What other kinds of cubic integer rings are there?












3














Given an integer $n in Bbb{Z}$, we understand $root 3 of n$ to mean the number $x in Bbb{R}$ such that $x^3 - n = 0$. Then $Bbb{Q}(root 3 of n) subset Bbb{R}$, right? The same then goes for the ring of algebraic integers $mathcal{O}_{Bbb{Q}(root 3 of n)}$.



Since $root 3 of {-n} = -root 3 of n$, it follows that $Bbb{Q}(root 3 of n) = Bbb{Q}(root 3 of {-n})$ and likewise $mathcal{O}_{Bbb{Q}(root 3 of n)} = mathcal{O}_{Bbb{Q}(root 3 of {-n})}$. So in order for a ring adjoining a cubic root to $Bbb{Q}$ to have complex numbers we need a cubic root that is imaginary or complex.



Therefore, given $$omega = frac{-1 + sqrt{-3}}{2}$$ and $n > 1$, the ring of integers of $Bbb{Q}(omega root 3 of n)$ should contain complex numbers. What about the ring of $Bbb{Q}(i root 3 of n)$? That is a distinct kind of rings than the other two I've mentioned, right?



Is this all correct? What kinds of cubic rings have I overlooked?










share|cite|improve this question


















  • 2




    Not every cubic extension of $mathbb{Q}$ is obtained by adjoining the cubic root of an integer (or a rational).
    – Arturo Magidin
    Jan 3 at 22:34






  • 6




    The ring $mathbb{Q}(isqrt[3]{n})$ contains $-sqrt[3]{n^2}$ and $-in$, and hence $-i$. In particular, assuming $n$ is not a perfect cube, this ring is of degree $6$, not $3$, over $mathbb{Q}$, as it contains both a cubic extension and a quadratic one.
    – Arturo Magidin
    Jan 3 at 22:36










  • Related: math.stackexchange.com/q/3060484/328173
    – Kenny Lau
    2 days ago
















3














Given an integer $n in Bbb{Z}$, we understand $root 3 of n$ to mean the number $x in Bbb{R}$ such that $x^3 - n = 0$. Then $Bbb{Q}(root 3 of n) subset Bbb{R}$, right? The same then goes for the ring of algebraic integers $mathcal{O}_{Bbb{Q}(root 3 of n)}$.



Since $root 3 of {-n} = -root 3 of n$, it follows that $Bbb{Q}(root 3 of n) = Bbb{Q}(root 3 of {-n})$ and likewise $mathcal{O}_{Bbb{Q}(root 3 of n)} = mathcal{O}_{Bbb{Q}(root 3 of {-n})}$. So in order for a ring adjoining a cubic root to $Bbb{Q}$ to have complex numbers we need a cubic root that is imaginary or complex.



Therefore, given $$omega = frac{-1 + sqrt{-3}}{2}$$ and $n > 1$, the ring of integers of $Bbb{Q}(omega root 3 of n)$ should contain complex numbers. What about the ring of $Bbb{Q}(i root 3 of n)$? That is a distinct kind of rings than the other two I've mentioned, right?



Is this all correct? What kinds of cubic rings have I overlooked?










share|cite|improve this question


















  • 2




    Not every cubic extension of $mathbb{Q}$ is obtained by adjoining the cubic root of an integer (or a rational).
    – Arturo Magidin
    Jan 3 at 22:34






  • 6




    The ring $mathbb{Q}(isqrt[3]{n})$ contains $-sqrt[3]{n^2}$ and $-in$, and hence $-i$. In particular, assuming $n$ is not a perfect cube, this ring is of degree $6$, not $3$, over $mathbb{Q}$, as it contains both a cubic extension and a quadratic one.
    – Arturo Magidin
    Jan 3 at 22:36










  • Related: math.stackexchange.com/q/3060484/328173
    – Kenny Lau
    2 days ago














3












3








3







Given an integer $n in Bbb{Z}$, we understand $root 3 of n$ to mean the number $x in Bbb{R}$ such that $x^3 - n = 0$. Then $Bbb{Q}(root 3 of n) subset Bbb{R}$, right? The same then goes for the ring of algebraic integers $mathcal{O}_{Bbb{Q}(root 3 of n)}$.



