k, 6k^2, 4k^3, k^4 + 1\}$ but $p^2$ not dividing $k^4 + 1$. That looks easy enough: let $p = 2$ and $k = 1$.


(If you want to use a lot more theory and make the test a little simpler, note that the discriminant of $x^4+1$ is $256$, whose only prime factor is $2$, so in fact $p=2$ is the only prime that could possibly work. I used to understand why this was true, but I no longer do; it's something to do with theorem 1.3 in https://kconrad.math.uconn.edu/blurbs/gradnumthy/disc.pdf . I believe it may be possible to use this theory to show that $p=2$ does work without finding $k$, but that's far beyond my pay grade.)

  • Here is a question, how come we are able to "shift" a polynomial and still be able to conclude its irreducible via Eisenstein's criterion? – An Isomorphic Teen Jan 02 '23 at 23:25
  • 1
    $(x+1)^4 + 1 = Q(x)R(x)$ iff $x^4 + 1 = Q(x-1) R(x-1)$. – Patrick Stevens Jan 02 '23 at 23:27
  • 1
    Wow, this is extremely insightful and interesting. – mathlover314 Jan 02 '23 at 23:31
  • I don't know about "insightful", but it's certainly a way to wield a lot of fairly powerful theory in one short sentence :P – Patrick Stevens Jan 02 '23 at 23:34
  • I've been using Eisenstein a lot to demonstrate the irreducibility of so many rational polynomials and it is great to see that this Criterion works for these types of polynomials as well! – mathlover314 Jan 02 '23 at 23:38
  • 3
    Something to keep in mind is that if there is going to be an Eisenstein translate $f(x+c)$ for some integer $c$ and some prime $p$, there are only finitely many possible $p$ (they must all divide the discriminant of $f$), so getting irreducibility by using the Eisenstein criterion is something of an "accident" if it works. Contrast this with using the reduction mod $p$ test: if $f(x) \bmod p$ is irreducible for even one prime $p$, then it is irreducible for infinitely many $p$, so the reduction mod $p$ test is kind of robust. – KCd Jan 03 '23 at 00:56
  • 1
    @KCd Thanks for the comment. This example is particularly interesting to me because $x^4 + 1$ is reducible in $\mathbb{F}_p[x]$ for all prime $p$. – mathlover314 Jan 03 '23 at 03:35
5

There is no such thing as an ideal method. Abandon the dream that there should be some kind of technique that "always works" unless you just want to find a general algorithm that works all the time, like the Berlekamp–Zassenhaus algorithm for $\mathbf Z[T]$.

In practice, for monics in $\mathbf Z[T]$, reduction mod $p$ is the simplest technique to use (with a computer), since if it works at all then it works for infinitely many $p$. Of course just one $p$ is enough, if that method works, but knowing there are either no such $p$ or a lot of them makes this technique feel more robust.

There are reasons involving algebraic number theory that reduction mod $p$ need not work at all for some polynomials (it's related to the structure of the Galois group of the polynomial). See here for an example of a quartic in $\mathbf Z[T]$ that is irreducible over $\mathbf Q$ but it is reducible mod $p$ for all $p$ and it has no Eisenstein translate: $T^4 - 10T^2 + 1$. The method used there to prove irreducibility over $\mathbf Q$ is (i) show there's no linear factor by the rational roots test and (ii) show there is no quadratic factor by finding all monic quadratic factorizations in the larger ring $\mathbf R[T]$ and showing none live in $\mathbf Q[T]$: if there were a quadratic irreducible factorization in $\mathbf Q[T]$ then it would have to be a quadratic factorization in $\mathbf R[T]$.

A final observation: if a monic in $\mathbf Z[T]$ is reducible in $\mathbf Q[T]$ with two factors of degree $d$ and $d'$, then it is a product of monics in $\mathbf Z[T]$ with degrees $d$ and $d'$. Therefore the "brute force check" that you mention at the end of your post has a serious omission: you only need to consider $a, b, c, d \in \mathbf Z$.

KCd
  • 46,062
3

A general method: assume that $f\in \Bbb{Q}[x]$ monic of degree $1$ or $2$ divides $x^4+1$. The roots of $x^4+1$ have absolute value $\le 1$ whence so do the roots of $f$.

Gauss lemma: $f\in \Bbb{Z}[x]$

  • If $\deg(f)=1$ then it must be that $f\in \{x,x+1,x-1\}$. Well no it doesn't divide $x^4+1$

  • If $\deg(f)=2$ then it must be that $f=(x-a)(x-b)=x^2+cx+d$ with $|d|\le 1, |c|\le 2$. Only $15$ polynomials to try, you can check that none of them divide $x^4+1$.

Therefore $x^4+1$ is irreducible.

reuns
  • 77,999
2

Alternative approach:

My proposed solution was to state that $f(x) = x^4 + 1 = (x^2 + i)(x^2 - i)$ but $\pm i \not\in \mathbb{Q}$ so $f(x)$ is irreducible.

