Splitting Fields for Characteristic Polynomials of Matrices with Entries in a Finite Field.

Similar documents
The Degree of the Splitting Field of a Random Polynomial over a Finite Field

Eigenvalues of Random Matrices over Finite Fields

Integer Sequences and Matrices Over Finite Fields

The Degree of the Splitting Field of a Random Polynomial over a Finite Field

Polynomials over finite fields. Algorithms and Randomness

Injective semigroup-algebras

Counting Matrices Over a Finite Field With All Eigenvalues in the Field

1 i<j k (g ih j g j h i ) 0.

To Professor W. M. Schmidt on his 60th birthday

Lecture Notes Math 371: Algebra (Fall 2006) by Nathanael Leedom Ackerman

IRREDUCIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SUMS OF TWO RELATIVELY PRIME POLYNOMIALS

TC10 / 3. Finite fields S. Xambó

Bulletin of the Iranian Mathematical Society

Equidivisible consecutive integers

Periods of Iterated Rational Functions over a Finite Field

LEVEL MATRICES G. SEELINGER, P. SISSOKHO, L. SPENCE, AND C. VANDEN EYNDEN

DIGITAL EXPANSION OF EXPONENTIAL SEQUENCES

arxiv: v1 [math.co] 22 May 2014

Newton, Fermat, and Exactly Realizable Sequences

Commuting nilpotent matrices and pairs of partitions

Factorization of integer-valued polynomials with square-free denominator

A connection between number theory and linear algebra

On the second smallest prime non-residue

Linear independence, a unifying approach to shadow theorems

FACTORIZATION OF POLYNOMIALS OVER FINITE FIELDS

A REPRESENTATION THEORETIC APPROACH TO SYNCHRONIZING AUTOMATA

ON POWER VALUES OF POLYNOMIALS. A. Bérczes, B. Brindza and L. Hajdu

The cycle polynomial of a permutation group

Some Open Problems Arising from my Recent Finite Field Research

Collatz cycles with few descents

Minimal Paths and Cycles in Set Systems

On reducible and primitive subsets of F p, II

Powers of 2 with five distinct summands

On intervals containing full sets of conjugates of algebraic integers

Arithmetic progressions in sumsets

9. Finite fields. 1. Uniqueness

On the number of real classes in the finite projective linear and unitary groups

Q N id β. 2. Let I and J be ideals in a commutative ring A. Give a simple description of

ON ORDERS OF FINITE GROUPS AND CENTRALIZERS OF p-elements

APPROXIMATE WEAK AMENABILITY OF ABSTRACT SEGAL ALGEBRAS

Even Cycles in Hypergraphs.

RINGS IN POST ALGEBRAS. 1. Introduction

ON TYPES OF MATRICES AND CENTRALIZERS OF MATRICES AND PERMUTATIONS

The generalized order-k Fibonacci Pell sequence by matrix methods

Pairs of matrices, one of which commutes with their commutator

EXPONENTIAL SUMS OVER THE SEQUENCES OF PRN S PRODUCED BY INVERSIVE GENERATORS

BOUNDS ON ORDERS OF FINITE SUBGROUPS OF P GL n (K) Eli Aljadeff and Jack Sonn

Slow P -point Ultrafilters

Approximation exponents for algebraic functions in positive characteristic

DONG QUAN NGOC NGUYEN

POINCARÉ RECURRENCE AND NUMBER THEORY: THIRTY YEARS LATER

The maximal determinant and subdeterminants of ±1 matrices

NOTES Edited by William Adkins. On Goldbach s Conjecture for Integer Polynomials

An Infinite Family of Non-Abelian Monogenic Number Fields

CHAPTER 0 PRELIMINARY MATERIAL. Paul Vojta. University of California, Berkeley. 18 February 1998

GAPS IN BINARY EXPANSIONS OF SOME ARITHMETIC FUNCTIONS, AND THE IRRATIONALITY OF THE EULER CONSTANT

A combinatorial problem related to Mahler s measure

CANONICAL FORMS FOR LINEAR TRANSFORMATIONS AND MATRICES. D. Katz

Algebra Homework, Edition 2 9 September 2010

P -adic root separation for quadratic and cubic polynomials

Math 113 Homework 5. Bowei Liu, Chao Li. Fall 2013

The Mahler measure of trinomials of height 1

GENERALIZATIONS OF SOME ZERO-SUM THEOREMS. Sukumar Das Adhikari Harish-Chandra Research Institute, Chhatnag Road, Jhusi, Allahabad , INDIA

How many units can a commutative ring have?

