7.

Some irreducible polynomials

7.1 Irreducibles over a finite field

7.2 Worked examples
Linear factors x − α of a polynomial P (x) with coefficients in a field k correspond precisely to roots α ∈ k
of the equation P (x) = 0. This follows from unique factorization in the ring k[x]. [1] Here we also look
at some special higher-degree polynomials, over finite fields, where we useful structural interpretation of the
polynomials. [2]
Here we take for granted the existence of an algebraic closure k of a given field, as a fixed universe in which
to consider roots of polynomial equations.

1. Irreducibles over a finite field

[1.0.1] Proposition: Let (non-constant) M (x) be an irreducible in k[x], with field k. Let I be the ideal
generated in k[x] by M (x). Let α be the image of x in the field K = k[x]/I. Then α is a root of the equation
M (x) = 0. [3]

Proof: The salient aspects of the ring structure in the quotient can be summarized by the point that the
quotient map k[x] −→ k[x]/I is a ring homomorphism, in fact, a k-algebra homomorphism. Thus, for any
polynomial f ,
f (x) + I = f (x + I)
In particular,
M (x + I) = M (x) + I = I = 0 + I
which shows that x + I is a root of the equations. ///
[1] And this unique factorization follows from the Euclidean-ness of the polynomial ring.

[2] All these are cyclotomic polynomials, that is, divisors of xn − 1 for some n. A systematic investigation of these

polynomials is best done with a little more preparation. But they do provide accessible examples immediately.
[3] This is immediate, when one looks at the proof, but deserves complete explicitness.

107
108 Some irreducible polynomials

[1.0.2] Proposition: [4] Let P (x) be a polynomial in k[x] for a field k. The equation P (x) = 0 has a
root α generating [5] a degree d extension K of k if and only if P (x) has a degree d irreducible factor f (x)
in k[x].

Proof: Let α be a root of P (x) = 0 generating a degree d extension [6] k(α) = k[α] over k. Let M (x) be
the minimal polynomial for α over k. Let

P =Q·M +R

in k[x] with deg R < deg M . Then, evaluating these polynomials at α, R(α) = 0, but the minimality of the
degree of M with this property assures that R = 0. That is, M divides P .
On the other hand, for an irreducible (monic, without loss of generality) M (x) dividing P (x), the quotient
K = k[x]/hM (x)i is a field containing (a canonical copy of) k, and the image α of x in that extension is a
root of M (x) = 0. Letting P = Q · M ,

P (α) = Q(α) · M (α) = Q(α) · 0 = 0

showing that P (x) = 0 has root α. ///

The first two examples use only the correspondence between linear factors and roots in the ground field.

[1.0.3] Example: x2 + 1 is irreducible over k = Z/p for any prime p = 3 mod 4.

Indeed, if x2 + 1 had a linear factor then the equation x2 + 1 = 0 would have a root α in k. This alleged
root would have the property that α2 = −1. Thus, α 6= 1, α 6= −1, but α4 = 1. That is, the order of α in
k × is 4. But the order of (Z/p)× is p − 1. The hypothesis p = 3 mod 4 was exactly designed to deny the
existence of an element of order 4 in (Z/p)× . Thus, x2 + 1 is irreducible in such k[x].

[1.0.4] Example: x2 + x + 1 is irreducible over k = Z/p for any prime p = 2 mod 3.

If x2 + x + 1 had a linear factor then x2 + x + 1 = 0 would have a root α in k, and, since

x3 − 1 = (x − 1)(x2 + x + 1)

α3 = 1 but α 6= 1 since 1 + 1 + 1 6= 0 in k. That is, the order of α in k × is 3. But the order of (Z/p)× is
p − 1, and the hypothesis p = 2 mod 3 exactly precludes any element of order 3 in (Z/p)× . Thus, x2 + x + 1
is irreducible in such k[x].

[1.0.5] Example: P (x) = x4 + x3 + x2 + x + 1 is irreducible over k = Z/p for prime p 6= ±1 mod 5 and
p 6= 5. Note that
x5 − 1 = (x − 1)(x4 + x3 + x2 + x + 1)
Thus, any root of P (x) = 0 has order [7] 5 or 1 (in whatever field it lies). The only element of order 1 is
the identity element 1. If P (x) had a linear factor in k[x], then P (x) = 0 would have a root in k. Since
[4] This assertion should not be surprising, when one looks at the technique of the proof, which is nearly identical

to the proof that linear factors correspond to roots in the base field.
[5] As earlier, the field extension k(α) generated by α makes sense only inside a fixed larger field. Throughout the

present discussion we fix an algebraic closure of any ground field k and consider extensions inside that algebraic
closure.
[6] Since the degree of the extension is finite, it is equal to polynomials in α over k, as we saw earlier.