Since $root 3 of {-n} = -root 3 of n$, it follows that $Bbb{Q}(root 3 of n) = Bbb{Q}(root 3 of {-n})$ and likewise $mathcal{O}_{Bbb{Q}(root 3 of n)} = mathcal{O}_{Bbb{Q}(root 3 of {-n})}$. So in order for a ring adjoining a cubic root to $Bbb{Q}$ to have complex numbers we need a cubic root that is imaginary or complex.



Therefore, given $$omega = frac{-1 + sqrt{-3}}{2}$$ and $n > 1$, the ring of integers of $Bbb{Q}(omega root 3 of n)$ should contain complex numbers. What about the ring of $Bbb{Q}(i root 3 of n)$? That is a distinct kind of rings than the other two I've mentioned, right?



Is this all correct? What kinds of cubic rings have I overlooked?










share|cite|improve this question













Given an integer $n in Bbb{Z}$, we understand $root 3 of n$ to mean the number $x in Bbb{R}$ such that $x^3 - n = 0$. Then $Bbb{Q}(root 3 of n) subset Bbb{R}$, right? The same then goes for the ring of algebraic integers $mathcal{O}_{Bbb{Q}(root 3 of n)}$.



Since $root 3 of {-n} = -root 3 of n$, it follows that $Bbb{Q}(root 3 of n) = Bbb{Q}(root 3 of {-n})$ and likewise $mathcal{O}_{Bbb{Q}(root 3 of n)} = mathcal{O}_{Bbb{Q}(root 3 of {-n})}$. So in order for a ring adjoining a cubic root to $Bbb{Q}$ to have complex numbers we need a cubic root that is imaginary or complex.



Therefore, given $$omega = frac{-1 + sqrt{-3}}{2}$$ and $n > 1$, the ring of integers of $Bbb{Q}(omega root 3 of n)$ should contain complex numbers. What about the ring of $Bbb{Q}(i root 3 of n)$? That is a distinct kind of rings than the other two I've mentioned, right?



Is this all correct? What kinds of cubic rings have I overlooked?







abstract-algebra algebraic-number-theory






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Jan 3 at 22:32









Bob Happ

2501222




2501222








  • 2




    Not every cubic extension of $mathbb{Q}$ is obtained by adjoining the cubic root of an integer (or a rational).
    – Arturo Magidin
    Jan 3 at 22:34






  • 6




    The ring $mathbb{Q}(isqrt[3]{n})$ contains $-sqrt[3]{n^2}$ and $-in$, and hence $-i$. In particular, assuming $n$ is not a perfect cube, this ring is of degree $6$, not $3$, over $mathbb{Q}$, as it contains both a cubic extension and a quadratic one.
    – Arturo Magidin
    Jan 3 at 22:36










  • Related: math.stackexchange.com/q/3060484/328173
    – Kenny Lau
    2 days ago














  • 2




    Not every cubic extension of $mathbb{Q}$ is obtained by adjoining the cubic root of an integer (or a rational).
    – Arturo Magidin
    Jan 3 at 22:34






  • 6




    The ring $mathbb{Q}(isqrt[3]{n})$ contains $-sqrt[3]{n^2}$ and $-in$, and hence $-i$. In particular, assuming $n$ is not a perfect cube, this ring is of degree $6$, not $3$, over $mathbb{Q}$, as it contains both a cubic extension and a quadratic one.
    – Arturo Magidin
    Jan 3 at 22:36










  • Related: math.stackexchange.com/q/3060484/328173
    – Kenny Lau
    2 days ago








2




2




Not every cubic extension of $mathbb{Q}$ is obtained by adjoining the cubic root of an integer (or a rational).
– Arturo Magidin
Jan 3 at 22:34




Not every cubic extension of $mathbb{Q}$ is obtained by adjoining the cubic root of an integer (or a rational).
– Arturo Magidin
Jan 3 at 22:34




6




6




The ring $mathbb{Q}(isqrt[3]{n})$ contains $-sqrt[3]{n^2}$ and $-in$, and hence $-i$. In particular, assuming $n$ is not a perfect cube, this ring is of degree $6$, not $3$, over $mathbb{Q}$, as it contains both a cubic extension and a quadratic one.
– Arturo Magidin
Jan 3 at 22:36




