arxiv: v1 [math.nt] 4 Jun 2018

Transcription

1 On the orbit of a post-critically finite polynomial of the form x d +c arxiv: v1 [math.nt] 4 Jun 2018 Vefa Goksel Department of Mathematics University of Wisconsin Madison, WI 53706, USA goksel@math.wisc.edu Abstract In this paper, we study the critical orbit of a post-critically finite polynomial of the form f (x) = x d +c C[x]. We discover that in many cases the orbit elements satisfy some strong arithmetic properties. It is well known that the c values for which f has tail size m and period n are the roots of a polynomial G d (m,n) Z[x], and the irreducibility or not of G d (m,n) has been a great mystery. As a consequence of our work, we establish the irreducibility of these G d (m,n) polynomials for infinitely many triples (d,m,n). We also prove that all the iterates of f are irreducible over Q(c) if d is a prime and f has a fixed point in its post-critical orbit. 1 Introduction Let f(x) C[x] be a polynomial of degree at least 2. We denote by f n (x) the nth iterate of f(x). Given a C, one fundamental object in dynamics is the orbit O a (f) = {f(a),f 2 (a),...} of a under f. When this orbit is finite for all critical points of f, we call f postcritically finite (PCF). In this paper, we study a special case, namely the PCF polynomials of the form f (x) = x d +c C[x] for d 2. 0 is the unique critical point of f. Suppose f is PCF, i.e., there exist m,n Z with m n and f m (0) = fm+n (0). We say f has exact type (m,n) if f m (0) = f m+n (0) and f k (0) f k+n (0) for any k < m. When m 0, a number c 0 for which f c0,d has exact period (m,n) is called a Misiurewicz point with period (m,n). It is known that Misiurewicz points with period (m,n) are the roots of 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary 11R09, 37P15 Key words and phrases: Misiurewicz point, post-critically finite, rigid divisibility sequence 1

2 2 V.Goksel a monic polynomial G d (m,n) Z[x]. In particular, c 0 is always an algebraic integer. ([6], Corollary 3.4). To explain how the polynomial G d (m,n) is defined, we will follow the notation in ([6]): Let Φ f,n (x) = (f k (x) x) µ(n/k) k n be the standard dynatomic polynomial, and define the generalized dynatomic polynomial Φ f,m,n by Φ f,m,n (x) = Φ f,n (fm (x)) Φ f,n (fm 1 (x)). Then, the polynomial G d (m,n) is defined by G d (m,n) = { Φ f,m,n (0) Φ f,0,n (0)d 1 Φ f,m,n if m 0 and n (m 1) (0) otherwise. Having defined the polynomials G d (m,n), it would be natural to ask: Which triples (d,m,n) make G d (m,n) irreducible? For instance, it has been widely believed that in the special case d = 2, m = 0, G 2 (0,n) would always be irreducible, although proving this appears to be a quite difficult problem. To the author s knowledge, there is not a single infinite family of (d,m,n) for which G d (m,n) was proven to be irreducible. In this direction, the following corollary to our main theorems gives the first such infinite families of (d,m,n). Corollary 1.1. G d (m,n) is irreducible in the following cases: (i) m 0, n = 1, d is any prime. (ii) m 0, n = 2, d = 2. Before giving the next corollary to our main theorems, we recall a definition from the theory of polynomial iteration: Let F be a field, and f(x) F[x] be a polynomial over F. We say that f is stable over F if f n (x) is irreducible over F for all n 1. Corollary 1.2. Let d be a prime, and suppose f (x) = x d + c has exact type (m,1) for some m 0. Set K = Q(c). Then, f is stable over K. Note that the simpliest example of Corollary 1.2 is the polynomial f 2,2 (x) = x 2 2 Q[x], which is already well-known to be stable. Thus, Corollary 1.2 can be thought of as a generalization of this well-known example. Both of these corollaries will follow from the next theorem, which establishes that the critical orbit elements for the PCF polynomials f satisfy suprisingly