[7] By Lagrange.
 Garrett: Abstract Algebra 109

1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 6= 0 in k, 1 is not a root, so any possible root must have order 5. [8] But the order of
k × = (Z/p)× is p − 1, which is not divisible by 5, so there is no root in the base field k.
If P (x) had an irreducible quadratic factor q(x) in k[x], then P (x) = 0 would have a root in a quadratic
extension K of k. Since [K : k] = 2, the field K has p2 elements, and

K × = p2 − 1 = (p − 1)(p + 1)

By Lagrange, the order of any element of K × is a divisor of p2 − 1, but 5 does not divide p2 − 1, so there is
no element in K of order 5. That is, there is no quadratic irreducible factor.
By additivity of degrees in products, lack of factors up to half the degree of a polynomial assures that the
polynomial is irreducible. Thus, since the quartic x4 + x3 + x2 + x + 1 has no linear or quadratic factors, it
is irreducible.

[1.0.6] Example: P (x) = x6 + x5 + x4 + x3 + x2 + x + 1 is irreducible over k = Z/p for prime p = 3 mod 7

or p = 5 mod 7.

Note that
x7 − 1 = (x − 1)(x6 + x5 + x4 + x3 + x2 + x + 1)
Thus, any root of P (x) = 0 has order 7 or 1 (in whatever field it lies). The only element of order 1 is
the identity element 1. If P (x) had a linear factor in k[x], then P (x) = 0 would have a root in k. Since
1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 6= 0 in k, 1 is not a root, so any possible root must have order 7. But the order of
k × = (Z/p)× is p − 1, which is not divisible by 7, so there is no root in the base field k.
If P (x) had an irreducible quadratic factor q(x) in k[x], then P (x) = 0 would have a root in a quadratic
extension K of k. Since [K : k] = 2, the field K has p2 elements, and

|K × | = p2 − 1 = (p − 1)(p + 1)

By Lagrange, the order of any element of K × is a divisor of p2 −1, but 7 divides neither 32 −1 = 8 = 1 mod 7
nor 52 − 1 = 24 = 3 mod 7, so there is no element in K of order 7. That is, there is no quadratic irreducible
factor.
If P (x) had an irreducible cubic factor q(x) in k[x], then P (x) = 0 would have a root in a cubic extension K
of k. Since [K : k] = 3, the field K has p3 elements, and

|K × | = p3 − 1

By Lagrange, the order of any element of K × is a divisor of p3 −1, but 7 divides neither 33 −1 = 26 = 5 mod 7
nor 53 − 1 = −8 = −1 mod 7, so there is no element in K of order 7. That is, there is no cubic irreducible
factor.

By additivity of degrees in products, lack of factors up to half the degree of a polynomial assures that the
polynomial is irreducible. Thus, since the sextic x6 + x5 + x4 + x3 + x2 + x + 1 has no linear, quadratic, or
cubic factors, it is irreducible.

[1.0.7] Example: P (x) = (x11 − 1)/(x − 1) is irreducible over k = Z/p for prime p of order 10
(multiplicatively) mod 11. That is, modulo p = 2, 6, 7, 8 mod 11 this polynomial is irreducible. [9]
[8] The only other positive divisor of 5, thinking of Lagrange.

[9] By this point, one might have guessed that the irreducibility will be assured by taking primes p such that pd =
6 1
for d < 10. The fact that there are such primes can be verified in an ad hoc fashion by simply looking for them, and
Dirichlet’s theorem on primes in arithmetic progressions assures that there are infinitely many such. The presence of
primitive roots 2, 6, 7, 8 (that is, generators for the cyclic group (Z/11)× ) modulo 11 is yet another issue, when we
replace 11 by a different prime.
110 Some irreducible polynomials

Again, any root of P (x) = 0 has order 11 or 1 (in whatever field it lies). The only element of order 1 is the
identity element 1. If P (x) had a linear factor in k[x], then P (x) = 0 would have a root in k. Since 11 6= 0
in k, 1 is not a root, so any possible root must have order 11. But the order of k × = (Z/p)× is p − 1, which
is not divisible by 11, so there is no root in the base field k.

If P (x) had an irreducible degree d factor q(x) in k[x], then P (x) = 0 would have a root in a degree d
extension K of k. The field K has pd elements, so

|K × | = pd − 1

By Lagrange, the order of any element of K × is a divisor of pd − 1, but 11 divides none of p − 1, p2 − 1,

p3 − 1, p4 − 1, . . ., p9 − 1, by design.