The ring $mathbb{Q}(isqrt[3]{n})$ contains $-sqrt[3]{n^2}$ and $-in$, and hence $-i$. In particular, assuming $n$ is not a perfect cube, this ring is of degree $6$, not $3$, over $mathbb{Q}$, as it contains both a cubic extension and a quadratic one.
– Arturo Magidin
Jan 3 at 22:36












Related: math.stackexchange.com/q/3060484/328173
– Kenny Lau
2 days ago




Related: math.stackexchange.com/q/3060484/328173
– Kenny Lau
2 days ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















2














Things are so easy at algebraic degree $1$, we only have $textbf Z$ to worry about.



At algebraic degree $2$, we have infinitely many real quadratic integer rings and infinitely many imaginary quadratic integer rings, but it still feels manageable because we're only dealing with two kinds of rings, plus $textbf Z$.



Construct a polynomial of the form $x^2 + bx pm 1$, where $b in textbf Z$. The "$pm 1$" bit helps us narrow our focus down to units. By the quadratic equation, if we choose to go with $-1$, we have $$x = frac{-b pm sqrt{b^2 + 4}}{2}$$ (in some cases you might have to rewrite things like $sqrt{200}$ so that you have a squarefree number under the radical symbol).



When we go to algebraic degree $3$, the complexity suddenly explodes. And we find that complexity by doing for cubics something similar to what we did for quadratics just now. Construct a polynomial of the form $x^3 + ax^2 + bx pm 1$, where $a in textbf Z$ also. For example, $1 - root 3 of 2$ is a zero of $x^3 - 3x^2 + 3x + 1$.



But try to solve $x^3 + x^2 - x + 1$, that turns out to be way beyond my meager computational skills. I turn to Wolfram Alpha for help, and it gives three answers all involving $root 3 of {19 - 3 sqrt{33}}$. Whoa.



So yeah, you have overlooked a lot of kinds of rings.






share|cite|improve this answer





























    0














    It is a bit unclear to me exactly what kind of an answer you are looking for. Listing the following points that occurred to me while reading the question.




    1. You don't need to use $omega$ to get a cubic extension field containing non-real numbers. Any cubic polynomial $f(x)$, irreducible over $Bbb{Q}$, such that $f$ has only a single real zero will yield such fields. For example, $f(x)=x^3-2x+2$, irreducible by Eisenstein, has a single zero $in(-2,-1)$. If $alpha$ is one of the complex zeros of $f$, then $K_1=Bbb{Q}(alpha)$ is a cubic field, and $Bbb{Z}[alpha]$ is a ring that as a an abelian group is free of rank three. The field $K_1$ cannot be gotten by adjoining a cube root (real or complex) of an integer to $Bbb{Q}$. A way of seeing that is to use the discriminants. The discriminant of $f(x)$ is $d(f)=-76$, implying that the discriminant of $mathcal{O}_{K_1}$ is either $-76$ or $-19$. The discriminant of $g(x)=x^3-n$ is $d(g)=-27n^2$. The discriminants of orders of the same field can only differ by a factor that is a square, making it impossible for $mathcal{O}_{K_1}$ to contain $Bbb{Z}[omega^jroot3of n]$ for any alternative $j=0,1,2$ (so any root of $g(x)$).

    2. Some cubic extension fields of $Bbb{Q}$ are Galois extensions, implying that the minimal polynomials of all the elements have real zeros (all in that same field). An example appearing possibly the most frequently in our website is $K=Bbb{Q}(2cos(2pi/9))$. The zeros of the irreducible polynomial $p(x)=x^3-3x+1$ are $2cos(2^kpi/9)$ with $k=1,2,3$, cyclicalle permuted by the mapping $rmapsto r^2-2$. The ring of integers of $K$ is $Bbb{Z}[2cos(2pi/9)]$. Here the discriminant is $d(p)=81$, the square of a rational number. This happens always with cubic Galois extensions.