3 On the orbit of post-critically finite polynomials of the form x d +c 3 strong properties when d is a prime. We first fix the following notation, which we will also use throughout the paper: Let K be a number field, and O K its ring of integers. Take a O K. Throughout, we will use (a) to denote the ideal ao K. Also, for f with exact type (m,n), we will use O f = {a 1,a 2,...,a m+n 1 } to denote the critical orbit, where we set a i = f i (0). Whenever we use a i for some i > m+n 1, we again obtain it by setting a i = f i (0) and using periodicity of f. Theorem 1.3. Let d be any prime, and f (x) = x d + c Q[x] be a PCF polynomial with exact type (m,n). Suppose m 0. Set K = Q(c), and let O f = {a 1,a 2,...,a m+n 1 } O K be the critical orbit of f. Then, we have the following: (1) If n (m 1): (a i ) dm 1 (d 1) = (d) for all n i, and a i is a unit otherwise. (2) If n (m 1): (a i ) (dm 1 1)(d 1) = (d) for all n i, and a i is a unit otherwise. In our next theorem, we are able to get rid of the condition that d is a prime. However, it comes with the price that we do not get as much information as in Theorem 1.3. Theorem 1.4. Let f (x) = x d +c Q[x] be a PCF polynomial with exact type (m,n). Suppose m 0. Set K = Q(c), and let O f = {a 1,a 2,...,a m+n 1 } O K be the critical orbit of f. Then, (a i ) (d) for all 1 i k. 2 Proofs of Main Results We first start by stating the following lemma, which we will use throughout the paper. Although it is simple, it becomes suprisingly useful. Lemma 2.1. Let f (x) = x d +c Q[x] be a PCF polynomial with exact type (m,n). Set K = Q(c), and let O f = {a 1,a 2,...,a m+n 1 } O K be the critical orbit of f. Then, for any 1 i,j m+n 1, there exists a polynomial P i,j (t) Z[t] such that f i (a j) = a di j + a d j P i,j (c) + a k, where k is the integer satisfying 1 k j and k i(mod j). Moreover, if d is a prime, we have P i,j(t) d Z[t]. Proof. Note that the consant term of f i (t) Z[t] is a i, and all the other terms are divisible by t d. Write (2.1) f i (t) = tdi +t d F(t)+a i

4 4 V.Goksel for some F(t) Z[t]. Plugging a j into (2.1), get (2.2) f i (a j) = a di j +a d j F(a j)+a i. If i j, then (2.2) already proves the statement. Suppose i > j. Let i = jr +k for r 1 and 1 k j. By the definitions of a i and a j, we have (2.3) a i = f i j (a j) = a d j G(c)+a k for some G(t) Z[t]. Combining this with (2.2), the first part of the statement directly follows. To prove the last statement: Note that by the definition of f and using binomial expansion repeatedly, some ( d l) for 1 l d 1 will appear in each coefficient of P i,j (t), which proves the result, since d ( d l) when d is a prime. Next, we state another lemma which will be one of the ingredients in the proof of Theorem 1.3. We first need to recall rigid divisibility sequences: Definition 2.2. ([5]) Let A = {a i } i 1 be a sequence in a field K. We say A is a rigid divisibility sequence over K if for each non-archimedean absolute value. on K, the following hold: (1) If a n < 1, then a n = a kn for any k 1. (2) If a n < 1 and a j < 1, then a gcd(n,j) < 1. Remark 2.3. Let K be a number field, and O K be its ring of integers. Suppose {a i } i 1 O K is a rigid divisibility sequence. Then, the following is a straightforward consequence of Definition 2.3: (i) (a i ) (a ki ) for all k 1. (ii) ((a i ),(a j )) = (a (i,j) ). Lemma 2.4. Let f (x) = x d +c Q[x] be a PCF polynomial with exact type (m,n). Set K = Q(c), and let O f = {a 1,a 2,...,a m+n 1 } O K be the critical orbit of f. Then, (a i ) = (a j ) for all i,j with (i,n) = (j,n). Proof. First note that the sequence {a i } is a rigid divisibility sequence (For a proof of this fact, see ([5], Lemma 12)). We will now prove the lemma by showing that (a i ) = (a (i,n) ) for all i. Since the period is n, we can choose large enough integer k such that a i+nik = a i+n(ik+1). Using the second part of Remark 2.3, we have (2.4) ((a i+nik ),(a i+n(ik+1) )) = (a (i+nik,i+n(ik+1)) ) = (a (i,n) ).

