Monday, April 7, 2025

A generalization of the Eisenstein criterion

Recently, in the Zulip server for Lean users, somebody went with something that looked like homework, but managed to sting me a little bit.

It was about irreducibility of polynomials with integer coefficients. Specifically, the guy wanted a proof that the polynomial T410T2+1T^4-10 T^2+1 is irreducible, claiming that the Eisenstein criterion was not good at it.

What was to proven (this is what irreducible means) is that it is impossible to write that polynomial as the product of two polynomials with integer coefficients, except by writing T410T2+1T^4-10 T^2+1 as (1)(T410T2+1)(1)·(T^4-10 T^2+1) or as (1)(T4+10T21) (-1)·(-T^4+10 T^2-1).

This is both a complicated and a trivial question

Trivial because there are general bounds (initially due to Mignotte) for the integers that appear in any such factorization, and it could just be sufficient to try any possibility in the given range and conclude. Brute force, not very intelligent, but with a certain outcome.

Complicated because those computations would often be long, and there are many criteria in number theory to assert irreducibility.

One of the easiest criteria is the aforementioned Eisenstein criterion.

This criterion requires an auxiliary prime number, and I'll state it as an example, using another polynomial, say T410T2+2T ^ 4 - 10 T ^ 2 + 2. Here, one takes the prime number 2, and one observes that modulo 2, the polynomial is equal to T4T ^ 4, while the constant term, 2, is not divisible by 22=42^2=4. In that case, the criterion immediately asserts that the polynomial T410T2+2T^4-10T^2+2 is irreducible.

With all due respect to Eisenstein, I don't like that criterion too much, though, because it only applies in kind of exceptional situations. Still, it is often useful.

There is a classic case of application, by the way, of the Eisenstein criterion, namely the irreducibility of cyclotomic polynomials of prime index, for example, T4+T3+T2+T+1T^4+T^3+T^2+T+1 (for the prime number p=5p=5). But it is not visible that the criterion applies, and one needs to perform the change of variable T=X+1T = X+1.

I had noticed that in that case, it maybe interesting to generalize the Eisenstein criterion to avoid this change of variables. Indeed, for a monic polynomial ff in Z[T]\mathbf Z[T], a variant of the criterion states: take an integer aa and a prime number pp, and assume that :

  • f(T)(Ta)dmod  pf(T) \equiv (T-a)^d \mod p
  • f(a)f'(a) (derivative at aa) is not divisible by p2p^2.

Then ff is irreducible.

For the cyclotomic polynomial of index 55, f(T)=T4+T3+T2+T+1f(T) = T^4+T^3+T^2+T+1, still taking p=5p=5, one has f(T)(T1)4(mod5)f(T) \equiv (T-1)^4 \pmod5 and f(1)=45/2=10f'(1)=4·5/2=10 is not divisible by 52=255^2=25. Consequently, it is irreducible. And the same argument works for all cyclotomic polynomials of prime index.

The reason, that avoids any strange computation, is that f(T)=(T51)/(T1)f(T)=(T^5-1)/(T-1), which modulo 5 is (T1)4(T-1)^4 — by the divisibility of the binomial coefficients.

To go back to the initial example, T410T2+1T^4-10T^2+1, there are indeed no prime numbers with which the Eisenstein criterion can be applied. This is obvious in the standard form, because the constant coefficient is 1. But the variant doesn't help neither. The only prime it could seems to be 2, but its derivative at 1 is equal to 16-16, and is divisible by 4.

This is where a new variant of the criterion can be applied, this time with the prime number 3.

Theorem.Let qZ[T]q\in\mathbf Z[T] be a monic polynomial, let pp be a prime number such that qq is irreducible in Fp[T]\mathbf F_p[T]. Let fZ[T]f\in\mathbf Z[T] be a monic polynomial. Assume that fqdf\equiv q^d modulo pp, but that f≢0f\not\equiv 0 modulo q,p2\langle q, p^2\rangle. Then ff is irreducible in Z[T]\mathbf Z[T].

To see how this criterion applies, observe that modulo 3, one has f(T)T4+2T2+1=(T2+1)2(mod3)f(T)\equiv T^4+2T^2+1=(T^2+1)^2\pmod 3. So we are almost as in the initial criterion, but the polynomial TT is not T2+1T^2+1. The first thing that allows this criterion to apply is that T2+1T^2+1 is irreducible modulo 3. In this case, this is because 1-1 is not a square mod 3.

The criterion also requires of variant of the condition on the derivative — it holds because the polynomial is not zero modulo $\langle T^2+1, 9\rangle. Here, one has T410T2+1=(T2+1)212T2=(T2+1)212(T2+1)+12 T^4-10T^2+1=(T^2+1)^2-12T^2 = (T^2+1)^2-12(T^2+1)+12 hence it is equal to 3 modulo T2+1,9\langle T^2+1, 9\rangle.

And so we have an Eisenstein-type proof that the polynomial T410T2+1T^4-10T^2+1 is irreducible over the integers. CQFD!

I made the fun last a bit longer by formalizing the proof in Lean, first of the generalized criterion, and then of the particular example. It is not absolutely convincing yet, because Lean/Mathlib still lacks a bit of tools for handling explicit computations. And probably many parts can be streamlined. Still, it was a fun exercise to do.

The proof works in a more general context and gives the following theore:

Theorem. Let RR be an integral domain, let PP be a prime ideal of RR and let KK be the field of fractions of R/PR/P. Let qR[T]q\in R[T] be a monic polynomial such that qq is irreducible in K[T]K[T]. Let fR[T]f\in R[T] be a monic polynomial. Assume that fqdf\equiv q^d modulo PP, but that f≢0f\not\equiv 0 modulo q+P2\langle q\rangle + P^2. Then ff is irreducible in R[T]R[T].