12

Let $p$ be prime and let $\zeta_p$ be a primitive $p$th root of unity. Consider the quadratic subfield of $\mathbb{Q}(\zeta_p)$. For instance, for $p=5$ we get the quadratic subfield to be $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt5)$ obtained by the relation between the golden ratio and $\cos(2\pi/5)$ (the minimal polynomial of the golden ratio $\phi$ is $x^2-x-1$ and so the extension is quadratic).

Also $\cos(\pi/5)=\phi/2\implies \cos(2\pi/5)=\phi^2/2-1$ by double angle identity.

Is it true that in general the quadratic extension is $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{\pm p})$ where $\pm$ depends on whether $p$ is $1$ or $-1$ $\pmod 4$?

Please prove or disprove.

user70520
  • 2,315
  • 1
  • 19
  • 28
  • 5
    Dear user, I think that the $\sqrt{\pm 5}$ in your second last line should be a $\sqrt{\pm p}$. Also, the answer to your question is "yes, it is true". This is a very standard result, that you can find in many texts, e.g. Ireland and Rosen. Why do you want additional proofs? And at what level do you want them? (E.g. do you know enough algebraic number theory to follow a proof via discriminant calculations?) Regards, – Matt E Apr 30 '13 at 02:14
  • Thanks for catch it; yes I mean p instead of 5. :) – user70520 Apr 30 '13 at 02:37
  • My instructor for abstract algebra (Galois theory) briefly talked about this but he never gave a proof. I don't know if I have enough knowledge of algebraic number theory, but we did go over discriminant of polynomials during the course. Thank you. – user70520 Apr 30 '13 at 02:39
  • As a side: you might want to exclude the case $p=2$. Regards. – awllower Apr 30 '13 at 02:57

3 Answers3

13

Here is another approach, of a more algebraic number-theoretic nature.

A basic fact is that any finite extension $K$ of $\mathbb Q$ has an invariant attached to it, a number, called its discriminant. As the name suggests, it is related to discriminants of polynomials.

It is defined as follows: if $\alpha \in K$, we say $\alpha$ is an algebraic integer of $K$ if the minimal polynomial of $\alpha$ (i.e. the unique irreducible monic polynomial in $\mathbb Q(x)$ that has $\alpha$ as a root) has integer coefficients. (So e.g. $i$ is an algebraic integer in $\mathbb Q(i)$, but $i/2$ isn't. Algebraic integers are to $K$ as usual integers are to $\mathbb Q$.)

If $\alpha \in K$ is an algebraic integer, then the discriminant of its minimal polynomial is an integer, which we refer to as the discriminant of $\alpha$. We define the discriminant of $K$ to be the g.c.d of the discriminants of the $\alpha$, where $\alpha$ runs over all algebraic integers for which $K = \mathbb Q(\alpha)$. (If one wants to be subtle, one can include a sign in the discriminant, but I won't worry about that here, so everywhere that I talk about the discriminant of a polynomial, I should really be talking about its absolute value.)

E.g. if $\zeta_p$ is a $p$th root of $1$, so that $L := \mathbb Q(\zeta_p)$ is the $p$th cyclotomic field, then it turns out that the discriminant of $L$ is actually equal to the discriminant of $\zeta_p$, which is equal to $p^{p-2}$.

E.g. the discriminants of quadratic extensions of $\mathbb Q$ are easy to compute, and if $p$ is an odd prime, then there is a unique quadratic field whose discriminant is divisible by no prime but $p$, namely $\mathbb Q(\sqrt{\pm p})$, where the sign is chosen so that $\pm p \equiv 1 \bmod 4$. (And in fact the discriminant is then exactly equal to $p$.)

One property of discriminants is that if $K$ is a subfield of $L$, then the discriminant of $L$ is divisible by the discriminant of $K$ raised to the power of the degree $[L:K].$

Combining this fact with the preceding two examples, we see that if $K$ is a quadratic subfield of $\mathbb Q(\zeta_p)$, then its discriminant is divisible by only prime, namely $p$, and this uniquely determines $K$ to be $\mathbb Q(\sqrt{\pm p})$ (where $\pm p \equiv 1 \bmod 4$).

[If you know no algebraic number theory, this will seem like hocus-pocus; but in fact it doesn't take more than the most basic algebraic number theory to fill in all the details.]