Integral points of a modular curve of level 11. by René Schoof and Nikos Tzanakis

AVOIDING ZERO-SUM SUBSEQUENCES OF PRESCRIBED LENGTH OVER THE INTEGERS

CONGRUENCES RELATED TO THE RAMANUJAN/WATSON MOCK THETA FUNCTIONS ω(q) AND ν(q)

IRREDUCIBLES AND PRIMES IN COMPUTABLE INTEGRAL DOMAINS

SUMS OF UNITS IN SELF-INJECTIVE RINGS

ON MATCHINGS IN GROUPS

arxiv:math/ v2 [math.nt] 3 Dec 2003

Paul Glendinning and Nikita Sidorov

Two Diophantine Approaches to the Irreducibility of Certain Trinomials

Integrals of groups. Peter J. Cameron University of St Andrews. Group actions and transitive graphs Shenzhen, October 2018

Math 429/581 (Advanced) Group Theory. Summary of Definitions, Examples, and Theorems by Stefan Gille

Proof of a Conjecture of Erdős on triangles in set-systems

Sylow 2-Subgroups of Solvable Q-Groups

Factorization in Polynomial Rings

Erdős-Szekeres without induction

12x + 18y = 30? ax + by = m

Vertex colorings of graphs without short odd cycles

Properly colored Hamilton cycles in edge colored complete graphs

arxiv: v1 [math.co] 28 Jan 2019

BALANCING GAUSSIAN VECTORS. 1. Introduction

On Some Mean Value Results for the Zeta-Function and a Divisor Problem

Fundamental theorem of modules over a PID and applications

ON STRUCTURE AND COMMUTATIVITY OF NEAR - RINGS

Growth of Solutions of Second Order Complex Linear Differential Equations with Entire Coefficients

ON PERMUTATION POLYNOMIALS OF PRESCRIBED SHAPE

Spectrally arbitrary star sign patterns

On characterizing the spectra of nonnegative matrices

THE NUMBER OF TWISTS WITH LARGE TORSION OF AN ELLITPIC CURVE

NON-NEGATIVE INTEGER LINEAR CONGRUENCES. 1. Introduction We consider the problem of finding all non-negative integer solutions to a linear congruence

arxiv: v2 [math.nt] 9 Oct 2013

Integral Similarity and Commutators of Integral Matrices Thomas J. Laffey and Robert Reams (University College Dublin, Ireland) Abstract

A note on the products of the terms of linear recurrences

CONGRUENCES RELATED TO THE RAMANUJAN/WATSON MOCK THETA FUNCTIONS ω(q) AND ν(q)

arxiv: v1 [math.nt] 20 Nov 2017

SEMIFIELDS ARISING FROM IRREDUCIBLE SEMILINEAR TRANSFORMATIONS

NON-NEGATIVE INTEGER LINEAR CONGRUENCES

Transcription:

Splitting Fields for Characteristic Polynomials of Matrices with Entries in a Finite Field. Eric Schmutz Mathematics Department, Drexel University,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19104. Abstract Let M n be the set of all n n matrices with entries in the finite field F q. Let X(A) be the degree of the splitting field of the characteristic polynomial of A, and let µ n be the average degree: µ n = 1 X(A). M n A M n A theorem of Reiner is used to prove that,as n, where B is an explicit constant. µ n = e B n/ log n(1+o(1)), Key words: Finite field, splitting field, random matrix, characteristic polynomial 1 Introduction If f F q [x],let X(f) be the degree of the splitting field of f, i.e. the smallest d such that f factors as a product of linear factors f = (x r i ), with all i the roots r i in F q d. Mignotte and Nicolas [12],[16], and Dixon and Panario [2] asked how large X(f) is for a typical polynomial f. More precisely, let P n be the set of all monic degree n polynomials with coefficients in the finite field F q, and let P n be the uniform probability measure: P n ({f}) = q n for all f P n. They studied the asymptotic distribution of the random varaible log X, and noted the strong analogies between this problem and the Statistical Group Theory of Erdős and Turán[3],[4]. Dixon and Panario[2] also estimated the the average degree q n X(f), i.e. the expected value of X. Hansen and f P n Email address: Eric.Jonathan.Schmutz@drexel.edu (Eric Schmutz). Preprint submitted to Elsevier 1 November 2007

