2

This question is linked to Unicity of decomposition for the monoid generated by roots of the unity.

We set for $n \in \mathbb{N}^*$ $M_n$ the monoid generated by $n$-th roots of the unity and $M_n^\times$ the monoid generated by primitive $n$-th roots of the unity. They are respectfully $$M_n = \left\{ \sum_{\lambda \in U_n} k_\lambda \lambda, \, k_\lambda \in \mathbb{N} \right\}\\ M_n^\times = \left\{ \sum_{\lambda \in U_n^\times} k_\lambda \lambda, \, k_\lambda \in \mathbb{N} \right\}$$ Where $U_n$ is the set of $n$-th roots of the unity and $U_n^\times$ the set of primitive $n$-th roots of the unity.

My question is what is the minimal number of generators for these monoïds?

I already know that for $n = p_1 \cdots p_m$ where the $p_i$ are distinct primes and $m$ is even, we can remove $1$ from the list of the generators in the non-primitive case since $$\sum_{\lambda \in U_n^\times} \lambda = \mu(n) = 1$$ with $\mu$ the Möbius function.

And for $M_n$ where $n$ has at least two distinct primes in its decomposition, we need to remove $1$ as well.

The cases $n=1,2,3,4$ are easy to prove by reasoning geometrically:

  • for $n=1$ it is direct since $M_1 = M_1^\times = \mathbb{N}$.
  • for $n=2$ it is direct since $M_2 = \mathbb{Z}$ and $M_2^\times = -\mathbb{N}$
  • for $n= 3$, if we keep only two generators we only have points contained in a half-plane which is absurd so three is the minimum for $M_3$, and since $M_3^\times = \mathbb{N}j + \mathbb{N} j^2$ is not contained in a line, we need these two generators.
  • for $n = 4$ which is our first square example, we can easily see that we need all four of them.
    Indeed $M_4 = \mathbb Z [i]$ which elements are uniquely determined by their real and imaginary parts, so as an abelian group it needs two non-zero generators which are $1$ and $i$ (or their opposite). And since it only has a monoid structure we need their opposites.
    Now $M_4^\times = \mathbb{Z}i$ which obviously needs its two generators $i$ and $-i$.

My thoughts on this:

  • It must be true for prime $n$.
  • It might be true when $n$ is a product of two primes and we remove $1$.
  • I have no clue if $n-1$ is the right number for $M_n$ when $n$ is a product of an even number of distinct primes.
  • It is more complicated when some $a^2 \mid n$

Useful Information

For $n \leq 6$ and $n \neq 5$ $Z[e^{\frac{2i\pi}{n}}]$ is euclidian. It could be used to deal with these cases.

  • 1
    Note: For the primitive case, $U_n^\times$ is linearly independent over $\mathbb Q$ if and only if $n$ is squarefree (see here), so for squarefree $n$, the generating set is just $U_n^\times$ (though the converse may not necessarily hold). – masky Nov 27 '24 at 19:59
  • @CosmicOscillator This is very useful info, so my question is almost a duplicate! thanks! – julio_es_sui_glace Nov 27 '24 at 20:02
  • I have edited the answer with a stronger result. – Joshua Tilley Nov 27 '24 at 20:29

1 Answers1

2

I have edited as I got a stronger result:

Note that $-1\in M_n$ for all $n$, since

$$\zeta_n^{n-1}+\zeta_n^{n-2}+...+1=0$$ $$\implies \zeta_n^{n-1}+\zeta_n^{n-2}+...+\zeta_n=-1\in M_n$$

Then multiplying this by $\zeta_n^k$, we find $-\zeta_n^k\in M_n$ for all $k$. Thus, $M_n$ is actually a group, and it is just equal to $\mathbb{Z}[\zeta_n]$ for all $n$. We know that the number of elements needed to generate it as a group is $\phi(n)$, but the number of generators needed as a monoid may be larger a priori. The minimum number of generators of $M_n$ as a monoid is certainly at most $2\phi(n)$, since we can take all primitive $n$th roots and their negatives. It is also at most $n$ as all roots of unity would give a generating set too. Thus, the number is between $\phi(n)$ and $\min(n,2\phi(n))$.

Joshua Tilley
  • 10,106
  • Wow nice improvement!! I'll wait a bit for a more definitive answer but if there is not this one is very satisfying! – julio_es_sui_glace Nov 27 '24 at 21:54
  • Just one quick remark, with the result you have found, having all primitive n-th roots implies having their negative so we exactly need $\phi(n)$ no? – julio_es_sui_glace Nov 27 '24 at 23:13
  • It's not that easy as the expression for the negatives of the roots of unity is written as a sum of not necessarily primitive roots. – Joshua Tilley Nov 27 '24 at 23:25
  • Your example of $n=4$ would rule it out as here we need $4=2\phi(4)$. – Joshua Tilley Nov 27 '24 at 23:25
  • Oh yes I see my mistake – julio_es_sui_glace Nov 27 '24 at 23:47
  • These $\phi(n)$ generators are primitive roots or they can also be different? If one could ensure it then I have a proof that shows we need $2\phi(n)$ generators when n is squarefree using @CosmicOscillator ‘s comment – julio_es_sui_glace Nov 28 '24 at 00:04
  • 1
    Primitive roots will do when $n$ is squarefree. – Joshua Tilley Nov 28 '24 at 08:24
  • What is your proof? – Joshua Tilley Nov 28 '24 at 12:30
  • I think I got confused last night, my idea just gave the result that if the primitive roots were in the generator, alongside with a portion of their negative counterparts (but not all of them) then necessarily the monoid generated does not contain the negative counterparts of the roots that are not in this generator set. But this does not imply that there is no more efficient way of having them. Now I also wanted to use $\sum_{k\wedge n=1} \zeta^k =0$ when n has a square divider which gives the fact that $M_n^\times$ is a group but then we lose the results you use with the $\phi(n)$ generators – julio_es_sui_glace Nov 28 '24 at 13:47
  • For $n=6 $ I found the smallest set to be $\zeta_6,-1,\zeta_6^5$ – julio_es_sui_glace Nov 28 '24 at 17:40