AoPSWiki
Looking for a challenging geometry text? Preparing for MATHCOUNTS or the AMC exams? Check out Art of Problem Solving's Introduction to Geometry by Richard Rusczyk.

Constructible polygon

From AoPSWiki

A constructible polygon is a regular n-gon which can be constructed using a straight edge and compass. For instance equilateral triangles and regular pentagons are well-known to be constructible, however, regular heptagons are not constructible.

Criterion for constructability

Using the characterization of constructible numbers one can show that a regular n-gon is constructible iff n is the product of a power of 2 and distinct fermat primes. For instance, a 17=2^4+1-gon, a 257=2^8+1-gon, a 65537 = 2^{16}+1-gon and a 673720360=2^3\cdot 5\cdot257\cdot 65537-gon are all constructible, but a 13-gon isn't.

Proof

First notice that constructing a regular n-gon is equivalent to constructing the n^{th} roots of unity in the complex plane, starting with the points 0 and 1 (because the n^{th} roots of unity form a regular n-gon).

Now consider a primitive n^{th} root of unity \zeta_n = e^{\frac{2\pi i}{n}}. So now the n^{th} roots of unity are 1,\zeta_n,\zeta_n^2,\ldots,\zeta_n^{n-1}. As the set of constructible numbers is a field, these numbers will be constructible iff \zeta_n is constructible. Hence a regular n-gon is constructible iff \zeta_n is a constructible number.

Now by the characterization of constructible numbers, \zeta_n will be constructible iff there is a chain of field extensions \mathbb Q = K_0\subseteq K_1\subseteq \cdots\subseteq K_m = \mathbb Q(\zeta_n) such that each extension K_i\subseteq K_{i+1} is quadratic (i.e. [K_{i+1}:K_i]=2). We claim that this happens iff \phi(n) (where \phi(n) is Euler's totient function) is a power of 2.

First we note that \mathbb Q(\zeta_n) is the n^{th} cyclotomic field, and hence [\mathbb Q(\zeta_n):\mathbb Q]=\phi(n).

Now assume that such a chain of field extensions exists. Then by the tower law: \phi(n) = [\mathbb Q(\zeta_n):\mathbb Q] = [K_m:K_{m-1}][K_{m-1}:K_{m-2}}\cdots[K_1:K_0] = (2)(2)\cdots(2) = 2^m, as desired.

Now assume that \phi(n) = 2^m, for some m. \mathbb Q(\zeta_n) is the splitting field of n^{th} cyclotomic polynomial, \Phi_n(x) and hence \mathbb Q(\zeta_n)/\mathbb Q is a Galios extension. Now the order of the Galios group G = \Gal(\mathbb Q(\zeta_n)/\mathbb Q) is just [\mathbb Q(\zeta_n):\mathbb Q]=2^m. Thus G is a 2-group, and hence there must exist a chain of subgroups G = G_m>G_{m-1}>\cdots>G_0=1 with [G_{i+1}:G_i]=2 for all i. Now by the fundamental theorem of Galios theory, if K_i is the fixed field of G_i then \mathbb Q = K_m\subseteq K_{m-1}\subseteq \cdots\subseteq K_0=\mathbb Q(\zeta_n) and [K_i:K_{i+1}] = [G_{i+1}:G_i] = 2. Therefore \zeta_n is indeed constructible.

We have now shown that a regular n-gon is constructible iff \phi(n) is a power of 2. It only remains to show that the integers which satisfy this are precisely the integers in the given form.

Let the prime factorization of n be n = 2^ap_1^{e_1}p_2^{e_2}\cdots p_k^{e_k} (where p_1,p_2,\ldots,p_k are distinct odd primes, e_i\ge 1 for all i and a\ge 0). Then by the formula for \phi(n) we have \phi(n) = 2^{a-1}p_1^{e_1-1}p_2^{e_2-1}\cdots p_n^{e_n-1}(p_1-1)(p_2-1)\cdots(p_n-1) (or \phi(n) = p_1^{e_1-1}p_2^{e_2-1}\cdots p_n^{e_n-1}(p_1-1)(p_2-1)\cdots(p_n-1) if a=0).

Now assume that \phi(n) = 2^m. Now a power of 2 cannot be divisible by an odd prime, so we cannot have e_i>1 for any i (otherwise we would have p_i|2^m), so e_1=e_2=\cdots=e_n=1. Also, any divisor of a power of 2 must also be a power of 2, so p_i-1 is a power of 2 for each i, from which is easily follows that each p_i is a fermat prime. Hence n is in the desired form.

Conversely assume that n = 2^ap_1p_2\cdots p_k, were p_1,p_2,\cdots,p_k are distinct fermat primes, say p_i = 2^{2^{s_i}}+1. Then \phi(n) = 2^{a-1}(p_1-1)(p_2-1)\cdots(p_n-1) = 2^{a-1}2^{2^{s_1}}2^{2^{s_2}}\cdots2^{2^{s_k}} or \phi(n) = (p_1-1)(p_2-1)\cdots(p_n-1)=2^{2^{s_1}}2^{2^{s_2}}\cdots2^{2^{s_k}} if a=0. In either case this is a power of 2, as desired. This completes the proof.

Want to learn how to tackle those tough MATHCOUNTS and AMC counting and probability problems? Check out Art of Problem Solving's Introduction to Counting & Probability by David Patrick.
© Copyright 2008 AoPS Incorporated. All Rights Reserved. • FoundationPrivacyContact Us