Abstract
We give necessary and sufficient conditions for the divisibility of two finite geometric series \( G_n(x) = 1 + x + x ^ 2 + \cdots + x^{n-1} \) over a field of characteristic zero.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
The geometric series
(also called geometric progression or GP for short) is an important two-parameter concept used in many branches of mathematics, such as in power series, convergence, telescoping matrix theory [4], number theory [2, 3] and algebraic curves, and has applications in cryptography [1].
For convenience, we shall write \(G_n\) for \(G_n(x)\), when there is no risk of confusion. It is well known that \((x - 1)G_n(x) = x^n - 1\). As such, it is clear that many of the properties of \(G_n(x)\) follow from those of \(x^n - 1\). We shall refer to the latter as the “binomial" of the geometric progression.
When q is a prime power, say \(q=p^e\), the geometric ratio \(G_n(q)\) corresponds to the number of points and of hyperplanes of the projective space \({\mathbb {P}}^{n-1}({\mathbb {F}}_q)\); if it is a prime number, then \(G_n(q)\) is called a projective prime.
The case \(G_2\left( 2^{2^e}\right) \) turns into a Fermat number, whereas \(2^n-1=G_n(2)\) is a Mersènne number. As in these two particular cases, it is conjectured that there exist infinitely many projective primes.
As in the Mersènne numbers, the primality of \(G_n(q)\) implies the primality of n. Indeed, we may use the Product Rule (see (1)) that we will address later to write \(G_n(q)=G_{dt}(q)=G_d(q)G_t(q^d)\), assuming \(n=dt\) is a non-trivial factorization.
Our aim is investigate the fundamental question of when \(G_n(x^p)\) divides \(G_m(x^q)\)—as a polynomial. This four-parameter problem will be referred to as the (n, p, m, q) property.
As always, we shall build on the simpler cases, such as the (n, 1, n, q) and (n, 1, m, q) cases, where \(m = n\) and \(p = 1\), or just when \(p = 1\).
All our results will be over a field \(\mathbb {F}\) with \(char(\mathbb {F}) = 0\). The greatest common divisor and the least common multiple of a and b will be denoted by (a, b) and [a, b], respectively.
We shall need a multitude of preliminary results, which are needed to build our case.
2 Building Blocks
Given integers m and n, let \((m,n) = d\) and suppose that \(n = mq + r\), where \(0\le r < m \le n\). Then,
This shows at once that
and hence that
Consequently,
and thus
Next, let \(L = [m,n] = lcm(m,n) = \frac{mn}{d}\). We also set \(m = dm'\) and \(n = dn'\) so that \(L = mn' = nm' = m'n'd\).
We now observe that if n|L and m|L, then \( x^n - 1|x^L - 1\) and \( x^m- 1|x^L - 1\). Hence, \([x^m - 1, x^n - 1]|x^L-1|x^{mn}-1\), and thus
which may be expressed as
For \(x \ne 1\), we have
and thus for all x
which we refer to as the Product Rule.
It immediately extends to larger products such as
A further consequence of the Product Rule is the “q equals one lemma":
Lemma 2.1
(The \(q = 1\) case) The following are equivalent:
-
(i)
(n, p, n, 1) holds.
-
(ii)
\(G_n(x^p)|G_n(x)\).
-
(iii)
\(G_{np} | G_nG_p\).
-
(iv)
\(n = 1\) or \(p = 1\).
Proof
The equivalence of (ii)–(iii) follows from the definition and the Product Rule.
If (iii) holds, then using degrees we see that \((np - 1) \le (n-1) + (p-1)\), which tells us that
Since \(n\ge 1\) and \(p\ge 1\), it follows that (iv) must hold. Lastly, it is clear that (iv) implies (ii). \(\square \)
The following is a key result, which critically depends on the fact that char(\(\mathbb {F}\)) = 0. This will be referred to it as the Linking Lemma with parameter m and links the sub- and superscripts in the two GPs, each of which contains the parameter m.
Lemma 2.2
(Linking Lemma) For any m, n and k,
Proof
We begin by noting that \(G_n(1) = n\), which when \(char(\mathbb {F})= 0\) cannot be equal to 0. Now by the remainder theorem
and thus as \(G_n(1) \ne 0\), we conclude that \( (x - 1) \not | ~ G_n(x),\) or
Replacing x by \(x^{mk}\) gives \(\left( x^{mk} - 1, G_n(x^{mk})\right) = 1\) and so
This means that for any m, n and k
\(\square \)
We use both the Product Rule and the Linking Lemma in the following Basic Lemma, which is a first step in our investigation of \(G_n(x^p) | G_{m}(x^q)\).
