1.
Introduction
Determining the irreducibility of a polynomial has been one of the most intensively studied problems in mathematics. Among many irreducibility criteria for polynomials in Z[x], a classical result of A. Cohn [1] states that if we express a prime p in the decimal representation as
then the polynomial f(x)=anxn+an−1xn−1+⋯+a1x+a0 is irreducible in Z[x]. This result was subsequently generalized to any base b by Brillhart et al. [2]. In 2002, Murty [3] gave another proof of this fact that was conceptually simpler than the one in [2].
In the present work, we are interested in studying the result of A. Cohn in any imaginary quadratic field. Let K=Q(√m) with a unique squarefree integer m≠1, be a quadratic field. We have seen that the quadratic field K is said to be real if m>0 and imaginary if m<0. The set of algebraic integers that lie in K is denoted by OK. Indeed,
where
[4]. Clearly, OQ(i)=Z[i], the ring of Gaussian integers, where i=√−1. It is well known that OK is an integral domain and K is its quotient field. Then the set of units in OK[x] is U(OK), the group of units in OK.
In general, we know that a prime element in OK is an irreducible element and the converse holds if OK is a unique factorization domain. A nonzero polynomial p(x)∈OK[x] is said to be irreducible in OK[x] if p(x) is not a unit and if p(x)=f(x)g(x) in OK[x], then either f(x) or g(x) is a unit in OK. Polynomials that are not irreducible are called reducible. For β=a+bσm∈OK, we denote the norm of β by
Clearly, N(β)∈Z for all β∈OK. To determine whether α∈OK is an irreducible element, we often use the fact that if N(α)=±p, where p is a rational prime, then α is an irreducible element [4].
For α,β∈OK with α≠0, we say that α divides β, denoted by α∣β, if there exists δ∈OK such that β=αδ. For α,β,γ∈OK with γ≠0, we say that α is congruent to β modulo γ and we write α≡β (mod γ), if γ∣(α−β). By a complete residue system modulo β in OK, abbreviated by CRS(β) [5], we mean a set of |N(β)| elements C={α1,α2,…,α|N(β)|} in OK, which satisfies the following.
(i) For each α∈OK, there exists αi∈C such that α≡αi (mod β).
(ii) For all i,j∈{1,2,…,|N(β)|} with i≠j, we have αi≢αj (mod β).
We have seen from [6] that
is a CRS(β), where β=a+bi∈Z[i] and d=gcd(a,b). It is clear that
In 2017, Singthongla et al. [7] established the result of A. Cohn in OK[x], where K is an imaginary quadratic field such that OK is a Euclidean domain, namely m=−1,−2,−3,−7, and −11 [4]. Regarding the complete residue system (1.1), they established irreducibility criteria for polynomials in Z[i][x] as the following results.
Theorem A. [7] Let β∈{2±2i,1±3i,3±i} or β=a+bi∈Z[i] be such that |β|≥2+√2 and a≥1. For a Gaussian prime π, if
with n≥1, Re(αn)≥1, and α0,α1,…,αn−1∈C′ satisfying Re(αn−1)Im(αn)≥Re(αn)Im(αn−1), then f(x) is irreducible in Z[i][x].
In the proof of Theorem A in [7], the inequality
where M=√(max{a,|b|}−1)2+(d−1)2 is necessary. It can be verified that for β=a+bi∈Z[i], if |β|<2+√2 and a≥1, then β∈{3±i,2±2i,2±i,1±3i,1±2i,1±i,3,2,1}. It is clear that the Gaussian integers 2±2i, 1±3i, and 3±i satisfy (1.2), while 2±i,1±2i,1±i,3,2,1 do not. Consequently, we cannot apply Theorem A for these numbers. However, there is an irreducibility criterion for polynomials in Z[i][x] using β=3 in [7].
Theorem B. [7] If π is a Gaussian prime such that
where n≥3, Re(αn)≥1, and α0,α1,…,αn−1∈C′ satisfying the conditions
then the polynomial f(x)=αnxn+αn−1xn−1+⋯+α1x+α0 is irreducible in Z[i][x].
In 2017, Tadee et al. [8] derived three explicit representations for a complete residue system in a general quadratic field K=Q(√m). We are interested in the first one and only the case m≢1 (mod 4) because the complete residue system in another case, m≡1 (mod 4) is inapplicable for our work. The CRS(β) for m≢1 (mod 4) in [8] is the set
where β=a+b√m and d=gcd(a,b).
