Dembowski-Ostram polynomials and reversed Dickson polynomials
Neranga Fernando
Department of Mathematics,
Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115, USA
[email protected]
Abstract.
We give a complete classification of Dembowski-Ostram polynomials from reversed Dickson polynomials in odd characteristic.
Key words and phrases:
Finite field, reversed Dickson polynomial, Dembowski-Ostram polynomial
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
11T55, 05A10, 11T06
1. Introduction
Let p be a prime, e a positive integer, and q=pe. Let Fq be the finite field with q elements. Dembowski-Ostram (DO) polynomials over a finite field Fq are those of the form ∑i,jaijxpi+pj, where aij∈Fq. Dembowski-Ostram polynomials are used for a cryptographic application in the public key cryptosystem HFE ([6]). This class of polynomials were introduced by Dembowski and Ostram in [3] for constructions of planar functions in odd characteristic. A polynomial g∈Fq[x] is called a planar polynomial if g(x+a)−g(x) is a permutation polynomial for every a∈Fq∗. A polynomial f∈Fq[x] is called a permutation polynomial (PP) over Fq if the associated mapping x↦f(x) is a bijection from Fq to Fq. Clearly, a polynomial cannot be planar in even characteristic.
In the study of permutation polynomials over finite fields, Dickson polynomials have played a pivotal role.
The n-th Dickson polynomial of the first kind Dn(x,a) is defined by
[TABLE]
where a∈Fq is a parameter.
The n-th Dickson polynomial of the second kind En(x,a) is defined by
[TABLE]
where a∈Fq is a parameter.
DO polynomials from Dickson polynomials of the first kind and second kind were completely classified by Coulter and Matthews in [2].
The concept of the reversed Dickson polynomial Dn(a,x) was first introduced by Hou, Mullen, Sellers and Yucas in [5] by reversing the roles of the variable and the parameter in the Dickson polynomial Dn(x,a).
The n-th reversed Dickson polynomial of the first kind Dn(a,x) is defined by
[TABLE]
where a∈Fq is a parameter.
By reversing the roles of the variable and the parameter in the Dickson polynomial of the second kind En(x,a), the n-th reversed Dickson polynomial of the second kind En(a,x) can be defined by
[TABLE]
where a∈Fq is a parameter.
In a recent paper, X. Zhang, B. Wu and Z. Liu studied DO polynomials from reversed Dickson polynomials in characteristic 2; see [8]. Motivated by the work of Coulter and Matthews in [2] and the work of X. Zhang, B. Wu and Z. Liu, we study and completely classify DO polynomials from reversed Dickson polynomials in odd characteristic.
It is easy to see from the definitions of reversed Dickson polynomials of the first and second kinds that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
which implies that
Dn(a,x) is DO if and only if Dn(1,x) is DO
and
En(a,x) is DO if and only if En(1,x) is DO,
respectively. Since Dn(1,0)=1, En(1,0)=1 and DO polynomials do not contain any constant terms, we study DO polynomials arising from Dn(1,x)−Dn(1,0) and En(1,x)−En(1,0). The paper is organized as follows.
We present a complete classification of DO polynomials from reversed Dickson polynomials of the first kind and second kind over in odd characteristic in Section 2 and Section 3, respectively. We also present the monomials, binomials, trinomials, and quadrinomials when reversed Dickson polynomials are DO polynomials.
Throughout the paper, we always assume that p is odd.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Ariane Masuda for the invaluable discussions while the manuscript was in preparation. She also contributed to finding patterns of parameters n and d, and the polynomials listed in Remark 2.2 and Remark 3.4.
2. DO polynomials from reversed Dickson polynomials of the first kind
We first consider reversed Dickson polynomials of the first kind. Recall that
Dn(a,x) is DO if and only if Dn(1,x) is DO.
Let d be a positive integer. We denote Dn(1,xd)−Dn(1,0) by Dn. Then
[TABLE]
Since Dnp=Dnp and Dn(xpd)=Dn(xd)p, we always assume that gcd(n,p)=1 and gcd(d,p)=1.
Theorem 2.1**.**
Let q be a power of a prime p. The polynomial Dn is a Dembowski-Ostrom polynomial over Fq if and only if one of the following holds.
- (i)
p=3, d=(pj+1)pℓ, n=2pm, where j,m,ℓ≥0.
2. (ii)
p=3, d=2pℓ, n=4pm, where m,ℓ≥0.
3. (iii)
p=3, d=2pℓ, n=5pm, where m,ℓ≥0.
