arXiv:submit/3793044 [math.AC] 14 Jun 2021

(1)

arXiv:submit/3793044 [math.AC] 14 Jun 2021

OF SYMMETRIC MATRICES IN CHARACTERISTIC TWO

GR´EGORY BERHUY

Institut Fourier, Universit´e Grenoble Alpes, 100, rue des maths 38610 Gi`eres, France

Abstract. Let k be a field of characteristic two. We prove that a non constant monic polynomial f ∈ k[X] of degree n is the minimal/characteristic polynomial of a symmetric matrix with entries in k if and only if it is not the product of pairwise distinct inseparable irreducible polynomials. In this case, we prove that f is the minimal polynomial of a symmetric matrix of sizen. We also prove that any el- ementα ∈k_alg of degreen≥1 is the eigenvalue of a symmetrix matrix of size n or n + 1, the first case happening if and only if the minimal polynomial ofα is not the product of pairwise distinct inseparable irreducible polynomials.

Keywords : Symmetric matrices, Minimal polyomial, Characteristic polynomial, Eigenvalues, Symmetric bilinear forms, Transfer

2020 MSC Codes: 11C20, 15A15, 15A18, 11E39

Contents

1. Introduction 2

2. Bilinear forms and symmetric matrices 3

3. Computation of various transfers 11

4. Proof of the main results and examples 17

References 27

1

(2)

1. Introduction

The problem of determining the minimal and characteristic polynomials of symmetric matrices with entries in a field has a long history, that we briefly sketch. The first major result on this question is due to Krakowski. If k is a formally real field, we say that f ∈ k[X] is totally real if it splits over every real closure of k. Krakowski proved ([4]) that if k is a formally real field, a monic polynomial f ∈ k[X] is the minimal polynomial of a symmetric matrix with entries in k if and only if it is separable and totally real. He also proved that if k is not formally real and char(k) 6= 2, any monic polynomial f ∈k[X] is the minimal polynomial of a symmetric matrix with entries in k. In particular, any totally real algebraic number (resp. any algebraic number) α ∈k_alg is the eigenvalue of a symmetric matrix with entries in k if k is formally real (resp. ifk is not formally real of characteristic different from two). However, the size of the symmetric matrices constructed by Krakowski was huge compared to the degree off, and the question of finding the minimal size of such symmetric matrices was still open.

This question was solved by Bender. Concerning the eigenvalues of symmetric matrices, he proved ([2]) that, if k is a number field, any totally real number of degree nis the eigenvalue of a symmetric matrix of Mn(k) or Mn+1(k). When char(k) 6= 2, given a monic polynomial f ∈ k[X], (where f is totally real if k is formally real), Bender ([3]) computed the smallest integerrsuch that there exists a symmetrix matrix with entries ink satisfying µM =f and χM =f^r. In particular, if

−1 is a square in k, Bender’s results imply that any monic polynomial f ∈ k[X] of degree n is the minimal/characteristic polynomial of a symmetric matrix of Mn(k).

When char(k) = 2, much less is known. In [3], Bender stated without proof the following result: if k has characteristic two, and if f ∈k[X]

is a monic polynomial of degreen which has at least one separable irreducible divisor or such that all the valuations corresponding to inseparable irreducible divisors are even, then f is the minimal polynomial of a symmetric matrix of Mn(k).

Finally, results of Bass, Estes and Guralnick (see [1], (9.4)) imply that, if k has characteristic two, any element α ∈ kalg of degree n is the eigenvalue of a symmetric matrix with entries in k of size at most 2n+ 1.

In this paper, we will determine the minimal and characteristic polynomials of symmetric matrices with entries in a field of characteristic two. More precisely, we will prove the following results.

(3)

Theorem 1.1. Let k be a field of characteristic two, and let f ∈k[X]

be a monic non constant polynomial of degreen. Thenf is the minimal polynomial of a symmetric matrix with entries in k if and only if f is not the product of pairwise distinct monic irreducible inseparable polynomials.

In this case, f is the minimal polynomial of a symmetric matrix of Mn(k).

In particular, if k is perfect, any monic non constant polynomial f ∈ k[X] of degree n is the minimal polynomial of a symmetric matrix of Mn(k).

Corollary 1.2. Let k be a field of characteristic two, and let f ∈ k[X] be a monic non constant polynomial of degree n. Then f is the characteristic polynomial of a symmetric matrix of Mn(k) if and only if it is not the product of pairwise distinct monic irreducible inseparable polynomials.

In particular, if k is perfect, any monic non constant polynomial f ∈ k[X]of degreen is the characteristic polynomial of a symmetric matrix of Mn(k).

Theorem 1.3. Let k be a field of characteristic two, and let α ∈ k_alg be an algebraic element of degree n, with minimal polynomial f. Then :

(1) iff is not the product of pairwise distinct monic irreducible in- separable polynomials,αis the eigenvalue of a symmetric matrix of Mn(k);

(2) if f is the product of pairwise distinct monic irreducible insep- arable polynomials, α is the eigenvalue of a symmetric matrix of Mn+1(k), but not of any symmetric matrix of Mn(k).

In particular, if k is perfect, any algebraic element of degree n is the eigenvalue of a symmetric matrix of Mn(k).

The proofs rely on a technique introduced by Bender, which consists in constructingk-linear formsk[X]/(f)−→ksuch that the corresponding transfer is isomorphic to the unit form (see Lemma 2.1).

2. Bilinear forms and symmetric matrices We first recall some well-known definitions on bilinear forms.

(4)

The unit form of rank n is the symmetric k-bilinear form kⁿ×kⁿ −→k

(x, y)7−→x^ty.

A symmetric k-bilinear formb:V ×V −→k on a finite dimensionalk- vector space will then be isomorphic to the unit form (of rank dimk(V)) if and only if V has an orthonormal basis with respect to b.

IfE is a commutative k-algebra ands:E −→k is ak-linear form, the transfer associated to s is the symmetric k-bilinear form

s∗(h1i) :E ×E −→k (x, y)7−→s(xy).

We now prove a slight variation of a lemma of Bender, which relates the theory of symmetric matrices and the notion of transfer.

Before stating it, recall that ifE is a finite dimensional commutativek- algebra, theminimal polynomialofx∈Eis the unique monic generator µx of the ideal Ix of k[X] defined by

Ix ={P ∈k[X]|P(x) = 0}.