Recently, Phetnun et al. [9] constructed a complete residue system in a general quadratic field K=Q(√m) for the case m≡1 (mod 4), which is similar to that in (1.3). They then determined the so-called base-β(C) representation in OK and generalized Theorem A for any imaginary quadratic field by using such representation. These results are as the following.
Theorem C. [9] Let K=Q(√m) be a quadratic field with m≡1 (mod 4). If β=a+bσm∈OK∖{0} with d=gcd(a,b), then the set
is a CRS(β).
From (1.3) and (1.4), we have shown in [9] for any m<0, that the set
Moreover, if d=1, then C′={0,1,…,max{|a|,|b|}−1}, while b=0 implies C′={x+yσm∣x,y=0,1,…,|a|−1}=C.
Definition A. [9] Let K=Q(√m) be an imaginary quadratic field. Let β∈OK∖{0} and C be a CRS(β). We say that η∈OK∖{0} has a base-β(C) representation if
where n≥1, αn∈OK∖{0}, and αi∈C (i=0,1,…,n−1). If αi∈C′ (i=0,1,…,n−1), then (1.6) is called a base-β(C′) representation of η.
Theorem D. [9] Let K=Q(√m) be an imaginary quadratic field with m≢1 (mod 4). Let β=a+b√m∈OK be such that |β|≥2+√1−m and a≥1+√1−m. For an irreducible element π in OK with |π|≥|β|, if
is a base-β(C′) representation with Re(αn)≥1 satisfying Re(αn−1)Im(αn)≥Re(αn)Im(αn−1), then f(x) is irreducible in OK[x].
Theorem E. [9] Let K=Q(√m) be an imaginary quadratic field with m≡1 (mod 4). Let β=a+bσm∈OK be such that |β|≥2+√(9−m)/4, a≥1, and a+(b/2)≥1. For an irreducible element π in OK with |π|>√(9−m)/4(|β|−1), if
is a base-β(C′) representation with Re(αn)≥1 satisfying Re(αn−1)Im(αn)≥Re(αn)Im(αn−1), then f(x) is irreducible in OK[x].
In this work, we first establish further irreducibility criteria for polynomials in OK[x], where K=Q(√m) is an imaginary quadratic field, which extend Theorem D and Theorem E. We observe that the result for the case m≢1 (mod 4) is a generalization of Theorem B. Furthermore, we provide elements of β that can be applied to the new criteria but not to the previous ones.
2.
Further irreducibility criteria
In this section, we establish irreducibility criteria for polynomials in OK[x], where K is an imaginary quadratic field. To prove this, we first recall the essential lemmas in [7,10] as the following.
Lemma 1. [10] Let K=Q(√m) be an imaginary quadratic field. Then |β|≥1 for all β∈OK∖{0}.
We note for an imaginary quadratic field K that |α|=1 for all α∈U(OK).
Lemma 2. [7] Let f(x)=αnxn+αn−1xn−1+⋯+α1x+α0∈C[x] be such that n≥3 and |αi|≤M (0≤i≤n−2) for some real number M≥1. If f(x) satisfies the following:
(i) Re(αn)≥1, Re(αn−1)≥0, Im(αn−1)≥0, Re(αn−2)≥0, and Im(αn−2)≥0,
(ii) Re(αn−1)Im(αn)≥Re(αn)Im(αn−1),
(iii) Re(αn−2)Im(αn)≥Re(αn)Im(αn−2), and
(iv) Re(αn−2)Im(αn−1)≥Re(αn−1)Im(αn−2),
then any complex zero α of f(x) satisfies |α|<M1/3+0.465572 if |argα|≤π/6; otherwise
We note that the inequality |α|<M1/3+0.465572 appears in Lemma 2 follows from the proof of the lemma in [7] as follows: It was shown in [7] that
where h(x)=x3−x2−M. To obtain such inequality, the authors suppose to the contrary that |α|≥M1/3+0.465572. One can show that h(x) is increasing on (−∞,0)∪(2/3,∞). Since M1/3+0.465572>2/3, it follows that
which contradicts to (2.1).
Now, we proceed to our first main results. To obtain an irreducibility criterion for the case m≢1 (mod 4), we begin with the following lemma.