Schmutz compared random polynomials with the characteristic polynomials of random invertible matrices. Based on the results in [8], it was reasonable to conjecture that a matrix-analogue of the Dixon-Panario theorem should hold. The number of matrices having a given characteristic polynomial depends, in a complicated way, on the degrees of the irreducible factors that the polynomial has (Reiner[17]). Select a matrix A uniform randomly from among all q n2 matrices having entries in the finite field F q, and let f be the characteristic polynomial of A. Hence the characteristic polynomial f is being selected randomly, but not uniform randomly, from among all monic degree n polynomials in F q [x]. Let µ n =the average, over all q n2 matrices A, of the degree of the splitting field of the characteristic polynomial of A. We prove here that, as n, n/ µ n = e B log n(1+o(1)), where B = 2 2 log(1+t) dt = 2.990... The constant B has appeared previously in the study of random permutations[5] and random e 0 t 1 polynomials[2]. The remainder of this section specifies the paper s symbols and notations. Definitions are listed here in quasi-alphabetical order, and may be used later without comment. B = 2 2 log(1+t) dt = 2.990... e t 1 0 c = (1 1 ) =.288... 2 j j=1 = degree: if f is a polynomial in F q [x], then f is its degree. F (u, r) := r (1 1 ) for positive integers u, r, and F (u, 0) := 1 u i i=1 g f = divisor (in F q [x]) of f that is minimal among those monic divisors g of f for which X(f) = X(g). G n = {g f : f P n }. h f = f g f I k =the set of monic irreducible polynomials of degree k in F q [x] H n = n 1, the n th Harmonic number. k I k = I k,q, the cardinality of I k (The font distinguishes the set from its cardinality. To save space, q is implicit.) I = I k =monic polynomials in F q [x] that are irreducible over F q Λ m = set of partitions of m having distinct parts. Λ m = partitions of m (not necessarily distinct parts.) λ m The conventional notation for λ Λ m. M n =set of all all n n matrices with entries in the finite field F q. M n = probability measure on P n defined by M n ({f}) = the proportion of matrices in M n whose characteristic polynomial is f. (To save space, q is 2

implicit.) m φ (f) = the multiplicity of φ in f: for φ I and f F[x], φ mφ(f) divides f but φ mφ(f)+1 does not divide f. µ n = q n2 X(A). A M n P n = set of all q n monic polynomials of degree n in F q [x]. P n = uniform probability measure on P n : P n ({f}) = q n. S = set of polynomials in P n that factor completely, i.e. have all their roots in F q. X(f) = degree of the splitting field of f, if f F q [x]. X(A) = X(f), if A is a matrix with characteristic polynomial f. X(λ) = least common multiple of the parts of λ, if λ is an integer partition. The last three definitions overload the symbol X. However this is natural and consistent: the degrees of the irreducible factors of a polynomial f F q [x] form a partition of f, and it is well known that the degree of the splitting field of f is the least common multiple of the degrees of its irreducible factors. 2 Comparison of the probability measures There is an explicit formula for the number of matrices with a given charactersitic polynomial: Theorem 1 (Reiner[17])If f = φ φ m φ(f) is a polynomial in P n, then M n ({f}) = q n F (q, n) F (q φ, m φ (f)) φ I (See also Crabb[1], Fine-Herstein[6]), and Gerstenhaber[10]). In order to apply Theorem 1, we need a simple lemma: Lemma 1 For all non-negative integers a, b, and all prime powers q, F (q, a + b) F (q, a)f (q, b) Proof. Since q a+j q j for all j, we have b F (q, b) = (1 1 b j=1 q ) (1 1 ). j j=1 qa+j 3

But then b F (q, a + b) = F (q, a) (1 1 ) F (q, a)f (q, b). j=1 qa+j In one direction, there is a simple relationship between the probability measures P n and M n : Proposition 1 For all A P n, M n (A) c P n (A). Proof. It is obvious from the definition of F that, for all u > 1 and all non-negative integers r, 0 < F (u, r) 1. (1) If f A, then by Theorem 1 and (1), M n ({f}) F (q, n)q n c q n. Summing over f A we get Proposition 1. It is interesting to note that the inequality in Proposition 1 has no analogue in the other direction: M Proposition 2 lim sup max n({f}) =. n f P P n n({f}) Proof. Consider f =the product of all irreducible polynomials of degree less than or equal to m. In this case n = n m = m ki k, where I k is the number of monic irreducible polynomials of degree k, and M n ({f}) = q n F (q, n) m (1 1 q k ) I k (2) 4