Lemma 2.1. Let k be an arbitrary field, and let E be a finite dimen- sional commutative k-algebra. Assume that there exists ak-linear form s : E −→ k such that s∗(h1i) is isomorphic to the unit form, and let B be an orthonormal basis of E. Then for all x ∈ E, the matrix Mx = Mat(ℓx;B) is a symmetric matrix of Mn(k) such that µMx =µx, where ℓx:E −→E denotes the endomorphism of left multiplication by x.

Proof. Assume that there exists a k-linear form s :E −→k such that s∗(h1i) is isomorphic to the unit form, and let B be an orthonormal basis of E with respect to s∗(h1i). Then for allx, x1, x2 ∈E, we have

s(ℓx(x1)x2) = s(xx1x2) =s(x1xx2) =s(x1ℓx(x2)).

Hence ℓ_x is self-adjoint with respect to s∗(h1i). It follows that M = Mat(ℓx;B) is symmetric. Now for all P ∈k[X], we have

P(ℓx) = 0 ⇐⇒ ℓP(x) = 0 ⇐⇒ P(x) = 0 ⇐⇒ µx |P.

It follows that the minimal polynomial of M isµx. For the rest of the paper, we will assume thatkis a field of characteristic two. Recall that a k-bilinear form b : V ×V −→ k is alternating if b(x, x) = 0 for allx∈V. Alternating forms are necessarily symmetric.

If V is finite dimensional, non-degenerate alternating k-bilinear forms

(5)

are hyperbolic, that is isomorphic to an orthogonal sum of hyperbolic planes H, where

H: k² ×k² −→k

(x, y)7−→x1y2+x2y1.

The following lemma gives a nice characterization of the unit form in characteristic two.

Lemma 2.2. A nonzero symmetric bilinear form b : V ×V −→ k is isomorphic to the unit form if and only it is non-degenerate, non- alternating, and b(x, x) is a square for allx∈V.

In particular, if m ≥ 1 and h is a hyperbolic form, m× h1i ⊥ h is isomorphic to the unit form.

Proof. Since k has characteristic two, any sum of squares is a square, and the unit form satisfies the conditions of the lemma. Conversely, assume that b : V ×V −→ k is a nonzero symmetric bilinear form satisfying the conditions of the lemma. Then there exists e1 ∈ V such that b(e1, e1) 6= 0, and by assumption b(e1, e1) = λ² for some λ ∈ k^×. Replacing e1 by λ⁻¹e1 if necessary, one may assume that b(e1, e1) = 1. The restriction of b to F = ke1 being non-degenerate, we have V = F ⊕F^⊥. Now, the restriction of b to F^⊥ is also non- degenerate (if (e₂, . . . , e_m) is a basis of F^⊥, then the matrix ofb in the basis (e1, . . . , en) is block-diagonal, with a 1 in the left upper corner). If this restriction is non-alternating, one may apply induction on dim_k(V) (the case dimk(V) = 1 being trivial). If it is alternating, then it is hyperbolic. Hence, it is enough to prove that the matrixB =

Ñ1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

é

is congruent to the identity matrix, and apply induction. But one may check that P^tBP =I₃, where P =

Ñ1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1

é

.The last part is clear.

Remark 2.3. The previous lemma is a direct consequence of the following well-known fact, which may be proved using a slight modifica- tion of the arguments above: any non-alternating symmetric bilinear space (V, b) has an orthogonal basis.

Remark 2.4. Let b : V ×V −→ k be a symmetric bilinear form, and let e = (e1, . . . , en) be a basis of V. If x =

Xn

i=1

xi·ei, since k has

(6)

characteristic two, we haveb(x, x) = Xn

i=1

x²_ib(ei, ei). Using the fact that a sum of squares is a square, we see that the following properties are equivalent:

(1) b(x, x) is a square for allx∈V;

(2) for any basise = (e1, . . . , en),b(ei, ei) is a square for all 1≤i≤ n;

(3) there exists a basise= (e₁, . . . , e_n) such thatb(e_i, e_i) is a square for all 1≤i≤n.

The same argument shows that the following properties are equivalent:

(1) b is alternating;

(2) for any basis e= (e1, . . . , en),b(ei, ei) = 0 for all 1≤i≤n;

(3) there exists a basis e = (e1, . . . , en) such that b(ei, ei) = 0 for all 1≤i≤n.

This remark will be useful to prove that a bilinear form is isomorphic to the unit form.

For practical computations, we now explain a modified version of Gauss reduction which computes an orthonormal basis of a bilinear space (V, b) satisfying the conditions of Lemma 2.2.

If ϕ, ψ∈V^∗, we will denote by ϕ•ψ the bilinear form ϕ•ψ: V ×V −→k

(x, y)7−→ϕ(x)ψ(y).

The proposed algorithm will rely on the following identities : ifϕ1, ϕ2, ϕ3 ∈ V^∗, we have

(i) ϕ1•ϕ1+ϕ1•ϕ2+ϕ2•ϕ1 = (ϕ1+ϕ2)•(ϕ1+ϕ2) +ϕ2•ϕ2

(ii) ϕ1•ϕ1+ϕ2•ϕ3+ϕ3•ϕ2 = (ϕ1+ϕ2)•(ϕ1+ϕ2) + (ϕ1+ϕ3)• (ϕ1+ϕ3) + (ϕ1+ϕ2+ϕ3)•(ϕ1+ϕ2+ϕ3)

Letb:V ×V −→k be a non-alternating symmetric bilinear form such that b(x, x) is a square for all x ∈ V. We do not assume here that b is non-degenerate. Our first goal is to write b =

Xr

i=1

ϕi •ϕi, where ϕ1, . . . , ϕr∈V^∗ are k-linearly independent linear forms on V.

We start with the representative matrix M = (a_ij) ofb in a fixed basis E = (e₁, . . . , e_n) ofV.

(7)

If x= Xn

i=1

xi·ei, y = Xn

j=1

yj·ej, we then have

b(x, y) = Xn

i=1

aiixiyi+X

i<j

aij(xiyj+xjyi).