Lemma 3. Let K=Q(√m) be an imaginary quadratic field with m≢1 (mod 4). Let β=a+b√m∈OK be such that a>1 and
where d=gcd(a,b). Then M≥1.
Proof. If b=0, then M=√(a−1)2−m(a−1)2=√1−m(a−1)>1. Now, assume that b≠0 and we treat two separate cases.
Case 1: |b|≥a. Then M=√(|b|−1)2−m(d−1)2≥√(|b|−1)2=|b|−1≥1.
Case 2: |b|<a. Then M=√(a−1)2−m(d−1)2≥√(a−1)2=a−1≥1.
From every case, we conclude that M≥1.
By applying Lemmas 1–3, we have the following.
Theorem 1. Let K=Q(√m) be an imaginary quadratic field with m≢1 (mod 4). Let β=a+b√m∈OK be such that |β|≥M1/3+1.465572 and a≥1+(√3/2)((1+√1+4M)/2), where M is defined as in (2.2). For an irreducible element π in OK, if
is a base-β(C′) representation with n≥3 and Re(αn)≥1 satisfying conditions (ii)–(iv) of Lemma 2, then f(x) is irreducible in OK[x].
Proof. Suppose to the contrary that f(x) is reducible in OK[x]. Then f(x)=g(x)h(x) with g(x) and h(x) in OK[x]∖U(OK). We first show that either degg(x)≥1 and |g(β)|=1 or degh(x)≥1 and |h(β)|=1. It follows from degf(x)≥3 that g(x) or h(x) is a positive degree polynomial. If either degg(x)=0 or degh(x)=0, we may assume that h(x)=α∈OK. Then degg(x)=degf(x) and f(x)=αg(x) so that π=αg(β). Since π is an irreducible element and α∉U(OK), we obtain g(β)∈U(OK) and thus, |g(β)|=1. Otherwise, both degg(x)≥1 and degh(x)≥1, we have that π=g(β)h(β). Using the irreducibility of π again, we deduce that either g(β) or h(β) is a unit and hence, either |g(β)|=1 or |h(β)|=1, as desired.
We now assume without loss of generality that degg(x)≥1 and |g(β)|=1. We will show that this cannot happen. Note that M≥1 by Lemma 3. Moreover, since αi∈C′ for all i∈{0,1,…,n−1}, where C′ is defined as in (1.5), we have
for all i∈{0,1,…,n−1}. Since degg(x)≥1, g(x) can be expressed in the form
where ε∈OK is the leading coefficient of g(x) and the product is over the set of complex zeros of g(x). It follows from Lemma 2 that any complex zero γ of g(x) satisfies either
In the first case, it follows from |β|≥M1/3+1.465572 that
In the latter case, it follows from a≥1+(√3/2)((1+√1+4M)/2) that
From both cases, by using Lemma 1, we obtain
which is a contradiction. This completes the proof.
By taking β=3 together with m=−1 in Theorem 1, we obtain Theorem B. This shows that Theorem 1 is a generalization of Theorem B. We will show in the next section that if β=a+bi∈Z[i]∖{0} with b=0, then β=3 is the only element that can be applied to Theorem 1.
Next, we illustrate the use of Theorem 1 by the following example.
Example 1. Let K=Q(√−5), β=3+√−5∈OK, and π=−9069−5968√−5. Then d=1 and so C′={0,1,2}. Note that M=√(3−1)2+5(1−1)2=2, |β|=√14>M1/3+1.465572, a=3>1+(√3/2)((1+√1+4M)/2), and π is an irreducible element because N(π)=(−9069)2+5(−5968)2=260331881 is a rational prime. Now, we have
is its base-β(C′) representation with n=5 and Re(αn)=13 satisfying conditions (ii)–(iv) of Lemma 2.
By using Theorem 1, we obtain that
is irreducible in OK[x].
Note from Example 1 that we cannot apply Theorem D to conclude the irreducibility of the polynomial f(x) because |β|=|3+√−5|<2+√6=2+√1−m. Moreover, we see that a=3<1+√6=1+√1−m.
For the case m≡1 (mod 4), we start with the following lemma.
Lemma 4. Let K=Q(√m) be an imaginary quadratic field with m≡1 (mod 4). Let β=a+bσm∈OK be such that a+(b/2)≥1+(√3/2)((1+√1+4M)/2) and
where d=gcd(a,b). Then M≥1.