    3. The third primitive root of unity $omega$ does play the following important role, so I will also mention the following result (look up Kummer theory for details and generalizations). If, instead of $Bbb{Q}$, we use $F=Bbb{Q}(omega)$ as our base field, then we have the following characterization of cubic Galois extensions of $F$.


      Assume that $L$ is a cubic Galois extension of $F$, then there exists an element $zin L$ such that $alpha=z^3in F$. In other words $L=F(root3ofalpha)$.





    Of course, in the last bullet, $F$ has other types of cubic extensions, but none of those are Galois over $F$.






    share|cite|improve this answer





















      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "69"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3061094%2fwhat-other-kinds-of-cubic-integer-rings-are-there%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      2














      Things are so easy at algebraic degree $1$, we only have $textbf Z$ to worry about.



      At algebraic degree $2$, we have infinitely many real quadratic integer rings and infinitely many imaginary quadratic integer rings, but it still feels manageable because we're only dealing with two kinds of rings, plus $textbf Z$.



      Construct a polynomial of the form $x^2 + bx pm 1$, where $b in textbf Z$. The "$pm 1$" bit helps us narrow our focus down to units. By the quadratic equation, if we choose to go with $-1$, we have $$x = frac{-b pm sqrt{b^2 + 4}}{2}$$ (in some cases you might have to rewrite things like $sqrt{200}$ so that you have a squarefree number under the radical symbol).



      When we go to algebraic degree $3$, the complexity suddenly explodes. And we find that complexity by doing for cubics something similar to what we did for quadratics just now. Construct a polynomial of the form $x^3 + ax^2 + bx pm 1$, where $a in textbf Z$ also. For example, $1 - root 3 of 2$ is a zero of $x^3 - 3x^2 + 3x + 1$.



      But try to solve $x^3 + x^2 - x + 1$, that turns out to be way beyond my meager computational skills. I turn to Wolfram Alpha for help, and it gives three answers all involving $root 3 of {19 - 3 sqrt{33}}$. Whoa.



      So yeah, you have overlooked a lot of kinds of rings.






      share|cite|improve this answer


























        2














        Things are so easy at algebraic degree $1$, we only have $textbf Z$ to worry about.



        At algebraic degree $2$, we have infinitely many real quadratic integer rings and infinitely many imaginary quadratic integer rings, but it still feels manageable because we're only dealing with two kinds of rings, plus $textbf Z$.



        Construct a polynomial of the form $x^2 + bx pm 1$, where $b in textbf Z$. The "$pm 1$" bit helps us narrow our focus down to units. By the quadratic equation, if we choose to go with $-1$, we have $$x = frac{-b pm sqrt{b^2 + 4}}{2}$$ (in some cases you might have to rewrite things like $sqrt{200}$ so that you have a squarefree number under the radical symbol).



        When we go to algebraic degree $3$, the complexity suddenly explodes. And we find that complexity by doing for cubics something similar to what we did for quadratics just now. Construct a polynomial of the form $x^3 + ax^2 + bx pm 1$, where $a in textbf Z$ also. For example, $1 - root 3 of 2$ is a zero of $x^3 - 3x^2 + 3x + 1$.



        But try to solve $x^3 + x^2 - x + 1$, that turns out to be way beyond my meager computational skills. I turn to Wolfram Alpha for help, and it gives three answers all involving $root 3 of {19 - 3 sqrt{33}}$. Whoa.



        So yeah, you have overlooked a lot of kinds of rings.






        share|cite|improve this answer
























          2












          2








          2






          Things are so easy at algebraic degree $1$, we only have $textbf Z$ to worry about.



          At algebraic degree $2$, we have infinitely many real quadratic integer rings and infinitely many imaginary quadratic integer rings, but it still feels manageable because we're only dealing with two kinds of rings, plus $textbf Z$.



          Construct a polynomial of the form $x^2 + bx pm 1$, where $b in textbf Z$. The "$pm 1$" bit helps us narrow our focus down to units. By the quadratic equation, if we choose to go with $-1$, we have $$x = frac{-b pm sqrt{b^2 + 4}}{2}$$ (in some cases you might have to rewrite things like $sqrt{200}$ so that you have a squarefree number under the radical symbol).