4. (iv)
p=3, d=2pℓ, n=7pm, where m,ℓ≥0.
5. (v)
p>3, d=(pi+1)pℓ, n=2pm, where ℓ,m≥0.
6. (vi)
p>3, d=(pi+1)pℓ, n=3pm, where ℓ,m≥0.
Proof.
We first consider the case where n is odd.
Case 1. n is odd.
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
Note that the coefficient of the second term 2n(n−3) is not always zero.
Subcase 1.1. Let’s assume that 2n(n−3) is not divisible by p. If Dn is DO, 2d=pα+pβ. Since gcd(d,p)=1, d=pi+1. Then
[TABLE]
Since p is odd and p∣(pi+1), one of α or β is zero, say β=0. Then
[TABLE]
implies
[TABLE]
which is true if and only if p=3, α=1 and i=0, i.e. d=2.
For the rest of the subcase we assume that p=3 and we prove the following.
Dn is DO if and only if n=5⋅3k or n=7⋅3k.
It is easy to see that when n=5 and n=7 we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
respectively. Clearly they are DO polynomials.
Now we claim that when p=3, n>7 odd and n is not a multiple of a power of 3, Dn is never DO.
Since n>7 is odd and gcd(n,3)=1, we have either n≡2(mod3) or n≡1(mod3).
Let n≡2(mod3) and consider the term before the last term
[TABLE]
Since (n−1)n(n+1)=6ℓ for some integer ℓ, we have
[TABLE]
If ℓ≡0(mod3), then we claim that 2d(n−3) is not a sum of powers of 3. Since d=2, 2d(n−3)=n−3. Assume to the contrary n−3=3i+3j which implies n−2=3i+3j+1. Since n≡2(mod3), n−2=3i+3j+1 if and only if i=j=0. i=j=0 implies n−3=2 which is a contradiction because this is not the first term.
Now assume that ℓ≡0(mod3). In this case we show that the fourth term always exists. Note that the fourth term is x8 whose exponent is not a sum of powers of 3. The coefficient of the fourth term is
[TABLE]
Clearly 3∣n and 3∣(n−6). Now we show that (n−5)(n−7) is a multiple of 24.
Recall that n>7 is odd, n≡2(mod3) and gcd(n,3)=1.
Let n=2ℓ+1, where ℓ is an integer. Then (n−5)(n−7)=4(ℓ−2)(ℓ−3). Since n≡2(mod3), ℓ≡2(mod3). Let ℓ=2+3k for some integer k. Then this implies (n−5)(n−7)=12k(3k−1). Notice that k and (3k−1) have different parity. So k(3k−1) is even which says that (n−5)(n−7) is a multiple of 24.
Let
[TABLE]
where m is an integer. Then
[TABLE]
Clearly, 3∣n and 3∣(n−6). Now we show that 3∣m. Assume to the ccontrary 3∣m.
Then from (2.2) we have, (n−5)(n−7)=72e for some integer e.
Since n≡2(mod3), write n=3ℓ1−1 for some integer ℓ1. Recall that in this case the term before the last term is zero. So
[TABLE]
Let ℓ2=3k2 for some integer k2.
Then n=3ℓ2−1=9k2−1≡−1(mod9).
From (n−5)(n−7)=72e and n≡−1(mod9) we have 2≡0(mod9), which is a contradiction.
Now Let n≡1(mod3).
We first look at the fourth term. Note that the fourth term is x8 whose exponent is not a sum of two powers of 3. The coefficient of the fourth term is
[TABLE]
Clearly (n−5)(n−6)(n−7)=6ℓ for some integer ℓ.
[TABLE]
If ℓ≡0(mod3), then clearly Dn is not DO. Now we consider the case ℓ≡0(mod3) and claim that the 7th term is not zero. Note that the 7th term is x14 whose exponent is not a sum of two powers of 3. The coefficient of the 7th term is
[TABLE]
We claim that 6∣(n−13) and 3∣(n−10).
By division algorithm we have n−13=6q1+r1, where 0≥r1≥5. Since n≡1(mod3), r1≡0(mod3) which implies r1=0or3.
If r1=3, then n−13=3(2q1+1) which is a contradiction since the left hand side is even and the right hand side is odd. So r1=0 which implies 6 divides (n−13).
By division algorithm we have n−10=6q2+r2, where 0≥r2≥2. Since n≡1(mod3), r2≡0(mod3) which implies r2=0. So 3 divides (n−10).