Proof. If b=0, then a≥1+(√3/2)((1+√1+4M)/2)>1. It follows that
If a=0, then b/2≥1+(√3/2)((1+√1+4M)/2)>1. Thus, b>2 and so
Now, assume that |a|≥1 and |b|≥1. If |a|=1 and |b|=1, then M=0, yielding a contradiction because a+(b/2)≥1+(√3/2)((1+√1+4M)/2). Then |a|>1 or |b|>1. It follows from d≥1 that
By applying Lemmas 1, 2 and 4, we obtain an irreducibility criterion for the case m≡1 (mod 4) as the following theorem.
Theorem 2. Let K=Q(√m) be an imaginary quadratic field with m≡1 (mod 4). Let β=a+bσm∈OK be such that |β|≥M1/3+1.465572 and a+(b/2)≥1+(√3/2)((1+√1+4M)/2), where M is defined as in (2.3). For an irreducible element π in OK, if
is a base-β(C′) representation with n≥3 and Re(αn)≥1 satisfying conditions (ii)–(iv) of Lemma 2, then f(x) is irreducible in OK[x].
Proof. Suppose to the contrary that f(x) is reducible in OK[x]. Then f(x)=g(x)h(x) with g(x) and h(x) in OK[x]∖U(OK). It can be proved similarly to the proof of Theorem 1 that either degg(x)≥1 and |g(β)|=1 or degh(x)≥1 and |h(β)|=1. We may assume without loss of generality that degg(x)≥1 and |g(β)|=1. We will show that this cannot happen. By Lemma 4, we have M≥1. For i∈{0,1,…,n−1}, since αi∈C′, it follows from the definition of C′ in (1.5) that
The remaining proof is again similar to that of Theorem 1 by using Lemmas 1, 2 and Re(β)=a+(b/2).
We illustrate the use of Theorem 2 by the following example.
Example 2. Let K=Q(√−3), β=4−σ−3, and π=359−278σ−3. Then d=1 and so C′={0,1,2,3}. Note that M=√(4−1)2+(4−1)(1−1)+(1−1)2=3, |β|=√13>M1/3+1.465572, a+(b/2)=3.5>1+(√3/2)((1+√1+4M)/2), and π is an irreducible element because N(π)=3592−359⋅278+(−278)2=106363 is a rational prime. Now, we have
is its base-β(C′) representation with n=4 and Re(αn)=1 satisfying conditions (ii)–(iv) of Lemma 2.
By using Theorem 2, we obtain that
is irreducible in OK[x].
From Example 2, we emphasize that we cannot apply Theorem E to conclude the irreducibility of the polynomial f(x) because |β|=|4−σ−3|<2+√3=2+√(9−m)/4, although a=4>1 and a+(b/2)=4−(1/2)>1.
3.
Comparison of the criteria
Let K=Q(√m) be an imaginary quadratic field. In this section, we will try to find elements of β=a+bσm∈OK∖{0} that can be applied to Theorem 1, respectively, Theorem 2 but not to Theorem D, respectively, Theorem E. We are only interested in two cases, namely b=0 and b≠0 with d=gcd(a,b)=1 because the remaining case, b≠0 with d>1 requires us to solve a multi-variable system of inequalities, which is more complicated. To proceed with this objective, we begin with the following remarks.
Remark 1. Let a and m be integers with m<0. Then the following statements hold.
(i) a≥1+√32(1+√1+4(a−1)2) if and only if a≥3.
(ii) a≥1+√32(1+√1+4√1−m(a−1)2) if and only if a≥4+2√3+3√1−m4.
(iii) a≥1+√32(1+√1+4√(9−m)/4(a−1)2) if and only if a≥4+2√3+3√(9−m)/44.
Proof. For convenience, we let A=a−1. We have for any real number x>0 that
Substituting x=1, x=√1−m, and x=√(9−m)/4 in (3.1) lead to (i)–(iii), respectively, as desired.
To compare Theorem 1 with Theorem D and to compare Theorem 2 with Theorem E, we require the following remark.
Remark 2. For any real number x, the following statements hold.
(i) 4+2√3+3√x4≥(x+√x)1/3+1.465572 for all x∈[3,∞).