          When we go to algebraic degree $3$, the complexity suddenly explodes. And we find that complexity by doing for cubics something similar to what we did for quadratics just now. Construct a polynomial of the form $x^3 + ax^2 + bx pm 1$, where $a in textbf Z$ also. For example, $1 - root 3 of 2$ is a zero of $x^3 - 3x^2 + 3x + 1$.



          But try to solve $x^3 + x^2 - x + 1$, that turns out to be way beyond my meager computational skills. I turn to Wolfram Alpha for help, and it gives three answers all involving $root 3 of {19 - 3 sqrt{33}}$. Whoa.



          So yeah, you have overlooked a lot of kinds of rings.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          Things are so easy at algebraic degree $1$, we only have $textbf Z$ to worry about.



          At algebraic degree $2$, we have infinitely many real quadratic integer rings and infinitely many imaginary quadratic integer rings, but it still feels manageable because we're only dealing with two kinds of rings, plus $textbf Z$.



          Construct a polynomial of the form $x^2 + bx pm 1$, where $b in textbf Z$. The "$pm 1$" bit helps us narrow our focus down to units. By the quadratic equation, if we choose to go with $-1$, we have $$x = frac{-b pm sqrt{b^2 + 4}}{2}$$ (in some cases you might have to rewrite things like $sqrt{200}$ so that you have a squarefree number under the radical symbol).



          When we go to algebraic degree $3$, the complexity suddenly explodes. And we find that complexity by doing for cubics something similar to what we did for quadratics just now. Construct a polynomial of the form $x^3 + ax^2 + bx pm 1$, where $a in textbf Z$ also. For example, $1 - root 3 of 2$ is a zero of $x^3 - 3x^2 + 3x + 1$.



          But try to solve $x^3 + x^2 - x + 1$, that turns out to be way beyond my meager computational skills. I turn to Wolfram Alpha for help, and it gives three answers all involving $root 3 of {19 - 3 sqrt{33}}$. Whoa.



          So yeah, you have overlooked a lot of kinds of rings.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 2 days ago









          David R.

          2591728




          2591728























              0














              It is a bit unclear to me exactly what kind of an answer you are looking for. Listing the following points that occurred to me while reading the question.




              1. You don't need to use $omega$ to get a cubic extension field containing non-real numbers. Any cubic polynomial $f(x)$, irreducible over $Bbb{Q}$, such that $f$ has only a single real zero will yield such fields. For example, $f(x)=x^3-2x+2$, irreducible by Eisenstein, has a single zero $in(-2,-1)$. If $alpha$ is one of the complex zeros of $f$, then $K_1=Bbb{Q}(alpha)$ is a cubic field, and $Bbb{Z}[alpha]$ is a ring that as a an abelian group is free of rank three. The field $K_1$ cannot be gotten by adjoining a cube root (real or complex) of an integer to $Bbb{Q}$. A way of seeing that is to use the discriminants. The discriminant of $f(x)$ is $d(f)=-76$, implying that the discriminant of $mathcal{O}_{K_1}$ is either $-76$ or $-19$. The discriminant of $g(x)=x^3-n$ is $d(g)=-27n^2$. The discriminants of orders of the same field can only differ by a factor that is a square, making it impossible for $mathcal{O}_{K_1}$ to contain $Bbb{Z}[omega^jroot3of n]$ for any alternative $j=0,1,2$ (so any root of $g(x)$).

              2. Some cubic extension fields of $Bbb{Q}$ are Galois extensions, implying that the minimal polynomials of all the elements have real zeros (all in that same field). An example appearing possibly the most frequently in our website is $K=Bbb{Q}(2cos(2pi/9))$. The zeros of the irreducible polynomial $p(x)=x^3-3x+1$ are $2cos(2^kpi/9)$ with $k=1,2,3$, cyclicalle permuted by the mapping $rmapsto r^2-2$. The ring of integers of $K$ is $Bbb{Z}[2cos(2pi/9)]$. Here the discriminant is $d(p)=81$, the square of a rational number. This happens always with cubic Galois extensions.

              3. The third primitive root of unity $omega$ does play the following important role, so I will also mention the following result (look up Kummer theory for details and generalizations). If, instead of $Bbb{Q}$, we use $F=Bbb{Q}(omega)$ as our base field, then we have the following characterization of cubic Galois extensions of $F$.