Step 1. Sincebis non-alternating, it contains a term of the formu²xiyi, whereu∈k^×. For sake of simplicity, assume thati= 1. Collecting all terms containing x1 or y1, write

b(x, y) = (ux1)(uy1) + (ux1)ϕ(y) + (uy1)ϕ(x) + the remaining terms, where ϕ is a linear combination of e^∗₂, . . . , e^∗_n. If we set

ϕ1:V −→k

x7−→ux1+ϕ(x),

using identity (i), we may writeb=ϕ1•ϕ1+b1,whereb1 is a symmetric bilinear form onV, whose expression only depends onx2, y2, . . . , xn, yn. Note that b₁(x, x) is a square for all x ∈ V, since b₁(x, x) = ϕ₁(x)²+ b(x, x) and a sum of squares is a square.

Step 2. If b1 = 0, we are done. Otherwise, if b1 is non-alternating, we repeat Step 1 with b1. If b1 is alternating, it contains a nonzero term of the form aij(xiyj+xjyi). Say for example that (i, j) = (2,3).

Collecting terms containing x2, x3, y2 ory3, we may write

b1(x, y) =a23(x2y3+x3y2) +ψ(x)y3 +ψ(y)x3+ψ^′(x)y2+ψ^′(y)x2+ the remaining terms,

where ψ, ψ^′ are linear combinations of e^∗₄, . . . , e^∗_n.

Now, a₂₃(x₂y₃+x₃y₂) +ψ(x)y₃+ψ(y)x₃+ψ^′(x)y₂+ψ^′(y)x₂ is equal to

(a23x2+ψ(x))(y3+a⁻₂₃¹ψ^′(y))+(a23y2+ψ(y))(x3+a⁻₂₃¹ψ^′(x))+a⁻₂₃¹(ψ(x)ψ^′(y)+ψ^′(x)ψ(y)).

Hence, we may write

b =ϕ1•ϕ1 +ψ2 •ψ3+ψ3•ψ2+b2,

where b₂ is a symmetric bilinear form, whose expression only depends onx4, y4, . . . , xn, yn.Using identity (ii), and replacing the formerϕ1 by ϕ1+ψ2, we have b=

X3

j=1

ϕj •ϕj +b2.

Once again, b₂(x, x) = 0 for all x ∈ V. If b₂ = 0, we are done.

Otherwise, we repeat Step 1 or Step 2 with b₂.

(8)

Since the number of variables decrease by one or two are each step, we will end with a form b₁ orb₂ which is identically zero in at most r iterations of Steps 1 or 2.

Using induction on n, it is not difficult to prove, as in the classical Gauss reduction algorithm, that the linear forms ϕ1, . . . , ϕr obtained at the end of this procedure are linearly independent.

Step 3. We now have b = Xr

j=1

ϕ_j •ϕ_j, where ϕ₁, . . . , ϕ_r ∈ V^∗ are linearly independent.

Ifϕi = Xn

j=1

ϕije^∗_j, the matrixU = (ϕij)∈Mr×n(k) has rankr. We may then add n−r rows to U in order to obtain a matrix Q ∈ GLn(k).

Note that this step is not necessary if b is non-degenerate, that is, if r=n.

The columns of P =Q⁻¹ then represent the coordinate vectors of the elements of the desired orthonormal basis B in the basis E.

Remark 2.5. The previous procedure may be slightly modified to produce an orthogonal basis of any non-alternating symmetric bilinear space (V, b).

We now go back to our original problem.

Lemma 2.6. Let b : V ×V −→ k be a nonzero symmetric bilinear form. Assume that (V, b) ≃ (V1, b1) ⊥ · · · ⊥ (Vr, br), where V1, . . . , Vr

are nonzero vector spaces and b1, . . . , br are symmetric bilinear forms.

Thenb is isomorphic to the unit form if and only if the following prop- erties hold:

(1) for all 1 ≤ i ≤ r, bi is either isomorphic to the unit form or hyperbolic;

(2) there exists at least one 1≤j ≤r such that bj is isomorphic to the unit form.

Proof. If b1, . . . , br satisfy the conditions of the lemma, then b is isomorphic to the unit form by Lemma 2.2, since b ≃ b1 ⊥ · · · ⊥ br is isomorphic to the orthogonal sum of a unit form and of an hyperbolic form. Conversely, assume that b is isomorphic to the unit form. Then b₁, . . . , b_r are all non-degenerate and zero, since b is non-degenerate aand each V_i is nonzero. If b_i is alternating, b_i is hyperbolic. Assume now that b_i is non-alternating. Since b(x, x) is a square for all x∈ V,

(9)

the same property holds for (Vi, bi). In this case, bi is isomorphic to the unit form by Lemma 2.2 again. Finally, if b₁, . . . , b_r are all hyperbolic, so is b. In this case, b is alternating, which contradicts the fact that b is isomorphic to the unit form. This concludes the proof.

The previous lemma, applied to transfers, yields the following result.

Lemma 2.7. Let E1, . . . , Er be r nonzero finite dimensional commuta- tivek-algebras. Then there exists ak-linear forms:E1×· · ·×Er −→k such that s∗(h1i)is isomorphic to the unit form if and only if there ex- ists r k-linear forms si : Ei −→ k such that the following properties hold:

(1) for all 1 ≤ i ≤ r, (si)∗(h1i) is either isomorphic to the unit form or hyperbolic;

(2) there exists at least one 1 ≤ j ≤ r such that (sj)∗(h1i) is iso- morphic to the unit form.

Proof. Any k-linear form s :E1× · · · ×Er −→k may be written in a unique way as

s=s1⊕ · · · ⊕sr:E1× · · · ×Er −→k

(x1, . . . , xr)7−→s1(x1) +· · ·+sr(xr),

where s_i : E_i −→ k is a k-linear form. For such a decomposition, we clearly have

s∗(h1i)≃(s1)∗(h1i)⊥ · · · ⊥(sr)∗(h1i).

Now apply Lemma 2.6 to conclude.

From this lemma, we now derive some information on the structure of minimal polynomials of symmetric matrices.

Proposition 2.8. Let ρ1, . . . , ρs be pairwise distinct monic inseparable irreducible polynomials. Then ρ1· · ·ρs is not the minimal polynomial of a symmetric matrix with entries in k of any size.