(ii) √x2+5≥(x−1)1/3+1.465572 for all x∈[1,∞).
(iii) √3x+1≥(x−1)1/3+1.465572 for all x∈[1,∞).
(iv) √x22+1≥(x−1)1/3+1.465572 for all x∈[4,∞).
(v) x≥(√2(x−1))1/3+1.465572 for all x∈[2.85,∞).
(vi) √x2+1≥(x−1)1/3+1.465572 for all x∈[3,∞).
(vii) √−73−121x>4+√9−x for all x∈(−∞,−2].
(viii) √29−9x>4+√9−x for all x∈(−∞,−3].
Proof of Remark 2. By using the WolframAlpha computational intelligence (www.wolframalpha.com), it can be verified by considering the graphs of both left and right functions of each inequality.
3.1. Comparison of the criteria for m≢1(mod4)
Let K=Q(√m) be an imaginary quadratic field with m≢1 (mod 4). In this subsection, we will find elements of β∈OK∖{0} that can be applied to Theorem 1 but not to Theorem D. Now, let β=a+b√m be a nonzero element in OK that can be applied to Theorem 1 but not to Theorem D. Then |β|≥M1/3+1.465572 and a≥1+(√3/2)((1+√1+4M)/2), where M is defined as in (2.2). Since β cannot be applied to Theorem D, one can consider two possible cases, namely, |β|<2+√1−m or |β|≥2+√1−m as follows:
Case A: |β|<2+√1−m. Then, we now try to find elements of β that satisfy the following inequality system:
We consider two cases as follows:
Case 1: b=0. Then β=a and M=√(a−1)2−m(a−1)2=√1−m(a−1). Thus, the system (3.2) becomes
By (3.5) and Remark 1(ii), we have a≥(4+2√3+3√1−m)/4, which together with (3.3) yield
To show that the integers β=a satisfying (3.6) are solutions of the system above, we must show that they also satisfy (3.4). If m=−1, then a≥(4+2√3+3√2)/4≈2.93. It follows from Remark 2(v) with x=a that a≥(√2(a−1))1/3+1.465572=(√1−m(a−1))1/3+1.465572. Assume that m≤−2. By taking x=1−m in Remark 2(i), we obtain that
implying (3.4).
We note for m=−1 that the inequality (3.6) implies a=3. Hence, β=3∈Z[i] is the only element that can be applied to Theorem 1 but not to Theorem D.
Case 2: b≠0 and d=1. There are two further subcases:
Subcase 2.1: |b|≥a. Then |β|=√a2−mb2 and M=√(|b|−1)2=|b|−1. Thus, the system (3.2) becomes
Since |b|≥a, we obtain from (3.8) that a≥1+(√3/2)((1+√1+4(a−1))/2). Using Remark 1(i), we have that a≥3. It follows from |b|≥a, a≥3, and m≤−1 that
which is contrary to (3.7). Thus, the system above has no integer solution (a,b). This means that the assumptions in the system generate no pairs (a,b) that are solutions to Theorem 1 and that are also not solutions to Theorem D.
Subcase 2.2: |b|<a. Then |β|=√a2−mb2 and M=√(a−1)2=a−1. Thus, the system (3.2) becomes
Using Remark 1(i) and (3.11), we have a≥3. Since m≤−1, we obtain (6−5m)2=25m2−60m+36>16m2−52m+36=4(9−4m)(1−m), yielding 6−5m>2√(9−4m)(1−m). It follows that
and so √9−4m−√1−m>2. If |b|≥2, then √a2−mb2≥√9−4m>2+√1−m, which is contrary to (3.9). Thus, |b|=1. Using (3.9) and a≥3, we have √9−m≤√a2−m<2+√1−m and so 9≤a2<5+4√1−m, i.e., 3≤a<√5+4√1−m. We next show that the pairs (a,b) with
also satisfy (3.10). Since |b|=1, a≥3, and Remark 2(vi) with x=a, we have
yielding (3.10). Thus, we conclude that the pairs (a,b) satisfying (3.12) are solutions of the system above.
Case B: |β|≥2+√1−m. Since we cannot apply the element β to Theorem D, we have a<1+√1−m. Now, we try again to find elements of β that satisfy the following inequality system:
We consider two cases as follows:
Case 1: b=0. Then a<1+√1−m<2+√1−m≤|β|=a, which is a contradiction. Hence, the system (3.13) has no integer solution β=a. In other words, the assumptions in the system generate no pairs (a,b) that are solutions to Theorem 1 and that are also not solutions to Theorem D.