                Assume that $L$ is a cubic Galois extension of $F$, then there exists an element $zin L$ such that $alpha=z^3in F$. In other words $L=F(root3ofalpha)$.





              Of course, in the last bullet, $F$ has other types of cubic extensions, but none of those are Galois over $F$.






              share|cite|improve this answer


























                0














                It is a bit unclear to me exactly what kind of an answer you are looking for. Listing the following points that occurred to me while reading the question.




                1. You don't need to use $omega$ to get a cubic extension field containing non-real numbers. Any cubic polynomial $f(x)$, irreducible over $Bbb{Q}$, such that $f$ has only a single real zero will yield such fields. For example, $f(x)=x^3-2x+2$, irreducible by Eisenstein, has a single zero $in(-2,-1)$. If $alpha$ is one of the complex zeros of $f$, then $K_1=Bbb{Q}(alpha)$ is a cubic field, and $Bbb{Z}[alpha]$ is a ring that as a an abelian group is free of rank three. The field $K_1$ cannot be gotten by adjoining a cube root (real or complex) of an integer to $Bbb{Q}$. A way of seeing that is to use the discriminants. The discriminant of $f(x)$ is $d(f)=-76$, implying that the discriminant of $mathcal{O}_{K_1}$ is either $-76$ or $-19$. The discriminant of $g(x)=x^3-n$ is $d(g)=-27n^2$. The discriminants of orders of the same field can only differ by a factor that is a square, making it impossible for $mathcal{O}_{K_1}$ to contain $Bbb{Z}[omega^jroot3of n]$ for any alternative $j=0,1,2$ (so any root of $g(x)$).

                2. Some cubic extension fields of $Bbb{Q}$ are Galois extensions, implying that the minimal polynomials of all the elements have real zeros (all in that same field). An example appearing possibly the most frequently in our website is $K=Bbb{Q}(2cos(2pi/9))$. The zeros of the irreducible polynomial $p(x)=x^3-3x+1$ are $2cos(2^kpi/9)$ with $k=1,2,3$, cyclicalle permuted by the mapping $rmapsto r^2-2$. The ring of integers of $K$ is $Bbb{Z}[2cos(2pi/9)]$. Here the discriminant is $d(p)=81$, the square of a rational number. This happens always with cubic Galois extensions.

                3. The third primitive root of unity $omega$ does play the following important role, so I will also mention the following result (look up Kummer theory for details and generalizations). If, instead of $Bbb{Q}$, we use $F=Bbb{Q}(omega)$ as our base field, then we have the following characterization of cubic Galois extensions of $F$.


                  Assume that $L$ is a cubic Galois extension of $F$, then there exists an element $zin L$ such that $alpha=z^3in F$. In other words $L=F(root3ofalpha)$.





                Of course, in the last bullet, $F$ has other types of cubic extensions, but none of those are Galois over $F$.






                share|cite|improve this answer
























                  0












                  0








                  0






                  It is a bit unclear to me exactly what kind of an answer you are looking for. Listing the following points that occurred to me while reading the question.




                  1. You don't need to use $omega$ to get a cubic extension field containing non-real numbers. Any cubic polynomial $f(x)$, irreducible over $Bbb{Q}$, such that $f$ has only a single real zero will yield such fields. For example, $f(x)=x^3-2x+2$, irreducible by Eisenstein, has a single zero $in(-2,-1)$. If $alpha$ is one of the complex zeros of $f$, then $K_1=Bbb{Q}(alpha)$ is a cubic field, and $Bbb{Z}[alpha]$ is a ring that as a an abelian group is free of rank three. The field $K_1$ cannot be gotten by adjoining a cube root (real or complex) of an integer to $Bbb{Q}$. A way of seeing that is to use the discriminants. The discriminant of $f(x)$ is $d(f)=-76$, implying that the discriminant of $mathcal{O}_{K_1}$ is either $-76$ or $-19$. The discriminant of $g(x)=x^3-n$ is $d(g)=-27n^2$. The discriminants of orders of the same field can only differ by a factor that is a square, making it impossible for $mathcal{O}_{K_1}$ to contain $Bbb{Z}[omega^jroot3of n]$ for any alternative $j=0,1,2$ (so any root of $g(x)$).