Since F (q, n) c, it suffices to prove that m (1 1 ) I q k k = o(1) as m. The following bounds appear on page 238 of Mignotte[11]: q k I k = 1 k d k µ(d)q k/d q k ( 1 k 2 ). (3) kqk/2 Using first the inequality log(1 x) x, and then the inequality on the right side of (3), we get m (1 1 ( ) m q k )I k 1 exp k + O(1) = O( 1 m ). 3 Non-existence of Jordan forms. Neumann and Praeger[13] estimated the probability that the characteristic polynomial of a random matrix has none of its roots in F q. In this section we estimate the probability that the characteristic polynomial of a random matrix has all of its roots in F q. Theorem 2 For all prime powers q and all positive integers n, ( ) ( ) n + q 1 n + q 1 c q n M n (S) q n q 1 q 1 Proof. Suppose f F q [x]. Then f S iff two conditions are satisfied: (1) The multiplicities of the linear factors form composition of n into nonnegative integer parts: m x α (f) = n, and α F q (2) m φ (f) = 0 for all φ I d ; no irreducible factor has degree larger than one. d 2 It is well known that there are exactly ( ) n+q 1 q 1 compositions of n into q nonnegative parts. It therefore suffices to prove that, for any f S, c q n M n ({f}) q n. Suppose f = M n ({f}) = (x α) m x α(f) and m x α (f) = n. By Theorem 1, α F q α F q F (q,m x α. Lemma 1 implies that F (q, m (f)) x α (f)) F (q, n). α F q q n F (q,n) α Fq 5

Therefore, M n ({f}) q n. For the other direction, apply Proposition 1 with A = {f}. Note that, for fixed q, ( ) n+q 1 q 1 q n approaches zero exponentially fast as n. Hence we have Corollary 1 For almost every matrix A M n, there is no matrix B M n such that B is in Jordan canonical form and is similar to A. Comment: The corollary is stated rather glibly. A clumsier, but more precise statement is that, for every ɛ > 0 and every prime power q, there is an integer S N ɛ,q such that, for all n > N ɛ,q, < ɛ. The subscripts in the number N q n2 ɛ,q are included to emphasize the fact that N ɛ,q depends on both ɛ and q. It is interesting to compare ( the) fixed-q-large-n limit, namely zero, with the fixedn-large-q limit: lim n+q 1 q q 1 q n = 1 > 0. n! 4 Average degree An easy consequence of Proposition 1 is a lower bound for the average degree: Lemma 2 µ n e B log log n n/ log n(1+o( )) log n Proof. By Theorem 1, µ n = q n F (q, n) f P n F (q φ, m φ (f)) X(f) φ Again using the inequality (1), we get F (q φ, m φ (f)) 1 and F (q, n) c. φ Therefore µ n c q n X(f). The lower bound then follows directly from f P n the results of Dixon and Panario [2]. The upper bound for µ n is harder because, as Proposition 2 suggests, we don t have convenient upper bounds the M n -probabilities of events. Two lemmas are needed for the proof. 6

Let D(f) = {g : g divides f in F q [x] and X(g) = X(f)}. Then D(f) is a non-empty finite set that is partially ordered by divisibility. For each f, we can choose a minimal element g f D(f). Lemma 3 The irreducible factors of g f appear with multiplicity one and have different degrees. Proof. Suppose that, on the contrary, φ 1 and φ 2 are irreducible polynomials of degree d and that φ 1 φ 2 divides g f. Let g = g f φ 1. Then X(g) = X(f) and g divides g f. This contradicts the minimality of g f. Lemma 4 If g f = d, then M n ({f}) 4M d ({g f })M n d ({h f }). Proof. Since f = g f h f, we have m φ (f) = m φ (g f )+m φ (h f ). It therefore follows from Lemma 1 that F (q φ, m φ (f)) F (q φ, m φ (g f ))F (q φ, m φ (h f )). (4) Combining (4) with Theorem 1, we get M n ({f}) = q n φ F (q, n) F (q φ, m φ (f)) F (q, n) q n F (q φ, m φ (g f ))F (q φ, m φ (h f )) φ Finally, = F (q, n) F (q, d)f (q, n d) M d({g f })M n d ({h f }). F (q,n) F (q,d)f (q,n d) 1 F (q,d) 1 c 4. ( Theorem 3 µ n = exp B ) n log (1 + O( log n )). log n log n Proof. µ n = E(X) = = g G n X(g) h f P n M n (f)x(f) M n ({gh}), where the inner sum is over all h for which g gh = g. By Lemma 4, this is less than X(g)4M g ({g}) M n g ({h}) g G n h 7