Case 2: b≠0 and d=1. There are two further subcases:
Subcase 2.1: |b|≥a. Then |β|=√a2−mb2 and M=√(|b|−1)2=|b|−1. Thus, the system (3.13) becomes
Since |b|≥a, we obtain from (3.17) that a≥1+(√3/2)((1+√1+4(a−1))/2). It follows from Remark 1(i) that a≥3. Since d=1, we have |b|>a. By using (3.15) together with a≥3, we have 3≤a<1+√1−m, implying m≤−5. It can be verified by using (3.17) that |b|≤((4√3(a−1)−3)2+27)/36. Now, we have that
To show that the pairs (a,b) satisfying (3.18) are solutions of the system, it remains to show that they also satisfy (3.14) and (3.16). Since |b|>a≥3 and m<0, we obtain
yielding (3.14). From Remark 2(ii) with x=|b|, we have
showing (3.16).
Subcase 2.2: |b|<a. Then |β|=√a2−mb2 and M=√(a−1)2=a−1. Thus, the system (3.13) becomes
Again, using Remark 1(i) and (3.22), we obtain a≥3. By using (3.20) together with a≥3, we have 3≤a<1+√1−m, implying m\leq -5 . Using (3.19), we can verify that |b|\geq \sqrt{(5-m+4\sqrt{1-m}-a^2)/(-m)} . Now, we have that
To show that the pairs (a, b) satisfying (3.23) are solutions of the system, it remains to show that they also satisfy (3.21). It follows from b^2\geq 1 , m\leq -5 , and Remark 2(ii) with x = a that
yielding (3.21).
From every case, we conclude that elements of \beta = a+b\sqrt{m} \in O_K\setminus\{0\} with m\not\equiv 1\ ({\mathrm{mod}}\ 4) that can be applied to Theorem 1 but not to Theorem D are shown in the following tables.
We note from Subcase 2.2 in Table 1 that the number of a roughly grows as 2\sqrt[4]{1-m} . To see this, since 8\sqrt[4]{1-m} > 1 , we have
and so 3\leq a < \sqrt{5+4\sqrt{1-m}} < 2\sqrt[4]{1-m}+2 . This means that the number of such a is approximately 2\sqrt[4]{1-m} .
We note from Table 2 that the complicated lower bound in Subcase 2.2 is actually very close to 1 . Indeed, we show that
Since m\leq -1 , it follows that
showing (4-3m)^2 > 16(1-m) and so 4-3m > 4\sqrt{1-m} . Using 3\leq a < 1+\sqrt{1-m} , we have that -2+m-2\sqrt{1-m} < -a^2\leq -9 . It follows that
This shows that \sqrt{(5-m+4\sqrt{1-m}-a^2)/(-m)} < \sqrt{4} = 2 , as desired.
3.2. Comparison of the criteria for m\equiv 1 ({\mathrm{mod}} 4)
Let K = \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{m}) be an imaginary quadratic field with m\equiv 1\ ({\mathrm{mod}}\ 4) . In this subsection, we find elements of \beta\in O_K\setminus\{0\} that can be applied to Theorem 2 but not to Theorem E. Now, let \beta = a+b\sigma_m be a nonzero element in O_K that can be applied to Theorem 2 but not to Theorem E. Then |\beta| \geq M^{{1}/{3}}+1.465572 and a+(b/2)\geq 1+(\sqrt{3}/2)\left((1+\sqrt{1+4M})/2\right) , where M is defined as in (2.3). Since \beta cannot be applied to Theorem E, one can consider two possible cases, namely, |\beta| < 2+\sqrt{(9-m)/4} or |\beta|\geq 2+\sqrt{(9-m)/4} as follows:
Case A: |\beta| < 2+\sqrt{(9-m)/4} . Then we will find elements of \beta that satisfy the inequality system:
We consider two cases as follows:
Case 1: b = 0 . Then \beta = a and M = \sqrt{(a-1)^2+(a-1)(a-1)+(a-1)^2(1-m)/4} = \sqrt{(9-m)/4}(a-1) . Thus, the system (3.24) becomes
By (3.27) and Remark 1(iii), we have that a\geq (4+2\sqrt{3}+3\sqrt{(9-m)/4})/4 , which together with (3.25) yield
To show that the integers \beta = a satisfying (3.28) are solutions of the system above, we must show that they also satisfy (3.26). By taking x = (9-m)/4 in Remark 2(i) and using (3.25), we obtain that
It follows from (3.28) and (3.29) that a > \left(\sqrt{(9-m)/4}(a-1)\right)^{{1}/{3}}+1.465572 , yielding (3.26).