5 On the orbit of post-critically finite polynomials of the form x d +c 5 Hence, we get (2.5) (a i+nik ) = (a i+n(ik+1) ) = (a (i,n) ). Using the first part of Remark 2.3, the equalities in (2.5) give (a i+nik ) = (a (i,n) ) (a i ), since (i,n) i. On the other hand, we also have i i+nik, thus (a i ) (a i+nik ) = (a (i,n) ). Combining these two, we get (a i ) = (a (i,n) ), which finishes the proof. We can finally prove Theorem 1.3: Proof of Theorem 1.3. We will prove (1) and (2) simultaneously. First suppose n i. Using Lemma 2.4, we can find m j m+n 1 such that (a i ) = (a j ). So, it is enough to prove the statement for a j. Since the exact period is n, each a k for m k m+n 1 is a root of the polynomial φ(x) = f n (x) x Z[c][x]. The constant term of φ(x) is a n. There exists a polynomial P(x) Q[c][x] satisfying m+n 1 (2.6) φ(x) = ( (x a i ))P(x). k=m In fact, P(x) lies in Z[c][x] by Gauss lemma, so in particular P(0) Z[c]. We also have m+n 1 (2.7) (( 1) n i=m a i )P(0) = a n. Note that there exists a unique m k m+n 1 such that n k, and applying Lemma 2.4 to this k we have (a k ) = (a n ). Hence, dividing both sides of the last equation by a k, right-hand side becomes a unit, which implies a j is a unit (since it appears on the left-hand side), thus a i is a unit. Now, suppose n i. Using Lemma 2.4, there exists an integer k such that m m + n 1 and (a i ) = (a ). So, it is enough to prove the statement for (a ). Note that since f has exact type (m,n), we have (2.8) f m+ (0) = f m (0). We also have f m+ (0) = f m(a ), so we obtain (2.9) f m (a ) = f m (0). (2.10) [f m 1 (a )] d +c = [f m 1 (0)] d +c. (2.11) (f m 1 (a ) f m 1 d 1 (0))( [f m 1 (a )] i [f m 1 (0)] d 1 i ) = 0.

6 6 V.Goksel Because f has exact type (m,n), we get (2.12) [f m 1 (a )] i [f m 1 (0)] d 1 i = 0. Using Lemma 2.1, since d is a prime, we can find a polynomial P(t) Z[t] satisfying (2.13) f m 1 (a ) = a dm 1 +da d P(c)+a m 1. Putting this into (2.12), we get (2.14) (a dm 1 +da d P(c)+a m 1) i a d 1 i m 1 = 0. Using (2.14), we can find a polynomial Q(t) Z[t] such that (2.15) (2.16) (a dm 1 i ( +a m 1 ) i a d 1 i m 1 +da d Q(c) = 0. ( ) i j a i j m 1 )ad 1 i m 1 +da d Q(c) = 0. (2.17) ( i=j ( ) i j ) m 1 +da d Q(c) = 0. Using the Hockey-Stick identity, (2.17) becomes (2.18) (2.19) a dm 1 (d 1) m 1 +da d Q(c) = 0. d 2 +da d 1 m 1 + j=1 m 1 +da d Q(c) = 0. Note that (2.20) d 2 j=1 m 1 +da d Q(c) 0(mod dad ), since m 2 and ( d j+1) is divisible by d for all 1 j d 2 (Recall that d is a prime). Hence, there exists a polynomial R(t) Z[t] such that (2.21) d 2 j=1 m 1 +da d Q(c) = dad R(c).