Lemma 2.3
((n,1,n,q)) The following are equivalent:
-
(1)
\(G_n(x) | G_n(x^q)\) i.e. (n, 1, n, q) holds.
-
(2)
\(G_n(x)G_q(x) | G_{qn}(x) \).
-
(3)
\((q,n) = 1\).
Proof
From the Product Rule, it is clear that \((1)\Leftrightarrow (2)\).
Let \((q,n) = d\) and \(q = q'd\), \(n = n'd\) and suppose that (1) holds. Then,
By the Linking Lemma, we now get \(G_d = 1\) and thus (3) follows.
Conversely, we always have that
and hence, if \(d = 1\), then (2) follows. \(\square \)
We can immediately extend this to
Lemma 2.4
(Key (n,1,m,q)) The following are equivalent:
-
(1)
\(G_n(x) | G_m(x^q)\) i.e. (n,1,m,q) holds.
-
(2)
\(G_n(x)G_q(x) | G_{mq}(x)\).
-
(3)
\((n,q) = 1\) and n|m.
Proof
The equivalence of (1) and (2) follows again from the Product Rule.
Let \((m,n) = d\) and \(m = m'd\), \(n = n'd\). Also set \((n,q) = e\) and \(n = n''e, q = q''e\). Then, \(G_n(x) = G_e(x)G_{n''}(x^e)|G_m(x^{q''e})\). By the Linking Lemma, with exponent e, we see that \(G_e(x) = 1 \) and thus \(e = (q,n) = 1\). Applying the Basic Lemma, we get \(G_nG_q |G_{nq}\). Combining this with (2), we conclude that
This implies that \(G_n | G_{dq}\) and thus n|dq. Since \((n,q) = 1\), it follows that n|d, and we may conclude that \(n = d\) and n|m so that (3) follows.
Conversely, if \((n,q) = 1\), then Lemma 2.3, \(G_nG_q|G_{nq}\) and since n|m, we also have \(G_{nq}|G_{mq}\). Combining these, we arrive at \(G_nG_q|G_{mq}\) giving (2). \(\square \)
3 The Polynomial Ratio
In what follows, we shall need several polynomial results dealing with greatest common divisors. In particular, we recall
Lemma 3.1
Over an Euclidean domain,
-
1.
The gcd Product Rule holds:
$$\begin{aligned} (ab, cd) = (a,c)(b,d)(a'b', c'd'), \end{aligned}$$where \(a' = a/(a,c), c' = c/(a,c), b' = b/(b,d), d' = d/(b,d).\)
-
2.
$$\begin{aligned} (ab, cd) = 1 \text { if and only if } 1 = (a, c) = (a,d) = (b,c) = (b,d). \end{aligned}$$
We now come to a refinement of the four parameters m, n, p and q, indicating the interaction between them.
Given p and q, let \((p,q) = w\) and set \(p = p'w\) and \(q = q'w\), with \((p',q') = 1\).
Consider the rational ratio
where \(y = x^w\). Thus, without loss of generality we may assume that \((p,q) = 1\); otherwise, in the final answer replace x by \(x^w\).
We begin by establishing the desired splitting of our four parameters. As such, we define:
Further, we set \(r = \hat{m}\bar{q}\) and \(s = \hat{p}\bar{n}\).
Because \((m',n') = 1 = (p,q)\), we know that \(e = (m'q, n'p) = (m',p)(n',q) = fg\).
We also observe that
because all four partial gcds equal one, i.e. \((\hat{p}, \bar{q}) = 1 = (\hat{m}, \bar{n}) = (\hat{p},\hat{m}) = (\bar{n}, \bar{q})\).
From the Product Rule, we know that
Now \(np = (de)( \hat{p}\bar{n}) = (de)s\) and \(mq = (de) \hat{m}\bar{q} = (de)r\) and hence
Because \((p,q) = 1 = (r,s)\), we know that \((G_p(x), G_q(x)) = 1 = (G_r(x^{de}), G_s(x^{de}))\). And thus R will be a polynomial if and only if both of the following conditions hold:
Let us now examine these two conditions.
Turning to condition (I), we have \(q = g \bar{q}\) and \(r = \hat{m}\bar{q}\), and thus
Since g divides de, we can use the Linking Lemma to conclude that \(G_g\) is coprime to both factors of the RHS. As such, we must have \(G_g = 1\), and thus \(g = 1\). This means that \( n' = \bar{n}\) and \(q = \bar{q}\).
We are left with
Again, the Linking Lemma implies that
which leaves us with
Using the Basic (n, 1, n, q) Lemma, we arrive at \((\bar{q},de) = (q, de) = 1\). This shows that
in addition to \((q,e) = (q,f) = 1\).