Case 2: b\not = 0 and d = 1 . There are two further subcases:
Subcase 2.1: |b|\geq |a| . Then |\beta| = \sqrt{a^2+ab+b^2(1-m)/4} and M = \sqrt{(|b|-1)^2} = |b|-1 . Thus, the system (3.24) becomes
In this subcase, we now show that the system has no integer solution (a, b) . If a < 0 , then it follows from (3.31) that b > 0 and so (b/2)-1\geq 1+(\sqrt{3}/2)\left(\Big(1+\sqrt{1+4(b-1)}\Big)/2\right) . Then b^2-(11+\sqrt{3})b+(19+4\sqrt{3})\geq 0 , implying b\geq 11 . It follows from a^2\geq 1 , a > 1-(b/2) , b\geq 11 , and Remark 2(vii) with x = m that
which is contrary to (3.30). Thus, a\geq 0 . If a = 0 , then |b| = 1 because d = 1 . This contradicts to (3.31), so a\geq 1 . If |b| = 1 , then a = 1 and so (3.31) is false. Thus, |b|\geq 2 and so |b| > a because d = 1 . It follows from (3.31) and |b|\geq 2 that a+(b/2) > 2.4 and so |b|+(b/2) > 2.4 . This implies that b\geq 2 or b\leq -5 . If b = 2 , then we obtain that 2 = |b| > a\geq (\sqrt{3}/2)\left(\Big(1+\sqrt{1+4(2-1)}\Big)/2\right) > 1.4 , which is a contradiction. If b = 3 , then we obtain that 3 = |b| > a\geq (\sqrt{3}/2)\left(\Big(1+\sqrt{1+4(3-1)}\Big)/2\right)-(1/2) > 1.2 , which implies that a = 2 . It follows that
which is contrary to (3.30). If b\geq 4 , then
which is contrary to (3.30). If b\leq -5 , then
showing a\geq 6 . Since b\leq -5 and a\geq 6 , it follows from -b = |b| > a that
which is contrary to (3.30).
Thus, in this subcase, we conclude that the assumptions in the system generate no pairs (a, b) that are solutions to Theorem 2 and that are also not solutions to E.
Subcase 2.2: |b| < |a| . Then |\beta| = \sqrt{a^2+ab+b^2(1-m)/4} and M = \sqrt{(|a|-1)^2} = |a|-1 . Thus, the system (3.24) becomes
If a < 0 , then it follows from a+(b/2) > 1 that b > 0 . Since |a| > |b| = b and (3.35), we obtain (b/2)-1\geq a+(b/2) > 1+(\sqrt{3}/2)\left(\Big(1+\sqrt{1+4(b-1)}\Big)/2\right) , implying b\geq 11 . Now, we have that a^2 > 1 , a > 1-(b/2) , and b\geq 11 . It can be proved similarly to (3.32) that
which is contrary to (3.33). Thus, a\geq 0 . If a = 0 or a = 1 , then 0 < |b| < |a|\leq 1 , which is impossible so that a\geq 2 . If b = -1 , then it follows from (3.35) that a-(1/2)\geq 1+(\sqrt{3}/2)\left(\Big(1+\sqrt{1+4(a-1)}\Big)/2\right) , implying a\geq 4 . By taking x = a in Remark 2(iii), we have
yielding (3.34). It can be verified by (3.33) with b = -1 that a < \left(\sqrt{8\sqrt{9-m}+25}+1\right)/2 . This shows that
If b = 1 , then it follows from (3.35) that a+(1/2)\geq 1+(\sqrt{3}/2)\left(\Big(1+\sqrt{1+4(a-1)}\Big)/2\right) , implying a\geq 2 . By taking x = a in Remark 2(iii), we have that
yielding (3.34). It can be verified by (3.33) with b = 1 that a < \left(\sqrt{8\sqrt{9-m}+25}-1\right)/2 and thus
We next show for b\geq 2 or b\leq -2 that the system above has no integer solution (a, b) . If b\geq 2 , then a = |a| > |b| = b\geq 2 and so a\geq 3 . It follows that
which is contrary to (3.33). If b = -2 , then we obtain from (3.35) that a-1\geq 1+(\sqrt{3}/2)\left(\Big(1+\sqrt{1+4(a-1)}\Big)/2\right) , implying a\geq 4 . Since d = 1 and b = -2 , we have that a\geq 5 . Hence,
which is contrary to (3.33). If b\leq -3 , then we have a-(3/2)\geq a+(b/2) \geq 1+(\sqrt{3}/2)\left(\Big(1+\sqrt{1+4(a-1)}\Big)/2\right) . This implies that a\geq 5 . Since a > |b| = -b , we obtain that -b\leq a-1 and so ab\geq -a^2+a . It follows from b\leq -3 , a\geq 5 , ab\geq -a^2+a , and Remark 2(viii) with x = m that
which is contrary to (3.33).
