@antoinechambertloir@mathstodon.xyz
Post #2141607
2025-04-06 21:41 UTC
This is where a new variant of the criterion can be applied, this time with the prime number 3.
Indeed, modulo 3, one has f(T)=T^4+2T^2+1=(T^2+1)^2.
So we are almost as in the initial criterion, but the polynomial T is not T^2+1.
The first thing that makes this criterion apply is that T^2+1 is irreducible modulo 3. In this case, this is because -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 (T^2+1, 9). Here, one has
T^4-10T^2+1=(T^2+1)^2-12T^2 = (T^2+1)^2-12(T^2+1)+12 is equal to 3 modulo (T^2+1, 9).
And so we have an Eisenstein-type proof that the polynomial T^4-10T^2+1 is irreducible over the integers. CQFD.
#math
Replies (1)
-
@antoinechambertloir@mathstodon.xyz 2025-04-06 21:43
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, 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. https://github.com/leanprover-community/mathlib4/pull/23710