2

I need to prove that the roots $\in \Bbb R$ of $x^3+x+1=0$ aren't rational. Obviously, it's easy to use the rational root theorem to prove that there are not rational solutions to this equation, but i want a different approach. I saw a similar question here, but it didn't provide my "solution".

My try

$x^3+x+1=0$

$x^3+x=-1$

$x(x^2+1)=-1$

Here we have two options (product of two numbers to obtain a negative):

$1.$ $x \gt 0$ $∧$ $x^2+1 \lt 0$ (not possible in $\Bbb R)$

$2.$ $x \lt 0$ $∧$ $x^2+1 \gt 0$

So, we use $2.$ to prove that $x \ne 0$, then:

$x(x^2+1)=-1$

$x^2+1=\frac{-1}{x}$

$x^2=\frac{-1}{x}-1$

$x^2=-(\frac{x+1}{x})$

$x=\pm \sqrt {-(\frac{x+1}{x})}$

Then, $\frac{x+1}{x} \ge 0$ because $x \lt 0$ (the equality occurs when $x=-1$, but this doesn't satisfy the original polynomial equation) but here i'm missing the cases $-1 \lt x \lt 0$ (i don't know how to use this to prove that the root is irrational)

This implies that $2$ of the roots are complex, but there are $3$ roots to a third degree polynomial equation.

And here i'm stuck, because i don't know how to prove that the last solution is irrational.

Any hints?

Is there anyway to prove that the last root is irrational?

Is my proof good so far?

Trobeli
  • 3,242
  • 1
    I clearly established that "I saw a similar question here, but it didn't provide my "solution"." – Trobeli Mar 08 '19 at 01:52
  • Your proof has narrowed down the possible range of values which can contain a rational root. However, to finish it off, without using the RRT, I believe you will need to use a technique like given in answers to the listed duplicate question. – John Omielan Mar 08 '19 at 02:05
  • @ChinnapparajR None of the answers in the proposed dupe give the sought proof without RRT since they all essentially repeat the well-known RRT proof in this special case. – Bill Dubuque Mar 08 '19 at 02:24
  • If you know linear algebra, I believe you can do this by showing the companion matrix of your polynomial has no rational eigenvector – Ethan Alwaise Mar 08 '19 at 02:55
  • @EthanAlwaise is it eigenvalue or eigenvector? Can you elaborate? – Kushal Bhuyan Mar 08 '19 at 03:21
  • Please add the tag elementary-number-theory – Bill Dubuque Mar 08 '19 at 03:55
  • I am not sure but is it not the practice of MSE to mark the newer question as the duplicate of a newer one @BillDubuque? –  Mar 08 '19 at 04:39
  • @user170039 It is in fact done many times. Here it is a good idea in order to hope that the question will receive more exposure, since the old question has no correct answer (all answers there do use the standard proof of RRT). The question touches on fundamental notions in divisor theory (e.g. almost integral elements) so it deserves to have insightful answers. – Bill Dubuque Mar 08 '19 at 14:12

3 Answers3

3

It suffices to show any rational root $w$ is an integer $\,n,\,$ by $\,1 = -n(n^2\!+\!1)\,\Rightarrow\, n\mid 1\,$ so $\,n = \pm1,\,$ contradiction. Suppose $\,w = c/d\in\Bbb Q.\,$ Note $d^2$ is a common denominator for all elements $r$ in the ring $\,R = \Bbb Z[w] = \{ a_o + a_1 w + a_2 w^2\ :\ a_i\in\Bbb Z\}.\,$ Thus $\,R\subseteq \Bbb Z/d^2,\,$ i.e. $\,r \in R\,\Rightarrow\,r = n/d^2\,$ for $\,n\in\Bbb Z.\,$ If $\,\color{#c00}{r\not\in\Bbb Z}\,$ then wlog we may assume $\,0 < r < 1\,$ by taking its fractional part - which lies in $\,R\,$ and is nonintegral iff $r$ is. Then $\,r\in \{ 1/d^2,\, 2/d^2,\ldots,(d^2\!-\!1)/d^2\}.\,$ If $r$ is the smallest element of $R$ in this set then $r^2$ is an even smaller such element, since $\,1 > r > r^2 > 0,\,$ contra minimality of $\,r.\,$ Therefore $\,\color{#c00}{r\in\Bbb Z}.$

Bill Dubuque
  • 272,048
1

Gotta hand it to Bill Dubuque.

