4

I want to prove that $z=\frac{3}{5} + \frac{4}{5}i$ is not a root of unity, although its absolute value is 1.

When transformed to the geometric representation: $$z=\cos{\left(\arctan{\frac{4}{3}}\right)} + i\sin{\left(\arctan{\frac{4}{3}}\right)}$$ According to De Moivre's theorem, we get: $$z^n= \cos{\left(n\arctan{\frac{4}{3}}\right)} + i\sin{\left(n\arctan{\frac{4}{3}}\right)}$$

Now, if for $n\in \mathbb{N}: z^n=1$, then the imaginary part of the expression above must be zero, therefore:

$$\sin{\left(n\arctan{\frac{4}{3}}\right)}=0 \iff n\arctan{\frac{4}{3}} = k\pi, \ \ \ k \in \mathbb{N}$$

And we get that for $z$ to be a root of unity for some natural number $n$, $n$ must be in the form: $$n = \frac{k\pi}{\arctan{\frac{4}{3}}}, \ \ \ k \in \mathbb{N}$$

On the other hand, for $z^n=1$ it must be that:

$$\cos{\left(n\arctan{\frac{4}{3}}\right)} = 1 \iff n\arctan{\frac{4}{3}} = 2l\pi, \ \ \ l \in \mathbb{N}$$

and thus

$$n = \frac{2l\pi}{\arctan{\frac{4}{3}}}, \ \ \ l \in \mathbb{N}$$

By comparing those two forms of $n$, it must be the case that $k=2l$ and for $n$ to satisfy $z^n = 1$. What follows is that $n$ should be in the form

$$n = \frac{2l\pi}{\arctan{\frac{4}{3}}}, \ \ \ l \in \mathbb{N}$$

But, at the same time, $n$ must be a natural number. Should I prove now that such $n$ cannot even be a rational number, let alone a natural one? Or how should I approach finishing this proof?

Angie
  • 1,110
  • 10
  • 24

7 Answers7

4

You've reduced your problem to showing that $\arctan(4/3)$ is not a rational multiple of $\pi$. Take a look at Niven's theorem. (This is pretty much equivalent to your problem in difficulty - as far as I know the bulk of any proof that $\arctan(x)$ is not a rational multiple of $\pi$ for some specific rational $x$ can be generalized to all rational $x$ for which it is true.)

If you haven't seen this theorem before, and want to try to come up with a proof, I'll give you a hint: the key ingredients are Chebyshev polynomials and the rational root theorem.

  • Can the downvoter please comment on what I could do to improve this answer? – Carl Schildkraut Oct 14 '18 at 22:45
  • Both answers that mentioned Niven's Theorem have been downvoted. I was thinking that the downvoter preferred the rational root theorem, but you also mentioned that. My answer used that all rational algebraic integers are integers, which can also be proven using the rational root theorem. I am not sure why our answers were downvoted, and asking for clarification rarely gets an answer. – robjohn Oct 15 '18 at 03:17
  • @robjohn Eh, I thought it was worth a try. Lots of good, different answers to this question though! – Carl Schildkraut Oct 15 '18 at 03:38
2

$$z=\frac{3+4i}5=\frac{(1+2i)^2}5=\frac{1+2i}{1-2i}.$$ The ring $\Bbb Z[i]$ is a UFD and $1+2i$ and $1-2i$ are non-associate primes therein. So in $\Bbb Z[i]$, $(1+2i)^n$ is never divisible by $1-2i$ so that $$z^n=\frac{(1+2i)^n}{(1-2i)^n}$$ is always in lowest terms and cannot cancel to equal $1$.

Angina Seng
  • 158,341
1

From here, we know that

If $x$ is a rational multiple of $\pi$, then $2\cos(x)$ is an algebraic integer.

So if $x=\arctan(4/3)$ is a rational multiple of $\pi$, then $2\cos(x)=6/5$ is an algebraic integer, which is also a rational number, and hence an integer. This is a contradiction. Therefore $\frac{3+4i}5$ is not a root of unity.