2. Worked examples
[7.1] (Lagrange interpolation) Let α1 , . . . , αn be distinct elements in a field k, and let β1 , . . . , βn be any
elements of k. Prove that there is a unique polynomial P (x) of degree < n in k[x] such that, for all indices i,

P (αi ) = βi

Indeed, letting
n
Y
Q(x) = (x − αi )
i=1

show that
n
X Q(x)
P (x) = · βi
i=1
(x − αi ) · Q0 (αi )

Since the αi are distinct, Y

Q0 (αi ) = (αi − αj ) 6= 0
j6=i

(One could say more about purely algebraic notions of derivative, but maybe not just now.) Evaluating
P (x) at x −→ αi , 
Q(x) 1 (for j = i)
evaluated at x −→ αi =
(x − αj ) 0 (for j = i)
Thus, all terms but the ith vanish in the sum, and the ith one, by design, gives βi . For uniqueness, suppose
R(x) were another polynomial of degree < n taking the same values at n distinct points αi as does Q(x).
Then Q − R is of degree < n and vanishes at n points. A non-zero degree ` polynomial has at most ` zeros,
so it must be that Q − R is the 0 polynomial.

[7.2] (Simple case of partial fractions) Let α1 , . . . , αn be distinct elements in a field k. Let R(x) be any
polynomial in k[x] of degree < n. Show that there exist unique constants ci ∈ k such that in the field of
rational functions k(x)
R(x) c1 cn
= + ... +
(x − α1 ) . . . (x − αn ) x − α1 x − αn
In particular, let
n
Y
Q(x) = (x − αi )
i=1

and show that

R(αi )
ci =
Q0 (αi )
 Garrett: Abstract Algebra 111

We might emphasize that the field of rational functions k(x) is most precisely the field of fractions of the
polynomial ring k[x]. Thus, in particular, equality r/s = r0 /s0 is exactly equivalent to the equality rs0 = r0 s
(as in elementary school). Thus, to test whether or not the indicated expression performs as claimed, we
test whether or not
X  R(αi ) Q(x) 
R(x) = ·
i
Q0 (αi ) x − αi

One might notice that this is the previous problem, in case βi = R(αi ), so its correctness is just a special
case of that, as is the uniqueness (since deg R < n).

[7.3] Show that the ideal I generated in Z[x] by x2 + 1 and 5 is not maximal.
We will show that the quotient is not a field, which implies (by the standard result proven above) that the
ideal is not maximal (proper).
First, let us make absolutely clear that the quotient of a ring R by an ideal I = Rx + Ry generated by two
elements can be expressed as a two-step quotient, namely

(R/hxi)/hȳi ≈ R/(Rx + Ry)

where the hȳi is the principal ideal generated by the image ȳ of y in the quotient R/hxi. The principal ideal
generated by y in the quotient R/hxi is the set of cosets

hȳi = {(r + Rx) · (y + Rx) : r ∈ R} = {ry + Rx : r ∈ R}

noting that the multiplication of cosets in the quotient ring is not just the element-wise multiplication of the
cosets. With this explication, the natural map is

r + hxi = r + hxi −→ r + hxi + hyi0 = r + (Rx + Rx)

which is visibly the same as taking the quotient in a single step.

Thus, first
Z[x]/h5i ≈ (Z/5)[x]
by the map which reduces the coefficients of a polynomial modulo 5. In (Z/5)[x], the polynomial x2 + 1 does
factor, as
x2 + 1 = (x − 2)(x + 2)
(where these 2s are in Z/5, not in Z). Thus, the quotient (Z/5)[x]/hx2 + 1i has proper zero divisors x̄ − 2
and x̄ + 2, where x̄ is the image of x in the quotient. Thus, it’s not even an integral domain, much less a
field.

[7.4] Show that the ideal I generated in Z[x] by x2 + x + 1 and 7 is not maximal.
As in the previous problem, we compute the quotient in two steps. First,

Z[x]/h7i ≈ (Z/7)[x]
by the map which reduces the coefficients of a polynomial modulo 7. In (Z/7)[x], the polynomial x2 + x + 1
does factor, as
x2 + x + 1 = (x − 2)(x − 4)
(where 2 and 4 are in Z/7). Thus, the quotient (Z/7)[x]/hx2 + x + 1i has proper zero divisors x̄ − 2 and
x̄ − 4, where x̄ is the image of x in the quotient. Thus, it’s not even an integral domain, so certainly not a
field.
112 Some irreducible polynomials

Exercises
7.[2.0.1] Show that x2 + x + 1 is irreducible in F5 [x], and in F29 [x].
7.[2.0.2] Show that x3 − a is irreducible in F7 [x] unless a = 0 or ±1.
7.[2.0.3] Determine how x5 + 1 factors into irreducibles in F2 [x].
7.[2.0.4] Exhibit an irreducible quintic in F11 [x].
7.[2.0.5] Show that the ideal generated by x2 − x + 1 and 13 in Z[x] is not maximal.
7.[2.0.6] Show that the ideal generated by x2 − x + 1 and 17 in Z[x] is maximal.
7.[2.0.7] Let α1 , . . . , αn be distinct elements of a field k not of characteristic 2. Show that there are
elements a1 , b1 , . . . , an , bn in k such that

1 a1 b1 an bn
= + + ... + +
(x − α1 )2 . . . (x − αn )2 x − α1 (x − α1 ) 2 x − αn (x − αn )2