                  2. Some cubic extension fields of $Bbb{Q}$ are Galois extensions, implying that the minimal polynomials of all the elements have real zeros (all in that same field). An example appearing possibly the most frequently in our website is $K=Bbb{Q}(2cos(2pi/9))$. The zeros of the irreducible polynomial $p(x)=x^3-3x+1$ are $2cos(2^kpi/9)$ with $k=1,2,3$, cyclicalle permuted by the mapping $rmapsto r^2-2$. The ring of integers of $K$ is $Bbb{Z}[2cos(2pi/9)]$. Here the discriminant is $d(p)=81$, the square of a rational number. This happens always with cubic Galois extensions.

                  3. The third primitive root of unity $omega$ does play the following important role, so I will also mention the following result (look up Kummer theory for details and generalizations). If, instead of $Bbb{Q}$, we use $F=Bbb{Q}(omega)$ as our base field, then we have the following characterization of cubic Galois extensions of $F$.


                    Assume that $L$ is a cubic Galois extension of $F$, then there exists an element $zin L$ such that $alpha=z^3in F$. In other words $L=F(root3ofalpha)$.





                  Of course, in the last bullet, $F$ has other types of cubic extensions, but none of those are Galois over $F$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  It is a bit unclear to me exactly what kind of an answer you are looking for. Listing the following points that occurred to me while reading the question.




                  1. You don't need to use $omega$ to get a cubic extension field containing non-real numbers. Any cubic polynomial $f(x)$, irreducible over $Bbb{Q}$, such that $f$ has only a single real zero will yield such fields. For example, $f(x)=x^3-2x+2$, irreducible by Eisenstein, has a single zero $in(-2,-1)$. If $alpha$ is one of the complex zeros of $f$, then $K_1=Bbb{Q}(alpha)$ is a cubic field, and $Bbb{Z}[alpha]$ is a ring that as a an abelian group is free of rank three. The field $K_1$ cannot be gotten by adjoining a cube root (real or complex) of an integer to $Bbb{Q}$. A way of seeing that is to use the discriminants. The discriminant of $f(x)$ is $d(f)=-76$, implying that the discriminant of $mathcal{O}_{K_1}$ is either $-76$ or $-19$. The discriminant of $g(x)=x^3-n$ is $d(g)=-27n^2$. The discriminants of orders of the same field can only differ by a factor that is a square, making it impossible for $mathcal{O}_{K_1}$ to contain $Bbb{Z}[omega^jroot3of n]$ for any alternative $j=0,1,2$ (so any root of $g(x)$).

                  2. Some cubic extension fields of $Bbb{Q}$ are Galois extensions, implying that the minimal polynomials of all the elements have real zeros (all in that same field). An example appearing possibly the most frequently in our website is $K=Bbb{Q}(2cos(2pi/9))$. The zeros of the irreducible polynomial $p(x)=x^3-3x+1$ are $2cos(2^kpi/9)$ with $k=1,2,3$, cyclicalle permuted by the mapping $rmapsto r^2-2$. The ring of integers of $K$ is $Bbb{Z}[2cos(2pi/9)]$. Here the discriminant is $d(p)=81$, the square of a rational number. This happens always with cubic Galois extensions.

                  3. The third primitive root of unity $omega$ does play the following important role, so I will also mention the following result (look up Kummer theory for details and generalizations). If, instead of $Bbb{Q}$, we use $F=Bbb{Q}(omega)$ as our base field, then we have the following characterization of cubic Galois extensions of $F$.


                    Assume that $L$ is a cubic Galois extension of $F$, then there exists an element $zin L$ such that $alpha=z^3in F$. In other words $L=F(root3ofalpha)$.





                  Of course, in the last bullet, $F$ has other types of cubic extensions, but none of those are Galois over $F$.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered 16 hours ago









                  Jyrki Lahtonen

                  108k12166367




                  108k12166367






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                      Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                      Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3061094%2fwhat-other-kinds-of-cubic-integer-rings-are-there%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      An IMO inspired problem

                      Management

                      Investment