Turning to the second condition (II) with \(e = f\), we see that splitting \(s = \hat{p}\bar{n}\) and \(p = \hat{p}f\), we deduce that
Because \(f|df|df\hat{p}\) and \(\hat{p}|df\hat{p}\), we may conclude that
and thus we must have
This ensures that \(n' = \bar{n}\cdot g = 1\) and hence \(n = d = (m,n)\) or
We are left with
Comparing degrees
or by using the “q equals one Lemma”, we see that either \(\hat{p} = 1\) or \(d = 1\). In the latter case, we get \(n = n'd = 1\cdot 1 = 1\), which is excluded.
On the other hand, when \(\hat{p}= 1\), \(p = f = (m', p)\) so that \(p|m' = \frac{m}{d} = \frac{m}{n} \).
Combining these results with (2), we see that if R is a polynomial, then n|m, \(p| \frac{\textstyle m}{\textstyle n}\) and \((n,q) = 1\).
Conversely, suppose n|m, \(p| \frac{\textstyle m}{\textstyle n}\) and \((q,n) = 1\).
The latter shows that \((q, pn) = (q,p)(q,n) = 1\). Next, let \(m = m'n \), \(m' = p\) and \(m = npw\). As np divides npw, and \((np,q) = 1\), we see by the Key (n, 1, m, q) Lemma that \(G_{np} |G_{npw}(x^q)\). Hence,
We have proven
Theorem 3.1
if and only if
4 Remarks
The above establishes when the ratio R will be a polynomial. However, it does not tell us what the actual polynomial is or when it will again be a GP. Also, the ratio question is a first step towards the computation of the gcd of two GPs. These topics will involve geometric series of the form \(G_n(-x)\) with negative arguments and will be addressed in a later examination.
We close with a couple of non-trivial examples.
-
1.
The (6, 3, 18, 5) case, with \(n = 6, p = 3, m = 18, q = 5\). In this case, it is clear that 3|(18/6) and \((5,6) =1\). The GPs are \(G_{18}(x^5) = x^{85} + x^{80} + x^{75} + x^{70} + x^{65} + x^{60} + x^{55} + x^{50} + x^{45} + x^{40} + x^{35} + x^{30} + x^{25} + x^{20} + x^{15} + x^{10} + x^{5} + 1 \), and \( G_6(x^3) = x^{15} + x^{12} + x^{9} + x^{6} + x^{3} + 1.\) The quotient \(R = \frac{\textstyle G_{18}(x^5)}{\textstyle G_6(x^3)}\) equals \(x^{70} - x^{67} + x^{65} - x^{62} + x^{60} - x^{57} + x^{55} + x^{50} - x^{49} + x^{45} - x^{44} + x^{40} - x^{39} + x^{35} - x^{31} + x^{30} - x^{26} + x^{25} - x^{21} + x^{20} + x^{15} - x^{13} + x^{10} - x^{8} + x^{5} - x^{3} + 1\).
-
2.
The (4, 1, 4, 3) case, with \(n=4, p=1, m=4, q=3.\) The GPs are \(G_4(x^3) = x^9 + x^6 + x^3 + 1\) and \(G_4(x) = x^3 + x^2 + x + 1\). This time, \(R = \frac{\textstyle G_4(x^3)}{\textstyle G_4(x)} = x^{6} - x^{5} + x^{3} - x + 1 = G_3(-x^2)G_3(-x)\).
References
Bac, D.H., Binh, N., Quynh, N.X.: New algebraic structure based on cyclic geometric progressions over polynomial ring applied for cryptography. In: Proceedings—CIS Workshops 2007, International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Security Workshops, art. no. 4425610, pp. 777–780 (2007)
Nathanson, M.B.: Geometric progressions in syndetic sets. Archiv der Mathematik 115(4), 413–417 (2020)
Patil, B.R.: Geometric progressions in syndetic sets. Archiv der Mathematik 113(2), 157–168 (2019)
Patrício, P., Hartwig, R.E.: From euclid to corner sums, a trail of telescoping tricks. Filomat 35(14), 4613–4636 (2021)
Acknowledgements
This research was partially financed by Portuguese Funds through FCT (Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia) within the Projects UIDB/00013/2020 and UIDP/00013/2020. The authors thank an anonymous referee for his/her careful reading of the manuscript and valuable corrections.
Funding
Open access funding provided by FCT|FCCN (b-on).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Additional information
Communicated by See Keong Lee.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Hartwig, R.E., Patrício, P. Divisibility of Finite Geometric Series. Bull. Malays. Math. Sci. Soc. 46, 161 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40840-023-01556-5
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40840-023-01556-5