Irreducibility and Galois group of the $2$-periodic points of a (cubic) polynomial

156 Views Asked by At

This question arose in observations made while trying to answer Intersecting cubic equations and roots.. Consider a (depressed) cubic polynomial $P(x) = x^3 + ax + b$, either over $\mathbb{Q}$ with $a, b \in \mathbb{Q}$, or over $\mathbb{Q}(a, b)$ (or over $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}(a, b)$ or $\mathbb{C}(a, b)$ if that's easier). Then the set $\{ c \mid P(P(c)) = c, P(c) \ne c \}$ is given by the roots of the polynomial $$Q(x) = \frac{P(P(x)) - x}{P(x) - x} = x^6 + (2 a + 1) x^4 + 2 b x^3 + (a^2 + a + 1) x^2 + (2 a + 1) b x + a + b^2 + 1$$

@dxiv's answer to that question shows that $Q$ becomes a cubic in $z^2$ under the Tschirnhaus transformation $z = P(x) - x$, in particular its Galois group is always solvable. For $a, b \in \mathbb{Z}$ with $|a|, |b| \le 100$ the following observations hold:

  • If $Q$ is irreducible then so is $R(x) = x^3 + (a+2)x + b$ (a previous version of the question incorrectly also claimed the converse). @dxiv's comment notes that the Tschirnhaus transformation $z = P(x) + x$ converts $Q(x)$ to $R(-z)^2$, which seems relvant.
  • Let $G = \operatorname{Gal}(Q)$ and $H = \operatorname{Gal}(R)$ over $\mathbb{Q}$ when $Q$ is irreducible. Then $G$ is one of: $C_2 \times S_4$, $C_2 \times A_4$, $S_4$ and $D_6 = C_2 \times S_3$, with orders $48$, $24$, $24$ and $12$ respectively.
  • If $G = C_2 \times S_4$ then $H = S_3$.

Apparently $C_2 \times S_4$ is the unique transitive subgroup of $S_6$ of order $48$, though I am not sure if it's unique up to conjugacy. From these observations, and my informal impression of Hilbert's irreducibility type arguments, I expect that the Galois group of $Q$ over $\mathbb{Q}(a, b)$ is $C_2 \times S_4$, and the smaller groups occur as further transitive subgroups.

My broad informal question is, what is going on? To ask a single precise question: is the Galois group of $Q$ over $\mathbb{Q}(a, b)$ isomorphic to $C_2 \times S_4$?

Related/follow-up questions that I might ask separately if not answered here:

  • Can the irreducibility implication be inferred from the Tschirnhaus transformations? Is there an a priori reason to expect such a polynomial of degree smaller than $Q$ to exist?
  • (How) does any of this generalize to $P$ of higher degrees and higher order periods (ie $P^n(c) = c$)? In particular, what construction yields $C_2 \times S_4$ (or whatever the correct Galois group is) from the parameters $(3, 2)$?
2

There are 2 best solutions below

1
On BEST ANSWER

Let $L$ be the splitting field of $Q(x)$ over $\mathbf{Q}(a,b)$. If $\alpha \in L$ is a root of $Q(x)$, then $P(\alpha)$ is also a root of $Q(x)$. Thus the roots of $Q(x)$ are divided up into three pairs:

$$\alpha, P(\alpha), \beta, P(\beta), \gamma, P(\gamma).$$

These are distinct because $Q(x)$ has non-zero discriminant and so is separable. Any automorphism sending $\alpha$ to $\sigma \alpha$ sends $P(\alpha)$ to $P(\sigma \alpha)$, and thus must preserve these three pairs. This puts a restriction on the Galois group $G = \mathrm{Gal}(L/\mathbf{Q}(a,b)) \subset S_6$, namely that it lies inside $\Gamma \subset S_6$, the maximal subgroup of $S_6$ preserving this decomposition. We shall see that this group is $S_4 \times S_2$.

So far this all generalizes to roots of $P^{(n)}(x) = x$ with $P(x)$ general of degree $d$; the roots of the corresponding polynomial $Q(x)$ will come in packets of $n$ roots which are iterates under $\alpha \rightarrow P(\alpha)$, and since $\sigma P(\alpha) = P(\sigma \alpha)$, the Galois group will commute with this automorphism, and thus give a restriction on the Galois group as lying inside the centralizer of this permutation.

