| Marcos |
For which is is true that is expressible using only , , , and (only square roots)? Is there anything we can say about such an ? I've tried several approaches, none of which seem to lead to even an elimination of cases... Thanks, Marcos |
|||
| Sarah
Sarah |
Hello, I've had a rather vague think about this and haven't really got anywhere. In case you haven't tried these, though, I'll mention them: You can use the observation that if then and to express as a polynomial in . I don't see immediately how you would go on to find values of for which the polynomial has roots of the required form. One other thing that occurred to me was that there might be some sort of nifty algebraic manipulation you could do, multiplying things of the form by (or adding) so that you're left finding under what circumstances a polynomial has rational roots, which could be easier... again, a vague thought, but magic man Marcos might find a way. Love Sarah |
|||
| Demetres
Christofides |
This is quite difficult to show. It uses Galois theory (3rd year course in Cambridge). The answer is any number of the form 2n p1 ...pr where the pi are distinct Fermat primes. Note that this solves the problem of the constructibility of a reqular n-gon. I may try to give some hints later. (It is easier to show that no other number will do than to show that the above numbers have the property) Demetres |
|||
| Marcos |
Thanks Sarah and Demetres for your replies (Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, I was out of town). Sarah, it's nice to know we both used the same approach, I had basically attacked the problem as you suggested but I hadn't really got far... Demetres, in fact the reason I thought of this problem was to find which regular polygons are constructible. I hope there's a way that doesn't require Galois theory (although I'm gonna go read Dan Goodman's article again)... I'll go have a shot at it. Right now, I can only show that if p has the property then so does 2n p. Marcos |
|||
| Demetres
Christofides |
I will prove that if is constructible and is prime, then it must be a Fermat prime. (By constructible, I mean expressible using a finite number of algebraic operations, and extracting square roots. The proper definition is somewhat different but is in some sense equivalent.) The only proof I know of the converse, that if is a Fermat prime then is, requires a lot of Galois Theory so I'll omit it. By solving a quadratic equation, show that is constructible if and only if is. Note that and since , then . A basic step is to show that the polynomial is irreducible, i.e. it cannot be written as a product of two polynomials with integer coefficients and degree less than . Before proving this, I will explain where we are heading for. Suppose that a complex number is the zero of a polynomial with rational coefficients. Let be such a polynomial which is monic (i.e. leading coefficient 1) and of minimum degree. Show that is unique with these properties. is called the minimum/minimal polynomial of and the degree of is called the degree of . Examples
is irreducible. Suppose it is reducible, say where and . We now argue inductively: so without loss of generality, is a multiple of while is not. Then is a multiple of , hence so is . Continue inductively to show that is a multiple of , a contradiction. It remains to prove the main theorem, of course! Demetres |
|||
| Demetres
Christofides |
By the way, I've seen somewhere that ![]() I never checked if it's correct. There is a rumour of somebody trying to find an analogous expression for .Demetres |