Proof. Assume that there exists a symmetric matrix M ∈Mn(k) such that µM =ρ1· · ·ρs.

Write ρ_i =π_i(X²^ki), wherek_i ≥1 and π_i is separable. If a_i1, . . . , a_idi ∈ ks are the roots ofπi, we then haveρi =

dⁱ

Y

j=1

(X²^ki−aij)∈ks[X]. Hence

µM = Ys

i=1 di

Y

j=1

(X²^ki −aij)∈ks[X],

(10)

and k_sⁿ=M

i,j

Eij, whereEij = ker(M²^ki −aijIn).

Let us prove that the subspaces Eij are mutually orthogonal with respect to the unit form on k_sⁿ. Notice that, if (i, j) 6= (ℓ, m), the polynomials P = X²^ki −aij and Q = X²^kℓ −aℓm are coprime : if i 6= ℓ, it follows from the fact that ρi and ρℓ are distinct irreducible polynomials (and therefore coprime), and if i = ℓ and j 6= m, this comes from the fact aij 6= aim since πi is separable, and from the relation P −Q=aij −aim.

Thus, there exists U, V ∈ ks[X] such that UP +V Q = 1. Now, for all x ∈ Eij = ker(P(M)) and y ∈ Eℓm = ker(Q(M)), since M is symmetric, we have

x^ty = (Inx)^ty = (U(M)P(M)x+V(M)Q(M)x)^ty

= (V(M)Q(M)x)^ty = x^t(Q(M)V(M)y)

= x^t(V(M)Q(M)y) = 0.

Since the subspaces Eij are mutually orthogonal, the unit form b0 on k_sⁿ satisfies b0 ≃⊥i,j bij, where bij is the restriction of b0 to Eij. By Lemma2.6, there existi, j such thatbij is isomorphic to the unit form.

In other words, Eij has an orthonormal basis for the restriction of b0

toEij. NowEij is stable byM, soM induces an endomorphism uij on Eij, which is self-adjoint with respect tobij. Hence the matrixM^′ ofuij

in an orthonormal basis of E_ij is a symmetric matrix with entries ink_s satisfying (M^′)²^ki =aijIm,wheremis the size ofM^′. IfN = (M^′)²^ki−¹, then N = (nij) is symmetric and satisfies N² =aijIm. Comparing the coefficients in position (1,1), we get

a_ij = Xm

ℓ=1

n_1ℓn_ℓ1 = Xm

ℓ=1

n²_1ℓ = ( Xm

ℓ=1

n_1ℓ)².

Therefore, aij is a square inks. Since the Galois group a splitting field of π_i acts transitively on its roots, this implies that all the roots of π_i are squares ink_s. It follows that all the coefficients ofρ_i =π_i(X²^ki) are squares ofks(as a sum of products of squares). Now, ifa∈kis a square of an element of ks, it is already a square of an element of k. Indeed, if λ ∈ ks satisfies λ² = a, then µλ,k | X² −a = (X −λ)². Since λ is separable over k, the previous divisibility relation forcesµλ,k =X−λ, and λ ∈ k. It follows that ρi is a square in k[X], contradicting its

irreducibility. This concludes the proof.

(11)

3. Computation of various transfers

In the sequel, if f ∈ k[X] is a non constant monic polynomial, α will denote the class of X ink[X]/(f) (unless specified otherwise), so that (1, α, . . . , αⁿ⁻¹) is a k-basis of k[X]/(f) (where n= deg(f)).

Lemma 3.1. Assume thatf is even of degree2m, and lets:k[X]/(f)−→

k be the unique k-linear form such that

s(1) =· · ·=s(α^2m⁻²) = 0, s(α^2m⁻¹) = 1.

Then s∗(h1i) is hyperbolic.

Proof. It is enough to prove that s∗(h1i) is non-degenerate and alternating.

Let us prove it is non-degenerate. Let x =

2mX−1

i=0

λi·αⁱ ∈ ker(s^∗(h1i)).

Then s(x1) = s(x) = λ2m−1 = 0. Assume we proved that λ2m−1 = λ2m−2 =· · ·=λ2m−1−j = 0 for some 0≤j ≤2m−2. Then,

0 = s(xα^j+1) =s(

2mX−j−2

i=0

λi·α^i+j+1)) =s(

2mX−1

i=j+1

λi−j−1·αⁱ)) =λ2m−1−j−1. It follows by induction that all the λi’s are zero, that is x= 0. Hence, s∗(h1i) is non-degenerate.

We now prove that it is alternating. By Remark 2.4, it is enough to show that s(α²ⁱ) = 0 for 0≤i≤2m−1. For, let R be the remainder of the long division of X²ⁱ by f. We claim thatR is even. This follows from the process of long division and the following obeservation: if g is an even polynomial with leading term a2ℓX^2ℓ, with ℓ ≥ m, the polynomial g−a2ℓX^2ℓ⁻^2mf is even.

Consequently, evaluation at α shows that α²ⁱ =R(α) is a linear combination of 1, α², . . . , α^2m⁻², ands(α²ⁱ) = 0. This conclude the proof.

Lemma 3.2. Let L/k be a finite separable extension, and let Tr_L/k : L−→k be the corresponding trace map. Then (TrL/k)^∗(h1i)is isomor- phic to the unit form.

Proof. IfXLdenotes the set ofk-embeddingsL−→kalg, recall that for all x ∈ L, we have TrL/k(x) = X

σ∈XL

σ(x). In particular, for all x ∈ L,

(12)

we get

TrL/k(x²) = X

σ∈X^L

σ(x²) = X

σ∈X^L

σ(x)² = TrL/K(x)².

Since L/k is separable, it is known that TrL/k is nonzero, and that the corresponding transfer is non-degenerate. Since the trace map is nonzero, the previous equality shows that the corresponding transfer is non-alternating. It also implies that TrL/k(x²) is a square for allx∈L.

Lemma 2.2 then yields the desired result.

Lemma 3.3. Assume thatf = (X−a)^m, m≥1, and lets:k[X]/(f)−→

k be the unique k-linear form such that

s(1) =s(α−a) =· · ·=s((α−a)^m⁻¹) = 1.

Then s∗(h1i) is isomorphic to the unit form.

Moreover, for all i≥m, we have s(αⁱ) =

mX−1

j=0

Çi j

å aⁱ⁻^j.