Hope this helps.

awllower
  • 16,536
1

Since $\mathbf Z[i]$ is a UFD it is integrally closed (the rational roots theorem holds in $\mathbf Z[i][x]$). Therefore any root of some $x^n-1$ in $\mathbf Q(i)$ is in $\mathbf Z[i]$, so no number in $\mathbf Q(i)$ that is not in $\mathbf Z[i]$ could be a root of unity (integral over $\mathbf Z$ and thus also over $\mathbf Z[i]$).

KCd
  • 46,062
  • In fact we can completely eliminate use of UFD since here it is trivial to prove that the denominator $p = 2-i$ and numerator $\bar p$ are coprime (since their norm and trace are), and that's all we need for the proof of the Rational Root Test to work - see my answer. – Bill Dubuque Oct 14 '18 at 22:51
1

As is shown in this answer, Niven's theorem says that $\sin(\pi p/q)$ is rational only when $\sin(\pi p/q)\in\left\{-1,-\frac12,0,\frac12,1\right\}$. However, $\sin\left(\arg\left(\frac35+\frac45i\right)\right)=\frac45$, so we know that $\arg\left(\frac35+\frac45i\right)$ is not a rational multiple of $\pi$.

robjohn
  • 345,667
  • Is there some error in using Niven's Theorem here? The three answers that mention or even allude to using it have been downvoted. If there is something wrong with these answers, it would be nice to know. – robjohn Oct 15 '18 at 16:36
1

Here's a simple proof using only divisibility in Gaussian integers $\,\Bbb G = \Bbb Z[i] = \{ j\! +\! k\, i\, :\, j,k\in\Bbb Z\}.\,$
Here $\ b\mid a\ $ means $\,b\,$ divides $\,a\,$ in $\Bbb G,\,$ i.e. $\, bx=a\,$ for some $\,x\in \Bbb G,\,$ and $\,\overline{j\!+\!k\,i} = j\! -\! k\, i\,$

Let $\,p = 2\!-\!i\,$ and $\,a = \dfrac{3\!+\!4i}5 = \dfrac{\bar p\bar p}{p\bar p} = \dfrac{\bar p}p\,.\ $ Then $\ a^n = 1\,\Rightarrow\, p^n = \bar p^n\Rightarrow\,p\mid \bar p^n\,$ by $\,n>0.$

But $\ p\mid \color{#c00}{\bar px}\,\Rightarrow\, p\mid x.\ $ Proof $\,\ p\mid(p\!+\!\color{#c00}{\bar p})\color{#c00}x = 4x,\,\ p\mid p{\bar px} = 5x,\,\\ $ so $\,\ p\mid 5x\!-\!4x= x$

So $\ \ p\mid \bar p \bar p^{n-1}\Rightarrow\, p\mid \bar p^{n-1}\cdots\Rightarrow\, p\mid \bar p\cdot 1\,\Rightarrow\, p\mid 1,\,$ contra $\,\dfrac{1}p = \dfrac{\bar p}{\bar p p} = \dfrac{2\!+\!i}5 \not\in \Bbb G =\Bbb Z[i]$

Remark $\ $ More generally. RRT = Rational Root Test extends the above to show that $a$ is not the root of any monic polynomial $\in \Bbb G[x].\,$ In fact - just as for $\Bbb Z\,$ - RRT holds for all fractions over $\,\Bbb G\,$ because it enjoys a Euclidean division algorithm, so gcds exist, so the RRT proof still works.

Bill Dubuque
  • 272,048
0

Hint: Look at the real and imaginary parts of $(3+4i)^n$, mod 5.

If $(3+4i)^n$ never has real and imaginary parts a multiple of 5, then $\left(\dfrac{3+4i}5\right)\!^{\Large n}$ never has real and imaginary parts an integer. (For $n\ge2$, anyway.) In particular, it never equals $1$, and $\dfrac{3+4i}5$ is not a root of unity.