Here are some more details in the case $(d,n) = (d,2)$. We have $P^{(2)}(x) = x$ and $Q(x)$ has degree $d^2 - d$, the maximal group $\Gamma$ will preserve the $m:=(d^2-d)/2$ pairs. The largest such group naturally surjects to $S_m$ which describes how it acts on the $m$ pairs. The kernel consists of elements which just permute each pair which is the group $(\mathbf{Z}/2 \mathbf{Z})^m$. This is a group of order $2^m \cdot m!$ and is usually denoted

$$ S_2 \wr S_m =(S_2)^m \ltimes S_m.$$

The symbol on the LHS is the wreath product and this group is called $S_2$ wreath $S_m$; it is defined/identified with the semidirect product preserving $m$ pairs of elements described above. If $\alpha$ is a root of $Q(x)$, the quotient $S_m$ corresponds to considering the Galois group of $\theta = \alpha + P(\alpha)$. You already noticed this when $m = 3$. If you take a random example with $d = 4$, say $P(x)=x^4+x+1$, you will find the Galois group of $Q(x)$ has order $2^6 \cdot 6! = 46080$, whereas if $d = 5$, say $P(x)=x^5+x+1$, it will have order $2^{10} 10! = 3715891200$. In neither case will it be solvable because the groups surject onto $S_6$ and $S_{10}$ respectively.

So far we have seen that $G$ is contained within this group $\Gamma$, but it is also equal to this group, since the group only gets smaller under specialization and one can compute at least one example with $a,b \in \mathbf{Q}$ for which this extension has Galois group $S_4 \times S_2$.

When $d=3$ and so $m=3$ something additional and special happens, namely that there is an isomorphism

$$S_2 \wr S_3 \simeq S_2 \times S_4.$$

This is an exceptional isomorphism which has no analog for higher $d$. You can see that $\Gamma \simeq S_4 \times S_2$ in a number of ways:

Label the pairs of roots which sum to zero as $(1,6)$, $(2,5)$, and $(3,4)$, the condition of being in $\Gamma$ is equivalent to commuting with $\sigma = (1,6)(2,5)(3,4)$. This is because

$$g \sigma g^{-1} = (g(1),g(6))(g(2),g(5))(g(3),g(4)).$$

So it suffices to show that the centralizer of $\sigma$ is $S_4 \times S_2$.

The order of the centralizer is the stabilizer of $G$ acting on $\sigma$ by conjugation. Since $\sigma$ has $15$ conjugates, the order of the stabilizer is $6!/15 = 48$ by the Orbit-Stabilizer theorem. Alternatively the previous description of $\Gamma$ shows that its order is $2^3 \cdot 3! = 48$.

Claim: The centralizer of $\sigma = (16)(25)(34) \in S_6$ is isomorphic to $S_4 \times S_2$.

Proof One: There is an outer automorphism of $S_6$ sending $\sigma$ to a $2$-cycle. The centralizer of $(1,2)$ certainly contains $S_2 \times S_4$ with the first $S_2$ generated by $(1,2)$ and the second $S_4$ acting on $3,4,5,6$. This has order $48$ so we are done.

As a remark, any $S_4 \times S_2$ inside $S_6$ has to normalize an element of order $2$. There are three conjugacy classes of order $2$ elements; $(**)$, $(**)(**)$, and $(**)(**)(**)$. The normalizer of the second conjugacy class has order $6!/45 = 16$, but the first two give the two conjugacy classes of $S_4 \times S_2 \subset S_6$, one that acts transitively and the other that doesn't, but which are interchanged by the exotic automorphism of $S_6$.

Proof Two: Let $C \subset \mathrm{SO}(3)$ denote the group of rotations that preserve the cube (the cube group), with faces labelled in the usual way. It's well known that $C \simeq S_4$ by the action on the $4$ diagonals of the cube. Now $C$ also acts faithfully on the faces, which realizes $S_4 = C$ as a subgroup of $S_6$. Moreover the image commutes with $\sigma$, because $C$ preserves the pairs of opposite faces of the cube. Finally, the reflection $-I \notin C$ both commutes with $C$ and maps to $\sigma$. The group $S_4 \times S_2 \simeq C \times \langle -I \rangle \subset \mathrm{O}(3)$ acts faithfully on the six faces of the cube and also commutes with $\sigma$, and so its image in $S_6$ is isomorphic to $S_4 \times S_2$ and is the centralizer of $\sigma$.