Proof. By Lemma 2.2, it is enough to show that s∗(h1i) is nonzero, non-degenerate, non-alternating, and that s(x²) is a square for all x∈ k[X]/(f).

It is easy to check that the matrix B of s^∗(h1i) with respect to the basis (1, α−a, . . . ,(α−a)^m⁻¹) is

B =

â1 1 · · · 1 1 1 1 · · · 1 0 ... ... ... ... ...

... 1 . .. ... 1 0 · · · 0

ì .

It follows at onces∗(h1i) is nonzero, non-degenerate and non-alternating.

The fact thats(x²) is a square for allx∈k[X]/(f) follows from Remark 2.4 and the fact that the diagonal entries of B are squares.

Let us prove the last part of the lemma, and leti≥m.Since (α−a)^j = 0 in L[X]/((X−a)^m) for all j ≥m, we have

αⁱ = (α−a+a)ⁱ =

m−1

X

j=0

Çi m

å

(α−a)^jaⁱ⁻^j.

Applying the definition ofs yields the desired equality.

(13)

Proposition 3.4. Let π ∈k[X] be a monic irreducible separable poly- nomial of degree d≥1, let a∈k_s be a root ofπ, and letL=k(a). Let m≥1, and let t:L[X]/((X−a)^m)−→L be the unique L-linear form such that

t(1) =t(γ −a) =· · ·=t((γ−a)^m⁻¹) = 1,

where γ is the class of X in the quotient ring L[X]/((X−a)^m).

Finally, let s :k[X]/(π^m)−→k be the k-linear map defined by s(P) = Tr_L/k(t(Pe)) for all P ∈k[X]/(π^m),

where Qe denotes the class of a polynomial Q ∈ L[X] in L[X]/((X − a)^m).

Moreover, for all i≥m, we have s(αⁱ) =

mX−1

j=0

Çi j

å

TrL/k(aⁱ⁻^j).

Proof. By Lemma3.3, we can pick an orthonormalL-basis (Qe1, . . . ,Qem) of L[X]/((X −a)^m) with respect to t^∗(h1i). By Lemma 3.2, we can also pick an orthonormal k-basis (γ₁, . . . , γ_d) of L/k with respect to (Tr_L/k)∗(h1i), where d= [L:k] = deg(π).

Claim. For all Q∈L[X], there exists P ∈k[X] such that Pe =Q.e Assume the claim is proved, and let Pij ∈ k[X] be a polynomial such that Pe_ij =γfi_iQ_j.Then for all 1≤i, r≤d,1≤j, r≤m, we have

s(PijPrs) = TrL/k(t(PeijPers)) = TrL/k(t(γfiiQjγfirQs)).

Since t is L-linear, this yields

s(PijPrs) = TrL/k(γiγrt(QejQes)) = TrL/k(γiγrδjs) =δjsδir. It follows that the family (Pij)i,j is orthonormal with respect tos∗(h1i).

In particular, thePij’s are linearly independent overk. Since this family hasdmelements, we may conclude that (Pij)i,j is an orthonormal basis of k[X]/(π^m) with respect to s∗(h1i).

It remains to prove the claim. Let M/k be the Galois closure of L, let G be the Galois group ofM/k, and letXL be the set of k-embeddings σ : L−→ kalg. Note that elements of XL have their images contained inM, so Gacts by left composition on XL.

LetQ∈L[X]. Since π is separable, the polynomials (X−σ(a))^m, σ∈ X_L are pairwise coprime. The Chinese Remainder Theorem yields the

(14)

existence of a unique polynomial P ∈M[X] of degree < dm such that P ≡ σ(Q) mod (X −σ(a))^m for all σ ∈ X_L, where the congruences are viewed inside M[X].

For all τ ∈ G, we then have τ(P) ≡ τ σ(Q) mod (X−τ σ(a))^m for all σ ∈XL. Since π is irreducible, the action of G on XL is transitive and we have τ(P) ≡ σ(Q) mod (X −σ(a))^m for all σ ∈ XL. Now, deg(τ(P)) = deg(P), so by uniqueness of P, we get τ(P) = P for all τ ∈ G. Hence P ∈ k[X]. By choice of P, we have (X − a)^m | (P −Q) in M[X]. Since P ∈ k[X] ⊂ L[X], and (X −a)^m ∈ L[X], the corresponding quotient also lies in L[X], and we have P ≡ Q mod (X−a)^m in L[X], that is Pe =Q.e

The last part comes from Lemma 3.3. This concludes the proof.

Lemma 3.5. Let m ≥ 2 and n ≥ 1. Assume that a ∈ k is not a square, and let f = (X²ⁿ −a)^m. Let s: k[X]/(f)−→k be the unique k-linear form such that

s(α²ⁿ) = 1, s(α²ⁿ^m⁻¹) = 1, s(α^j) = 0 if j 6= 2ⁿ,2ⁿm−1.

Moreover, for all i≥2ⁿm, s(αⁱ) is equal to : (1)

Ç2ⁿu−1 2ⁿm−1

å

a^u⁻^m if i= 2ⁿu−1 for some u > m (2) ²ⁿ^(mX⁻¹⁾⁻¹

j=0

Ç2ⁿ⁺¹u j

å

a^2u ifi= 2ⁿ(2u+ 1) for someu≥ m−1 2 (3) 0 otherwise.

Proof. Once again, we are going to use Lemma 2.2. Note for the computations that 2ⁿ <2ⁿm−1 sincem ≥2 and n≥1.

Clearly, s∗(h1i) is nonzero, and non-alternating since s(α²ⁿ) = 1. Let us prove it is non-degenerate. Let x ∈ k[X]/((X²ⁿ −a)^m) such that s(xy) = 0 for all y ∈ k[X]/((X²ⁿ −a)^m). Assume that x 6= 0. Then the ideal (x) is contained in ker(s). Since a is not a square and k has characteristic two,X²ⁿ−ais irreducible ink[X], and the monic divisors of (X²ⁿ −a)^m are the polynomials (X²ⁿ −a)^j, 0≤j ≤m. Thus, the ideals ofk[X]/((X²ⁿ−a)^m) are the ideals ((α²ⁿ−a)^j), 0≤j ≤m. Since (x) is nonzero and is not equal to the whole quotient ring (sincesis not identically zero), we have (x) = ((α²ⁿ −a)^j) for some 1 ≤j ≤ m−1.