Having said this:

Before I read Bill's enlightening answer, and in attempting to steer clear of RRT territory as much as possible, I argued as follows:

As we have seen, with

$x^3 + x + 1 = 0, \tag 1$

and

$x = \dfrac{p}{q}, \; p, q \in \Bbb Z, \; \gcd(p,q) = 1, \tag 2$

we have

$\dfrac{p^3}{q^3} + \dfrac{p}{q}+ 1 = 0; \tag 3$

which as has been seen leads directly to (upon multiplication by $q^3$)

$p^3 + pq^2 + q^3 = 0; \tag 4$

since $\gcd(p, q) = 1$ we may find $a, b \in \Bbb Z$ such that

$ap + bq = 1; \tag 5$

we multiply by $p^2$:

$ap^3 + bqp^2 = p^2; \tag 6$

from (4),

$q \mid p^3; \tag 7$

then from (6),

$q \mid p^2; \tag 8$

again from (5), this time multiplying by $p$,

$ap^2 + bpq = p; \tag 9$

thus

$q \mid p; \tag{10}$

so again by virtue of $\gcd(p, q) = 1$:

$q = \pm 1, \tag{11}$

then

$p^3 + p \pm 1 = 0, \tag{12}$

whence

$p(p^2 + 1) = \pm 1; \tag{13}$

well,

$p = -1, 0, 1 \tag{14}$

don't solve (13), and if

$\vert p \vert \ge 2, \tag{15}$

then

$p^2 + 1 \ge 5,\tag{16}$

which rules out $p$ as in (15). Thus (13) has no integer roots, and hence (1) has no rational roots.

Robert Lewis
  • 71,180
  • 1
    That's exactly the standard RRT proof in this special case (combined with an inlined Bezout-based proof of Euclid's Lemma to deduce $,q\mid p^3,\Rightarrow, q\mid p)\ \ $ – Bill Dubuque Mar 08 '19 at 03:43
  • @BillDubuque: why am I not surprised? – Robert Lewis Mar 08 '19 at 03:44
  • 2
    If you enjoy Bezout-based proofs, you might enjoy this way, which reduces the degree, e.g. reduces irrationality of cube roots to that of square roots. It can be applied here (and for any degree). – Bill Dubuque Mar 08 '19 at 04:19
0

If $x$ is real then $-1 = x(x^2+1) $ so $x = \frac{-1}{x^2+1} $ so $-1 < x < 0$.

If $x = -c/d$ with $(c, d) = 1$, then $\frac{c}{d} = \frac{1}{(c/d)^2+1} =\frac{d^2}{c^2+d^2} $ or $c(c^2+d^2) = d^3$.

If a prime $p$ divides $c$, then $p | d^3$ so $p | d$, which contradicts $(c, d) = 1$.

Therefore $c = 1$, so $1+d^2 = d^3$ or $1 =d^3-d^2 =d^2(d-1) $ which can not hold since it is false for $d = 1$ and $d^2(d-1) > 1$ for $d \ge 2$.

Therefore, there is no rational root.

marty cohen
  • 107,799
  • 1
    This essentitally repeats the standard proof of RRT in this special case, so it is not really "without RRT" – Bill Dubuque Mar 08 '19 at 03:29
  • 1
    Yep. But I did not use it, and probably any proof at this level is equivalent. I was inspired by your proof. – marty cohen Mar 08 '19 at 03:30
  • 2
    Every proof will essentially depend on the division algorithm (or higher level consequences such as gcds or FTA=UFD). But some disguise it more (e.g. in my answer it is hidden in taking the fractional part of a fraction) – Bill Dubuque Mar 08 '19 at 03:35