7 On the orbit of post-critically finite polynomials of the form x d +c 7 Using this in (2.19), we get (2.22) a dm 1 (d 1) +da d 1 m 1 +dad R(c) = 0. (2.23) a dm 1 (d 1) = d(a d 1 m 1 +ad R(c)). If n (m 1), from the first part of the proof a m 1 is a unit, hence we get (2.24) (a d R(c)+ad 1 m 1,adm 1 (d 1) ) = 1, which directly implies (a ) dm 1 (d 1) = (d). If n (m 1), by the Lemma 2.4 we have (a m 1 ) = (a ), so dividing both sides of (2.23) by a d 1, we get (2.25) a (dm 1 1)(d 1) where u is a unit. Noting that = d(u+a R(c)), (2.26) (u+a R(c),a (dm 1 1)(d 1) ) = 1, we get (a ) (dm 1 1)(d 1) = (d), as desired. Remark 2.5. The fact that a i is unit for n i is true when d is not a prime too, since the first part of our proof does not use the primeness assumption. We will now prove the Corollary 1.1 and Corollary 1.2. We first need to recall a basic fact from algebraic number theory: Let L be a finite extension of a number field K. Let p be a prime ideal in K. Suppose that p factors in L as e po L = P 1 e 1...P g g. Set f i = O L /P i for 1 i g, and n = [L : K]. Then, we have (2.27) g e i f i = n. i=1 Proof of Corollary 1.1. (1) Set K = Q(c), and let N = [K : Q]. For n = 1, by ([6], Corollary 3.3), G d (m,n) has degree (d m 1 1)(d 1). Thus, we have N (d m 1 1)(d 1). On the other hand, second part of Theorem 1.3 gives (a i ) (dm 1 1)(d 1) = (d) for any i. Factor (a i ) into prime factors as e (a i ) = P 1 e 1...P g g.

8 8 V.Goksel Taking the (d m 1)(d 1)th power of each side, we get (d (d) = P m 1 1)(d 1)e 1 (d 1...P m 1 1)(d 1)e g g. Using (2.27), we get g (d m 1 1)(d 1)e i f i = N, i=1 which implies N (d m 1 1)(d 1). Hence, we obtain N = (d m 1 1)(d 1), which shows G d (m,n) is irreducible. (2) Let N be as in the first part of the proof. For n = 2, d = 2, by ([6], Corollary 3.3), G d (m,n) has degree 2 m 1 1 if 2 m 1, and has degree 2 m 1 if 2 m 1. On the other hand, using the first part of Theorem 1.3, we have (a i ) 2m 1 1 = (2) for any 2 i if m is odd, and (a i ) 2m 1 = (2) for any 2 i if m is even. Similar to the first part, for both cases N becomes equal to the degree of G d (m,n), which proves that G d (m,n) is irreducible. Remark 2.6. In (1), d is totally ramified in K, and for all i, (a i ) is the unique prime ideal of O K that divides (d). In (2), 2 totally ramified in K, and for all i even, (a i ) is the unique prime ideal of O K that divides (2). Proof of Corollary 1.2. By ([5], Theorem 8), it suffices to show that there is no ±dth power in the orbit. By the first part of Remark 2.6, a i is a prime element of O K for all i. Hence, a i can never be ±dth power in O K for d 2, which finishes the proof. Slight modifications in the proof of Theorem 1.3 would be enough to prove Theorem 1.4. We write it out for the convenience of the reader: Proof of Theorem 1.4. From Remark 2.5, we already have that a i is a unit when n i, which gives (a i ) (d). So, we only need to show (a i ) (d) for n i. There exists a unique k such that m m+n 1, i.e., a is periodic underf. By Lemma 2.4, it is enough to prove the statement for a. This is the same situation as in the second part of the proof of Theorem 1.3. We rewrite the equation (2.12): [f m 1 (a )] i [f m 1 (0)] d 1 i = 0. Using Lemma (2.1), we can find P(t) Z[t] such that (2.28) f m 1 (a ) = a dm 1 +a d P(c)+a m 1.