In particular, (x) contains (α²ⁿ−a)^m⁻¹. Hence, (α²ⁿ−a)^m⁻¹ ∈ker(s) and we have s((α²ⁿ −a)^m⁻¹α²ⁿ⁻¹) = 0. Now (α²ⁿ −a)^m⁻¹α²ⁿ⁻¹ is a

(15)

polynomial inα of degree 2ⁿm−1, whose coefficient of α²ⁿ is zero and whose coefficient of α²ⁿ^m⁻¹ is 1. Therefore, s((α²ⁿ −a)^m⁻¹α²ⁿ⁻¹) = 1 and we get a contradiction.

It remains to prove that s(α²ⁱ) is a square for all 0 ≤ i ≤ 2ⁿm −1.

This is clear if 0≤2i≤2ⁿm−2. For the other cases, we are going to prove the formulas giving s(αⁱ) for all i ≥ 2ⁿm. Let i ≥2ⁿm, and let β ∈kalg satisfying β²ⁿ −a= 0. Note thatf = (X−β)²ⁿ^m.

In kalg[X], we have Xⁱ = (X−β+β)ⁱ ≡

2ⁿXm−1

j=0

Çi j

å

(X−β)^jβⁱ⁻^j mod (X−β)²ⁿ^m.

Since the degree of Ri =

2ⁿXm−1

j=0

Çi j

å

(X−β)^jβⁱ⁻^j is ≤ 2ⁿm−1, Ri ∈ k_alg[X] is the remainder of the long division of Xⁱ by (X−β)²ⁿ^m =f.

Since Xⁱ and f lie in k[X], so is Ri. If r_j⁽ⁱ⁾ ∈k is the coefficient of Xⁱ inR_i, we then have s(αⁱ) =r⁽ⁱ⁾₂ⁿ +r⁽ⁱ⁾₂ⁿ_m−1.

SinceX²ⁿ−ais irreducible,βhas degree 2ⁿ. It follows that 1, β, . . . , β²ⁿ⁻¹ are k-linearly independent. If j ≥ 0, an Euclidean division of j by 2ⁿ then shows thatβ^j lies in k if and only if j is a multiple of 2ⁿ.

We clearly haver₂⁽ⁱ⁾ⁿ_m−1 =

Ç i 2ⁿm−1

å

βⁱ⁻⁽²ⁿ^m⁻¹⁾. Note that

Ç i 2ⁿm−1

å

= 0 or 1 ink.In particular, if r₂⁽ⁱ⁾ⁿ_m−1 is nonzero, it is equal toβⁱ⁻⁽²ⁿ^m⁻¹⁾. Since r⁽ⁱ⁾₂ⁿ_m−1 ∈ k, we necessarily have i ≡ −1 [2ⁿ]. This implies that r₂⁽ⁱ⁾ⁿ_m−1 = 0 when iis even. Now, ifi= 2ⁿu−1 (where u > m), we then get r₂⁽ⁱ⁾ⁿ_m−1 =

å a^u⁻^m. We also have

r₂⁽ⁱ⁾ⁿ =

2ⁿXm−1

j=2ⁿ

Çi j

åÇj 2ⁿ

å

β^j⁻²ⁿβⁱ⁻^j =εiβⁱ⁻²ⁿ,

where εi =

2ⁿXm−1

j=2ⁿ

Çi j

åÇj 2ⁿ

å

= Ç i

2ⁿ

å²ⁿX^m⁻¹

j=2ⁿ

Çi−2ⁿ j−2ⁿ

å

. As before, ε_i = 0 or 1 in k. If r₂⁽ⁱ⁾ⁿ 6= 0, we then have r₂⁽ⁱ⁾ⁿ = βⁱ⁻²ⁿ ∈ k, which implies that i≡0 [2ⁿ].

(16)

Hence, if r⁽ⁱ⁾₂ⁿ 6= 0, there exists ℓ ≥ m such that i = 2ⁿℓ. In particular, r₂⁽ⁱ⁾ⁿ = 0 if iis odd. Now it is well-known that

Ç2ⁿℓ 2ⁿ

å

and ℓ have same parity. Sincer⁽ⁱ⁾₂ⁿ 6= 0, so isεi, andℓ is necessarily odd. Thusℓ= 2u+ 1 for some u≥ m−1

2 .

Consequently, if i= 2ⁿ(2u+ 1), we have r⁽ⁱ⁾₂ⁿ =εiβ²ⁿ⁺¹^u =εia^2u, where εi =

2ⁿXm−1

j=2ⁿ

Çi−2ⁿ j−2ⁿ

å

=

2ⁿ(m−1)−1

X

j=0

Ç2ⁿ⁺¹u j

å .

All the desired formulas follow at once. In particular,s(α²ⁱ) is a square

for all i≥0. This concludes the proof.

Proposition 3.6. Let ρ ∈ k[X] be a monic irreducible inseparable polynomial. Write ρ=π(X²ⁿ), where n ≥1 and π ∈k[X] is a monic irreducible separable polynomial of degree d ≥ 1. Let a ∈ ks be a root of π, and let L=k(a). Let t:L[X]/((X²ⁿ−a)^m)−→L be the unique L-linear form such that

t(γ²ⁿ) = 1, t(γ²ⁿ^m⁻¹) = 1, t(γ^j) = 0 if j 6= 2ⁿ,2ⁿm−1.

where γ is the class of X in the quotient ring L[X]/((X²ⁿ−a)^m).

Finally, let s :k[X]/(π^m)−→k be the k-linear map defined by s(P) = TrL/k(t(Pe)) for all P ∈k[X]/(π^m),

where Qe denotes the class of a polynomialQ∈L[X] in L[X]/((X²ⁿ− a)^m).