Matt E
  • 123,735
  • And we can also say that the conductors of both the quadratic subfield in question and the cyclotomic field are the same, hence the containment. It then depends upon the knowledge of OP to justify these claims. In any case, thanks for the good answer. – awllower May 01 '13 at 09:05
  • @awllower: Dear awllower, Yes, but the theory of conductors for abelian extensions really only makes sense once you have CFT, whereas the theory of discriminants is elementary algebra, e.g. much easier than the fact that rings of algebraic integers are Dedekind domains, or the Galois theory of algebraic number fields (including ramification theory), not to mention finiteness of the class group or the unit theorem. It just involves the most basic facts about algebraic integers and determinants. This is why I posted this answer: because it is not the standard one, and uses much less ... – Matt E May 01 '13 at 11:14
  • ... than one might imagine. Regards, – Matt E May 01 '13 at 11:14
  • Good! I forgot that the theory of discriminants is so very elementary. I oft thought of it as difficult and arithmetical because of my poor understanding. Sorry for the misunderstanding caused by te foregoing comment. Regards. – awllower May 01 '13 at 11:22
  • @awllower: Dear awllower, There's no need to apologize! Best wishes, – Matt E May 01 '13 at 15:13
  • Why do you choose the sign so that $\pm p \equiv 1 \bmod 4$? – Pedro A. Castillejo Jun 29 '14 at 15:17
4

Hint. The quadratic Gauss sum $S=\sum_{i-1}^{p-1}\left(\frac{i}{p}\right)\zeta_p^i$ satisfies $S^2=\left(\frac{-1}{p}\right)p$, where $\left(\frac{a}{p}\right)$ is the Legendre symbol.

Warren Moore
  • 3,931
4

Below is a not-so-arithmetic proof. It can be found, for example, in this Outline article, and is not my original idea.

First determine explicitly the galois group of the $p$-th cyclotomic field. Then find its unique subgroup of index $2$.Hence compute the fixed field of that subgroup. You shall end up with the quadratic gauss sum as in the answer by Warren Moore. So the task is now reduced to showing the proposed equality. Now let the notations be as in the answer by Moore.

Then we evaluate the gauss sum. Write
$$S^2=\sum_{i=1}^{p-1}\sum_{j=1}^{p-1}\left(\dfrac{ij}{p}\right)\zeta_p^{i+j}=\sum_i\sum_{j\equiv ik\pmod p}\left(\dfrac{i^2k}{p}\right)\zeta_p^{i+ik}$$
$$=\sum_i\sum_k\left(\dfrac{k}{p}\right)\zeta_p^{i(1+k)}=\sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\left(\dfrac{k}{p}\right)\sum_i\zeta_p^{i(1+k)}$$.

When $p\not\mid(1+k)$, the latter sum is -1; else the sum is $p-1$. So the gauss sum turns out to be

$$-\sum_{k=1}^{p-2}\left(\dfrac{k}{p}\right)+\left(\dfrac{-1}{p}\right)(p-1)=-\sum_{i=1}^{p-1}\left(\dfrac{k}{p}\right)+\left(\dfrac{-1}{p}\right)p$$.

As a last step, show that the final sum becomes the desired result.

In addition, one could avail, either of the theory of ramifications, in algebraic number theory, or of the class field theory, to give different proofs. But I suppose that they are not so appropriate to your question, right?
In any case, hope you enjoy the proof.
Inform me of any errors, thanks in advance.

DonAntonio
  • 211,718
  • 17
  • 136
  • 287
awllower
  • 16,536
  • Of course some amount of arithmetics is involved, but, compared with class-field theory, or with ramifications, this appears to be quite algebraic. Regards. – awllower Apr 30 '13 at 17:28
  • How does this fit in with theory of Gaussian periods? If $g$ is a primitive root of $p$ and we set $z_{k} =\zeta_{p} ^{g^{k}}$ then the sum $S$ of your post should be equal to $$(z_{0}+z_{2}+z_{4}+\cdots +z_{p-3})-(z_{1}+z_{3}+\cdots +z_{p-2})$$ Both the expressions in parentheses above are Gaussian periods of $(p-1)/2$ terms and are the roots of a quadratic equation with rational coefficients and $S^{2}$ is the discriminant of this equation which turns out to $\pm p$. – Paramanand Singh Apr 29 '17 at 03:59
  • Sorry to bother with my previous comment. $z_{2i}$ corresponds to the power $g^{2i}$ so it corresponds to a quadratic residue modulo $p$ and $z_{2i-1}$ corresponds to non-residues and thus I can see that your sum $S$ is indeed the difference between two Gaussian periods I have mentioned in previous comment. I will have a deeper look at the computation of $S^2$. – Paramanand Singh Apr 29 '17 at 04:14
  • @ParamanandSingh Thanks for the complement. :) – awllower Apr 29 '17 at 10:42