0
On

(Following is partial work that may be useful, though it does not answer the actual questions.)

In the case of the depressed cubic $\,P(x) = x^3 + ax + b\,$, the period-$2$ periodic points of $P$ other than the fixed points are the roots of the sextic:

$$ \require{cancel} \begin{align} Q(x) &= \frac{P(P(x)) - x \color{blue}{- P(x)} + \color{red}{P(x)}}{P(x) - x} \\ &= \frac{P^3(x) + a P(x) + \cancel{b} - (\color{blue}{x^3 + a x + \cancel{b}}) }{P(x) - x} \color{red}{+ 1} \\ &= P^2(x)+xP(x)+x^2+a+1 \tag{1} \end{align} $$

The Tschirnhaus transformation $z = P(x) + x = x^3 + (a+1)x +b$ reduces the sextic to the square of a cubic $\,T^2(z)\,$ where $\,T(z) = -R(-z)\,$ in OP's notation:

$$ T(z) = z^3+(a+2)z-b \tag{2} $$

It can be easily verified by hand (and confirmed by WA) that:

$$ T(z) = T\left(P(x) + x\right) = \left(P(x) + 2x\right)Q(x) \tag{3} $$

This verifies $\,Q(x)=0 \implies T(z)=0\,$, and it also indicates that $\,T(z)\,$ will have extraneous roots introduced by the factor $\,P(x)+2x\,$.

Unfortunately, this $\;$ does not provide much insight into why this particular Tschirnhaus transformation results in a perfect square, effectively halving the degree of the equation in $\,z\,$ to solve. It also $\small\color{lightgray}{\textit{(see EDIT at end about the crossed-out part)}}$ $\;$ does not answer the question about a possible relation between the irreducibility of $\,Q(x)\,$ and that of $\,T(z)\,$.

In the case of the general cubic $\,P(x) = x^3 + c x^2 + ax + b\,$ the same transformation $\,z = P(x) + x\,$ also results in the square of a cubic. The results similar to the above are (WA 1, 2):

$$ \begin{align} Q(x) &= P^2(x) + x P(x) + x^2 + c \left(P(x) + x\right) + a + 1 \tag{1'} \\ T(z) &= z^3 + 2 c z^2 + (c^2 + a + 2) z + c + c a - b \tag{2'} \\ &= \left(P(x) + 2 x + c\right) Q(x) \tag{3'} \end{align} $$

In the case of a reduced quartic $\,P(x) = x^4 + ax + b\,$ the transformation $\,z = P(x) + x\,$ results in the square of a sextic. The results similar to the above are (WA 1, 2):

$$ \begin{align} Q(x) &= P^3(x) + x P^2(x) + x^2 P(x) + x^3 + a + 1 \tag{1''} \\ T(z) &= z^6 + 4 z^3 - 4 b z^2 - (a + 1)^2 \tag{2''} \\ &= \left(\left(P(x) + x\right)\big(\left(P(x)+2x\right)^2 + x^2\big) - a - 1\right) \, Q(x)\tag{3''} \end{align} $$


[ EDIT ] $\;$ Credit goes to @The Phoenix for noting in this answer that if $x_0$ is a root of $Q(x)$ then so is $P(x_0)$ and $x_0 \ne P(x_0)$ by construction of $Q(x)$.

For a general polynomial $P(x)$ of degree $d$, its associated $Q(x)$ has degree $d(d-1)$. Any Tschirnhaus transformation $z=f\left(x, P(x)\right)$ defined by a symmetric polynomial $f(u,v)$ will send the pair of roots $\left\{x_0, P(x_0)\right\}$ of $Q(x)$ to the same root $z_0$ of the image, meaning each root of the image is a double root, so the result of the transformation is a perfect square $T^2(z)$. Therefore the problem reduces to solving the equation $T(z)=0$ of degree $\frac{d(d-1)}{2}$ i.e. half that of $Q(x)$.

The simplest symmetric polynomial in $\left\{x,P(x)\right\}$ is $P(x)+x$, which explains why the transformation $z=P(x)+x$ worked. It also means that the same transformation works for arbitrary polynomials to halve the degree of the resulting equation, and so do all symmetric transformations like $z=xP(x)$ or $z=P^2(x)+x^2\,$. For a cubic $P(x)$ this reduces the equation to solve from a sextic $Q(x)$ to a cubic $T(z)$, making it solvable by radicals.