Moreover, for all i≥2ⁿm, s(αⁱ) is equal to : (1)

å

TrL/k(a^u⁻^m) if i= 2ⁿu−1 for some u > m (2) ²ⁿ^(mX⁻¹⁾⁻¹

j=0

Ç2ⁿ⁺¹u j

å

TrL/k(a^2u) if i= 2ⁿ(2u+ 1) for someu≥ m−1

(3) 0 otherwise.2

Proof. If σ₁, σ₂ ∈ X_L are two distinct k-embeddings of L, the polynomials X²ⁿ−σ₁(a) and X²ⁿ−σ₂(a) are coprime (since π is separable),

(17)

and thus so are (X²ⁿ − σ1(a))^m and (X²ⁿ − σ2(a))^m. Reasoning as in the proof of Proposition 3.4, we may show that, given Q ∈ L[X], there exists P ∈ k[X] such that Pe =Q. The rest of the proof is thene identical to the proof of this very same proposition.

4. Proof of the main results and examples

We now come to the proof of the main results of this paper, that we state again for the convenience of the reader.

Theorem 4.1. Let f ∈ k[X] be a monic non constant polynomial of degree n. Then f is the minimal polynomial of a symmetric matrix with entries in k if and only if f is not the product of pairwise distinct monic irreducible inseparable polynomials.

In this case, f is the minimal polynomial of a symmetric matrix of M_n(k).

In particular, if k is perfect, any monic non constant polynomial f ∈ k[X] of degree n is the minimal polynomial of a symmetric matrix of Mn(k).

Proof. We will make use of the following easy fact : if E1, . . . , Es are finite dimensional commutative k-algebras, twe have

µx= lcm(µx1, . . . , µxs) for all x= (x1, . . . , xs)∈E1× · · · ×Es. Assume first that f has at least one separable irreducible divisor, and write f = π₁^m¹· · ·π_r^m^rg, where r ≥ 1, m1, . . . , mr ≥ 1, π1, . . . , πr are monic separable irreducible polynomials, and g is the product of the inseperable irreducible divisors of f (with multiplicities). Note that g is even, and coprime to each π^m_i ⁱ. By Proposition3.4, for all 1≤i≤r, there exists ak-linear formsi :k[X]/(π_i^mⁱ)−→ksuch that (si)^∗(h1i) is isomorphic to the unit form. Sinceg is even, by Lemma3.1, there exists a k-linear form s^′ : k[X]/(g) −→ k such that s^′∗(h1i) is hyperbolic.

By Lemma 2.7, there exists a k-linear map s : k[X]/(π^m₁ ¹)× · · · × k[X]/(π_r^m^r)×k[X]/(g) −→ k such that s∗(h1i) is isomorphic to the unit form. Ifαi is the class of X ink[X]/(π^m_i ⁱ) and α^′ is the class of X ink[X]/(g)), we haveµαi =π_i^mⁱ and µα^′ =g. Let x= (α1, . . . , αr, α^′).

Since π^m₁ ¹, . . . , π_r^m^r and g are pairwise coprime, we have µx= lcm(π₁^m¹, . . . , π_r^m^r, g) =π₁^m¹· · ·π_r^m^rg =f.

By Lemma 2.1,f is the minimal polynomial of a symmetric matrix of M_n(k).

(18)

Assume now that all irreducible divisors off are inseparable. Iff is the product of pairwise distinct monic irreducible inseparable polynomials, then f is not the minimal polynomial of a symmetric matrix of any size by Proposition 2.8.

Otherwise, we may write f = ρ^mg, where m ≥ 2, ρ is a monic irreducible inseparable polynomial, and g is the product of the other inseperable irreducible divisors of f (with multiplicities). Once again, g is even and coprime toρ^m. By Proposition3.6, there exists ak-linear form s : k[X]/(ρ^m) −→ k such that s∗(h1i) is isomorphic to the unit form. By Lemma 3.1, there exists a k-linear form s^′ : k[X]/(g)−→ k such that s^′∗(h1i) is hyperbolic. Now, we may finish the argument as

before, and this conclude the proof.

Corollary 4.2. Let f ∈ k[X] be a monic non constant polynomial of degree n. Then f is the characteristic polynomial of a symmetrix matric of Mn(k) if and only if is not the product of pairwise distinct monic irreducible inseparable polynomials.

In particular, if k is perfect, any monic non constant polynomial f ∈ k[X]of degreen is the characteristic polynomial of a symmetric matrix of Mn(k).

Proof. Assume that f is not the product of pairwise distinct monic irreducible inseparable polynomials. Theorem 4.1 gives the existence of a symmetric matrix M ∈ Mn(k) such that µM = f. Since µM and χM are both monic polynomials of degree n and µM | χM, we have χM =µM =f.

Assume now thatf is the product of pairwise distinct monic irreducible inseparable polynomials, and suppose that there exists a symmetric matrixM ∈Mn(k) such thatχM =f. SinceµM andχM have the same irreducible divisors, the hypothesis on f implies that µM = χM = f,

contradicting the previous theorem.

Theorem 4.3. Let α ∈kalg be an algebraic element of degree n, with minimal polynomial f. Then :

(1) iff is not the product of pairwise distinct monic irreducible in- separable polynomials,αis the eigenvalue of a symmetric matrix of Mn(k);

(2) if f is the product of pairwise distinct monic irreducible insep- arable polynomials, α is the eigenvalue of a symmetric matrix of M_n+1(k), but not of any symmetric matrix of M_n(k).

(19)

In particular, if k is perfect, any algebraic element of degree n is the eigenvalue of a symmetric matrix of M_n(k).

Proof. If f is not the product of pairwise distinct monic irreducible inseparable polynomials, we may apply the previous corollary to get a symmetric matrix M ∈ Mn(k) such that χM = f. In particular, α is an eigenvalue of M.

Assume now thatf is the product of pairwise distinct monic irreducible inseparable polynomials, and suppose that there exists a symmetric matrixM ∈M_n(k) such thatαis an eigenvalue ofM. Sinceχ_M(α) = 0 and χ_M ∈ k[X], we getf |χ_M. For degree reasons, we have χ_M = f, contradicting Corollary 4.2.

Since f is even in this case, by Lemma 3.1, there exists a k-linear form s^′ : k[X]/(f) −→ k such that s^′∗(h1i) is hyperbolic. Note now that the k-linear form s0 : k[X]/(X) −→ k induced by evaluation at 0 obviously satifies (s₀)∗(h1i) ≃ h1i. We may now conclude as in the proof of Theorem 4.1 that there exists a symmetric matrix M ∈ M_n+1(k) such that µ_M =Xf. Degree considerations show that χ_M = Xf. In particular, α is an eigenvalue ofM. This concludes the proof.