Since the inner sum is less that one, we have µ n 4 g G n X(g)M n ({g}). (5) If g G n, then the degrees of the irreducible factors of g form a partition of g into distinct parts. Grouping together polynomials that have the same partition, we see that the right side of (5) is less than or equal to 4 n LCM(λ 1, λ 2,...)q m I λi λ Λ m i (1 1 (6) ). q λ i m=1 If λ has distinct parts λ 1, λ 2,..., then (1 1 ) m (1 1 ) c q i λ i q i=1 i. It is well known that I λi qλ i. Putting these two estimates back into the right side of i (6), we get µ n 4 c n LCM(λ 1, λ 2,...) m=1 λ Λ m λ 1 λ 2 4 c n LCM(λ 1, λ 2,...) m=1 λ 1 λ 2 λ Λ m (7) This last quantity has appeared previously in the study of random permutations [9],[18] where it was approximated by coefficient of x n in the generating function 1 (1 + x p + x2p (1 x) 2 2 + x3p 3 + ). primes p The conclusion (see appendix) was that the right side of (7) is ( ) n log n exp B (1 + O(log )). (8) log n log n References [1] M.C.Crabb,Counting nilpotent endomorphisms, Finite Fields and Their Applications, 12 (2006) 151 154. [2] John Dixon and Daniel Panario, The degree of the splitting field of a random polynomial over a finite field, Electron. J. Combin. 11 (2004), no. 1, Research Paper 70, 10 pp. (electronic). [3] Paul Erdős and Paul Turán, On some problems of a statistical group theory III, Acta Math. Acad. Sci. Hungar. 18 (1967) 309 320. 8

[4] Paul Erdős and Paul Turán, On some problems of a statistical group theory IV, Acta Math. Acad. Sci. Hungar. 19 (1968) 413 435. [5] Steven R. Finch, Mathematical constants. Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, 94. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003 ISBN 0-521- 81805-2, page 287. [6] N.J. Fine and I.N. Herstein, The probability that a matrix be nilpotent, Illinois J.Math2(1958) 499-504. [7] Jason Fulman, Random matrix theory over finite fields, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 39 (2002), no. 1, 51 85 [8] Jennie C. Hansen and Eric Schmutz, How random is the characteristic polynomial of a random matrix? Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 114 (1993), no. 3, 507 515. [9] William M.Y. Goh and Eric Schmutz, The expected order of a random permutation.bull. London Math. Soc.23 (1991), no. 1, 34 42. [10] Murray Gerstenhaber, On the number of nilpotent matrices with coefficients in a finite field. Illinois J. Math. 5 1961 330 333. [11] Maurice Mignotte, Mathematics for Computer Algebra, Springer Verlag 1992 ISBN 3-540-97675-2. [12] M.Mignotte and J.L.Nicolas, Statistiques sur F q [X]. Ann. Inst. H. Poincar Sect. B (N.S.)19 (1983), no. 2, 113 121. [13] Peter M. Neumann and Cheryl E. Praeger, Derangements and eigenvalue-free elements in finite classical groups. [14] Peter M. Neumann and Cheryl E. Praeger, Cyclic Matrices over Finite Fields J. London Math. Soc. (2) 58 (1998), no. 3, 564 586. [15] Daniel Panario, What Do Random Polynomials over Finite Fields Look Like? Finite fields and applications, 89 108, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci., 2948, Springer, Berlin, 2004. [16] J.L. Nicolas A Gaussian law on F Q [X], Topics in classical number theory, Vol. I, II (Budapest, 1981), 1127 1162, Colloq. Math. Soc. Jnos Bolyai, 34, North- Holland, Amsterdam, 1984. [17] Irving Reiner, On the number of matrices with given characteristic polynomial. Illinois J. Math. 5 1961 324 329. [18] Richard Stong, The average order of a permutation. Electron. J. Combin.5 (1998), Research Paper 41, 6 pp. (electronic). 9

5 Appendix At the suggestion of a referee, further details on the derivation of (8) from (7) are appended. For positive integers m, let U m =, so that the right side of (7) is 4 c of x n in G(x) = 1 1 x n m=1 primes p λ m LCM(λ 1,λ 2,...) λ 1 λ 2 U m. Let z = n/ log 2 n, and let B n be the coefficient (1 + x p + x2p 2 + x3p 3 + ). In the middle of page 39 of [9] begins the proof that U n = O(n)T 1 T 2 T 3, (9) where ( ) n T 1 n z Hn z = exp O( log n ), (10) T 3 H log4 n n = exp ( O(log 4 n log log n) ), (11) and T 2 B n. (12) Thus ( ) n U n B n exp O( log n ). (13) It is precisely the numbers B n that were estimated, using a Tauberian theorem[3], in 4 of [18]. (In Stong s notation, B n = n a k, and h(t) = (1 e t )G(e t )). His estimate was ( ) n log log n B n = exp B n/ log n + O( ). (14) log n Due to the rapid growth of the numbers B m, summation does not change the error term in our estimate: combining (14) with (13), we get n n log log n U m n max U m = exp(b n/ log n + O( )). m n log n m=1 10