This isn't quite valid. Even when neither of the two 2nd degree polynomials given by
$[(x - r_1) \times (x - r_2)], ~[(x - r_3) \times (x - r_4)]$ are polynomials in $~\mathbb{Q}[x],~$
it is still possible that the 2nd degree polynomials given by
$~[(x - r_1) \times (x - r_3)]~$ and $~[(x - r_2) \times (x - r_4)]~$ are polynomials in $~\mathbb{Q}[x].$

To me, it is unclear what the intent of the problem composer is. If he intended that brute force be avoided, then my response (below) is not what the composer intended.

Alternatively, if the composer was merely testing your understanding of the basic idea that a 4th degree polynomial in $~\Bbb{Q}[x]~$ would be irreducible, and assuming that you had not been exposed to deeper theory (re the answer of Patrick Stevens), the brute force approach is not that bad.

Using the variable $~z,~$ instead of $~x,~$ to denote a complex root, note that the $4$ roots of $z^4 = 1$ are given by the set of values $\{1,i,-1,-i\} = \{e^{i(0)}, e^{i\pi/2}, e^{i\pi}, e^{3i\pi/2}\}.$

Further, one of the roots of $z^4 = -1$ is given by $z = e^{i\pi/4}$.

Therefore, the $4$ roots of $z^4 = -1$ are given by
$\{e^{i\pi/4}, e^{3i\pi/4}, e^{5i\pi/4}, e^{7i\pi/4} \}.$

In order for the polynomial $[(z-r_1) \times (z - r_2)]$ to be an element in $\Bbb{Q}[x]$, you need both of the following:

  • $[r_1 + r_2]$ must be an element in $\Bbb{Q}$.

  • $[r_1 \times r_2]$ must be an element in $\Bbb{Q}$.

Consider (for example) attempting to combine $e^{i\pi/4}$ with any of the other three roots.

  • $\displaystyle \left[e^{i\pi/4} + e^{3i\pi/4}\right] = [2i\sin\pi/4] \not\in \Bbb{Q}$.

  • $\displaystyle \left[e^{i\pi/4} \times e^{5i\pi/4}\right] = [e^{3i\pi/2}] \not\in \Bbb{Q}$.

  • $\displaystyle \left[e^{i\pi/4} + e^{7i\pi/4}\right] = [2\cos\pi/4] \not\in \Bbb{Q}$.

This makes it game over.

user2661923
  • 35,619
  • 3
  • 17
  • 39
  • Thank you! I am currently studying for an entrance exam and I needed more tools in my toolbox to (1) better understand the theory and (2) minimize time and error while solving these problems during the actual examination. – mathlover314 Jan 03 '23 at 01:01
  • 2
    @mathlover314 do you mean an entrance exam to a graduate math program? To be honest, in an exam I do not think it is realistic to expect any irreducibility problem about polynomials with integral coefficients to need anything other than reduction mod $p$ or Eisenstein if the degree is bigger than 3. In fact, since you would not have access to a computer for factoring mod $p$, I'll say that the only irreducibility test that you should expect to need to apply on an exam is the Eisenstein criterion (with a shift, such as for $f(x+c)$ instead of $f(x)$), because that can be checked by hand! – KCd Jan 03 '23 at 04:03
2

You can indeed try a factorization of the form

$x^4+1=(x^2+ax+b)(x^2+cx+d).$

Expanding the right side and matching terms with like powers gives

$x^3$ terms: $a+c=0,c=-a$

$x^2$ terms: $ac+b+d=0,b+d=a^2$

$x^1$ terms: $ad+bc=a(d-b)=0,a=0$ or $d=b$

The case $a=0$ leads to $(x^2+i)(x^2-i)$ which fails to lie in $\mathbb Q[x]$. So we try $d=b$, which then means $d=b=a^2/2$ from the matching of $x^2$ terms. Then matching the $x^0$ terms gives:

$x^0$ terms: $bd=b^2=1.$

Then $b=a^2/2=\pm1$ and neither choice of the $\pm$ sign allows a rational value for $a$. In fact only $b=+1,a=\pm\sqrt2$ admits a quadratic-quadratic factorization even over the reals.

Oscar Lanzi
  • 39,403
1

The only non-trivial decomposition over $\mathbb{R}$ of $x^4+1$ is $x^4 + 1 = (x^2 + \sqrt{2} x + 1)(x^2 - \sqrt{2} x + 1)$. Since $\mathbb{Q} \subset \mathbb{R}$, if there is a non-trivial decomposition over $\mathbb{Q}$, it's gotta be the above. However, $\sqrt{2} \not\in \mathbb{Q}$.

orangeskid
  • 53,909
0

Clearly, $x+a$, $a\in\Bbb{Z}$ can not be a factor since then $a^4=-1$. On the other hand, $x^2+ax+b$, $a,b\in\Bbb{Z}$ can not be a factor since its roots are $\frac{a\pm\sqrt{a^2-4b}}{2}$ and these roots can not be roots of unity wheras the roots of $x^4+1=0$ are root of unity. Because taking modulus, we see that $b=1$. But, then also considering the argument of the roots $\frac{\sqrt{4-a^2}}{a}=\pm1$ gives $a=\sqrt2$.

Bob Dobbs
  • 10,988