Thus, in this subcase, we obtain that the pairs (a, b) with b\not = 0 and d = 1 satisfying (3.36) or (3.37) are integer solutions of the system (3.24).
Case B: |\beta| \geq 2+\sqrt{(9-m)/4} . Since a+(b/2) > 1 and we cannot apply \beta to Theorem E, it follows that a < 1 . Thus, we have to find elements of \beta that satisfy the following inequality system:
Note that M\geq 1 by Lemma 4. Then b/2\geq 1+(\sqrt{3}/2)\left((1+\sqrt{5})/2\right) > 2.4 and so b\geq 5 . If b < |a| , then a\leq -6 and so a+(b/2) < a+b < a+|a| = 0 , which is a contradiction. Thus, b\geq |a| = -a and so M = \sqrt{(b-1)^2} = b-1 . Hence, the system (3.38) becomes
Since b\geq 5 and d = 1 , we have a\leq -1 . It follows by (3.41) that (b/2)-1\geq 1+(\sqrt{3}/2)\left(\Big(1+\sqrt{1+4(b-1)}\Big)/2\right) , implying b\geq 11 . Note that b\geq -a , b\geq 11 , and d = 1 imply b > -a . That is, -b < a\leq -1 . Now, we have that
To show that the pairs (a, b) satisfying (3.42) are solutions of the system, it remains to show that they also satisfy (3.39) and (3.40). Since a^2\geq 1 , a > 1-(b/2) , and b\geq 11 , we obtain by Remark 2(vii) with x = m that
showing (3.39). It follows from a^2\geq 1 , a > 1-(b/2) , m\leq -3 , and Remark 2(iv) with x = b that
yielding (3.40), as desired.
From every case, we conclude that elements of \beta = a+b\sigma_m\in O_K\setminus\{0\} with m\equiv 1\ ({\mathrm{mod}}\ 4) that can be applied to Theorem 2 but not to Theorem E are shown in the following tables.
We note from Subcase 2.2 in Table 3 that when b = -1 , the number of a roughly grows as \sqrt[4]{4(9-m)} . Otherwise, b = 1 implies that the number of a roughly grows as \sqrt[4]{4(9-m)}+1 . To see these, one can see that
and so \sqrt{8\sqrt{9-m}+25} < 2\sqrt[4]{4(9-m)}+5 . If b = -1 , then
showing that the number of such a is approximately \sqrt[4]{4(9-m)} . If b = 1 , we obtain
showing that the number of such a is approximately \sqrt[4]{4(9-m)}+1 .
From Table 4, one can verify that if b\geq |a| and d = 1 , then b\geq 11 and
This implies that the number of possible values of a is at most \lfloor (b/2)-4.2 \rfloor , the greatest integer less than or equal to (b/2)-4.2 .
4.
Conclusions
Let K = \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{m}) be an imaginary quadratic field with O_K its ring of integers. In this paper, further irreducibility criteria for polynomials in O_K[x] are established which extend the authors' earlier works (Theorems D and E). Moreover, elements of \beta\in O_K that can be applied to the new criteria but not to the previous ones are also provided.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Science Achievement Scholarship of Thailand (SAST) and Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Khon Kaen University, Fiscal Year 2022.
Conflicts of interest
All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.