9 On the orbit of post-critically finite polynomials of the form x d +c 9 Putting this in the above equation, we get (2.29) (a dm 1 +a d P(c)+a m 1) i a d 1 i m 1 = 0. Using (2.29), we can find a polynomial Q(t) Z[t] such that (2.30) (2.31) (a dm 1 i ( +a m 1 ) i a d 1 i m 1 +a d Q(c) = 0. ( ) i j a i j m 1 )ad 1 i m 1 +a d Q(c) = 0. (2.32) ( i=j ( ) i j ) m 1 +a d Q(c) = 0. Using the Hockey-Stick identity, (2.32) becomes (2.33) (2.34) a dm 1 (d 1) m 1 +a d Q(c) = 0. d 2 +da d 1 m 1 + j=1 There exists a polynomial R(t) Z[t] such that (2.35) d 2 j=1 Using this in (2.34), we get (2.36) a dm 1 (d 1) m 1 +a d Q(c) = 0. m 1 +a d Q(c) = ad R(c). +da d 1 m 1 +ad R(c) = 0. (2.37) a d (adm 1 (d 1) d +R(c)) = da d 1 m 1. If n (m 1), then a m 1 is a unit (by Theorem 1.3), hence we directly get (a ) (d). If n (m 1), then by Lemma 2.4 we have (a m 1 ) = (a ). Dividing both sides of (2.37) by a d 1, we get (2.38) a (a dm 1 (d 1) d +R(c)) = du, where u is a unit, which again gives (a ) (d), as desired.

10 10 V.Goksel Theorem 1.4 has an application to the Galois theory of polynomial iterates, which we will give in the next corollary. Corollary 2.7. Let f (x) = x d +c Q[x] be a PCF polynomial with exact type (m,n). Suppose m 0. Set K = Q(c), let K n be the splitting field of f n (x) over K. If a prime p of K ramifies in K n, then p (d). Proof. Recall that if a prime p of K is ramified in K n, then it must divide Disc(f n ). Set n = Disc(f n ). By ([8], Lemma 2.6), we have the relation (2.39) n = ± n 1 d dn a n. Proceeding inductively, (2.39) shows that if a prime p of K ramifies in K n, then p divides (d) or (a i ) for some i. By Theorem 1.4, this directly implies p (d), as desired. 3 Periodic case We finish the paper by giving a simple observation about the case m = 0. Lemma 3.1. Let f (x) = x d +c Q[x] be a PCF polynomial with exact type (0,n). Set K = Q(c), and let O f = {a 1,a 2,...,a n = 0} O K be the critical orbit of f. Then, a i is a unit in O K for all 1 i n 1. Proof. By periodicity, we have f n (a i) = a i. By expanding f n (t), it follows that there exists g(t) Z[t] such that (3.1) f n (t) = td g(t)+a n. Plugging in a i, we get (3.2) f n (a i) = a i = a d i g(a i)+a n. Since a n = 0, this gives (3.3) a i = a d ig(c). (3.4) 1 = a d 1 i g(c), which shows that a i is a unit.

11 On the orbit of post-critically finite polynomials of the form x d +c 11 References [1] Matthew Baker and Laura DeMarco. Special curves and postcritically-finite polynomials. Forum of Mathematics, Pi, 1, [2] A.S. Chen, T.A. Gassert, K.E. Stange, Index divisibility in dynamical sequences and cyclic orbits modulo p, New York J. Math. 23 (2017) [3] Danielson, L. and B. Fein (2002). Onthe irreducibility of theiterates of x n b. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 130(6), (electronic). [4] Adam Epstein. Integrality and rigidity for postcritically finite polynomials. Bull. Lond. Math. Soc., 44(1):3946, With an appendix by Epstein and Bjorn Poonen. [5] Hamblen, Spencer; Jones, Rafe; Madhu, Kalyani. The density of primes inorbits of z d +c. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN (2015), no. 7, [6] Hutz, Benjamin; Towsley, Adam. Misiurewicz points for polynomial maps and transversality. New York J. Math. 21 (2015), [7] P. Ingram, A finiteness result for post-critically finite polynomials, International Mathematics Research Notices 3 (2012), [8] Jones, R. (2008). The density of prime divisors in the arithmetic dynamics of quadratic polynomials. J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) 78(2), [9] Holly Krieger. Primitive prime divisors in the critical orbit of z d + c. Int. Math. Res. Not. 2012; doi: /imrn/rns213. [10] Serge Lang. Algebraic Number Theory, volume 110 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, second edition, [11] G. Pastor, M. Romera, and F. Montoya. Misiurewicz points in onedimensional quadratic maps. Phys. A, 232(1-2):517535, [12] Joseph H. Silverman. The arithmetic of dynamical systems, volume 241 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, New York, 2007.