Remark 4.4. In all the previous results, the symmetric matrices M which we have constructed in the proofs are cyclic, that is, they satisfy χ_M =µ_M.

We now summarize the method to compute explicitely a symmetric matrix of Mn(k) of given minimal polynomial f of degree n, provided that we know the factorization off. Of course, we assume thatf is not the product of pairwise distinct inseparable irreducible polynomials.

We have to consider two cases :

(1) If f has at least one separable irreducible divisor, write f = π^m₁¹· · ·π_r^m^rg,wherer≥1, m1, . . . , mr ≥1,π1, . . . , πr are monic separable irreducible polynomials, and g is an even polynomial coprime to each πi.

Note that we can only consider separable divisors π1, . . . , πr

with an odd valuation, and include the other ones in the even polynomialg.

For all (x1, . . . , xr, x^′)∈E =k[X]/(π₁^m¹)×· · ·×k[X]/(π_r^m^r)×

k[X]/(g), set

s(x₁, . . . , x_r, x^′) =s₁(x₁) +· · ·+s_r(x_r) +s^′(x^′),

(20)

where si : k[X]/(π_i^mⁱ) −→ k is the k-linear map defined in Proposition 3.4 and s^′ : k[X]/(g) −→ k is the k-linear map defined in Lemma3.1.

In this case, we will denote by E the k-basis

(1,0, . . . ,0), . . . ,(α^m₁¹^d¹⁻¹,0, . . . ,0), . . . ,(0, . . . ,0,1), . . . ,(0, . . . ,0, α^′^d^′⁻¹), whereαi is the class ofX ink[X]/(π_i^mⁱ),α^′ is the class of X in k[X]/(g),di= deg(πi) andd^′ = deg(g).

We also setC =

áC_π^m¹

1 . ..

Cπ^mrr

Cg

ë

, whereC_his the

companion matrix of a monic polynomial h∈k[X].

(2) If all irreducible divisors of f are inseparable, write f = ρ^mg, whereρ is irreducible and inseparable, m≥2, andg is an even polynomial coprime toρ.

For all (x, x^′)∈E =k[X]/(ρ^m)×k[X]/(g), set s(x, x^′) =s(x) +s^′(x^′),

wheres:k[X]/(ρ^m)−→kis thek-linear map defined in Propo- sition3.6 and s^′ :k[X]/(g)−→k is thek-linear map defined in Lemma3.1.

In this case, we will denote by E the k-basis (1,0), . . . ,(α^md⁻¹,0), . . . ,(0,1), . . . ,(0, α^′^d^′⁻¹),

where α is the class of X in k[X]/(ρ^m), α^′ is the class of X in k[X]/(g),d= deg(ρ) and d^′ = deg(g).

We also setC = ÅC_ρ^m

C_g ã

.

Then, we may compute an orthonormal basis B of E with respect to s∗(h1i), for example starting from the expression of s(xy) in terms of the coordinates of x and y in the basis E, and applying the algorithm explained in Section 2. In case (a), to avoid working with too many variables, one may first compute an orthonormal basis for each of the bilinear spaces (k[X]/(π^m₁ ⁱ),(si)∗(h1i)), (1 ≤ i ≤ r −1) and (k[X]/(π_r^m^r)× k[X]/(g),(sr +s^′)∗(h1i)), and glue them into an orthonormal basis B of E.

By choice of E, the representative matrix of left multiplication by (α₁, . . . , α_r, α^′) in case (a), or by (α, α^′) in case (b), is the matrix

(21)

C. Hence, the representative matrix of this endomorphism in the orthonormal basis B is M = P⁻¹MP = QCQ⁻¹ (with the notation of the algorithm explained in Section 2).

The matrixM is then symmetric, with minimal polynomial (and characteristic polynomial) equal to f.

Example 4.5. Letk =F2(t), and let f = (X²+X+t)³. We will use thek-linear map defined in Proposition 3.4. The representative matrix of s∗(h1i) with respect to the basis (1, α, . . . , α⁵) is

S=

â 0 1 1 t+ 1 1 t²+t

1 1 t+ 1 1 t²+t t²

1 t+ 1 1 t²+t t² t³+ 1

t+ 1 1 t²+t t² t³+ 1 1 1 t²+t t² t³ + 1 1 t⁴+t²+t t²+t t² t³+ 1 1 t⁴+t² +t t⁴+t²

ì .

If x= X5

i=0

xi·αⁱ and y= X5

i=0

yi·αⁱ, then s(xy) contains the terms

x1y1+x1(y0+(t+1)y2+y3+(t²+t)y4+t²y5)+y1(x0+(t+1)x2+x3+(t²+t)x4+t²x5), which may be rewritten as

(x0+x1+(t+1)x2+x3+(t²+t)x4+t²x5)(y0+y1+(t+1)y2+y3+(t²+t)y4+t²y5) +(x0+(t+1)x2+x3+(t²+t)x4+t²x5)(y0+(t+1)y2+y3+(t²+t)y4+t²y5).

We then have s∗(h1i) =ϕ1•ϕ1+b1, where ϕ1: E −→k

x7−→x₀ +x₁+ (t+ 1)x₂+x₃+ (t²+t)x₄+t²x₅.

and b1 is a symmetric bilinear form that we will not write here. After simplification, one can see that b1(x, y) contains the terms

x0y0+x0(ty2+ty3+(t²+t+1)y4+ty5)+y0(tx2+tx3+(t²+t+1)x4+tx5), that is

(x0+tx2+tx3+ (t²+t+ 1)x4+tx5)(y0+ty2+ty3+ (t²+t+ 1)y4+ty5) +(tx2+tx3+ (t²+t+ 1)x4+tx5)(ty2+ty3+ (t² +t+ 1)y4+ty5).

Hence, s∗(h1i) =ϕ₁•ϕ₁+ϕ₂•ϕ₂+b₂,where ϕ2: E −→k

x7−→x₀+tx₂+tx₃+ (t²+t+ 1)x₄+tx₅, and

b₂(x, y) =x₂y₃+x₂y₅+x₃y₂+x₃y₃+x₃y₄+x₃y₅+x₄y₃+x₅y₂+x₅y₃.