Now we claim that q1 and q2 are not divisible by 3.
Assume that q1=3k1 for some integer k1. Then n−13=18k1 which implies n=13+18k1. Recall that the coefficient of the fourth term given by
24n(n−5)(n−6)(n−7) is zero in this case. Consider (n−5)(n−6)(n−7). Straightforward computation yields that
[TABLE]
where A is not divisble by 3 which is a contradiction.
Now assume that q2=3k2 for some integer k2. Then n−10=9k2 which implies n≡1(mod9). Let n=9k+1 for some integer k∈Z. Then the coefficient of the fourth term is
[TABLE]
which is a contradiction.
Now let’s go back to the coefficient of the 7th term. From (2.3) we have
[TABLE]
Clearly 3∣n, 3∣(n−9) and 3∣(n−12).
If 3∣(n−8), then n−8=3e1 for some integer e1. This implies 2≡0(mod3) which is a contradiction.
If 3∣(n−11), then n−11=3e2 for some integer e2. This implies 2≡0(mod3) which is a contradiction.
Therefore the coefficient of the 7th term is non zero.
Subcase 1.2. Now let’s consider the case where p>3. Recall
[TABLE]
We prove the following.
Dn is a DO if and only if n=3⋅pk.
Since gcd(d,p)=1, d=pi+1.
When n=3, we have D3=−3xd=(p−2)xpi+1, which is clearly DO.
Now we claim that when n=3⋅pk, Dn is not DO. Recall that gcd(n,p)=1.
Let’s consider the second term 2n(n−3). If this is not zero, from subcase 1.1 we have p=3, which is a contradiction. So, if the second term is not zero, the polynomial is not DO.
If the second term is zero, i.e. 2n(n−3)≡0(modp), then n≡3(modp). In this case, we show that the last term is not DO.
Notice that the last term is (−1)2n⋅2⋅x2dn. The coefficient is clearly not zero. Assume to the contrary
[TABLE]
Since gcd(n,p)=1 and gcd(d,p)=1, we have
[TABLE]
which implies
[TABLE]
Since n≡3(modp), we have 3d≡2(modp) or 3d≡4(modp). Let d=pℓ+1. Thus 3(pj+1)≡2(modp) or 3(pj+1)≡4(modp), which is a contradiction for any nonnegative j.
Case 2. n is even. Then we have
[TABLE]
Subcase 2.1. Let’s first consider the case where the coefficient of the second term is not zero, i.e. n≡3(modp). Since gcd(p,d)=1, we have 2d=pi+1 for some nonnegative integer i. Also, the first term is nonzero. So, d=pα+1 for some nonnegative integer α. Now 2d=pi+1 implies pi−2pα=1.
pi−2pα=1 if and only if p=3,i=1,α=0.
α=0 implies d=2. Therefore second term is nonzero means p=3 and d=2. Now we show that Dn is DO if and only if n=4⋅3k. Since the second term is zero, n>2.
Let n=4. Then D4=2x2+2x4, which is clearly DO.
Let n>4 be even and gcd(n,3)=1. Now we claim that Dn is not DO.
Consider the fourth term and its coefficient. Because, fourth term is x8, which is clearly not DO. Coefficient of the fourth term is
[TABLE]
Note that n=6. Let (n−5)(n−6)(n−7)=6ℓ1 for some integer ℓ1. Then
[TABLE]
If ℓ1≡0(mod3), then Dn is not DO.
Now assume that ℓ1≡0(mod3). Then we claim that the last term is not DO. Consider the exponenet of the last term which is 2dn.
Recall that the second term is nonzero, i.e. n≡0(mod3), which implies 3∣n. Since the coefficient of the last term is nonzero, gcd(3,d)=1 and gcd(3,n)=1, for some integer ℓ2 we have
[TABLE]
Since d=2, the above implies n=3ℓ2+1.
Clearly ℓ2=0. Because ℓ2=0 implies n=2. A contradiction.
If ℓ2>0, then n≡1(mod3). Now consider the term before the the last term: (−1)2n−14n2xd(2n−1). Clearly, the coefficient is nonzero since gcd(n,3)=1. Consider its exponent d(2n−1)=2(2n−1)=n−2.
Since Dn is DO, n−2=3α+3β.
If α>0,β=0, then n=3α+3, which is a contradiction since gcd(n,3)=1.
If β=0, then α=0, i.e. n=4. This contradicts the assumption that n>4.
If α>0,β>0, then n≡2(mod3) which contradicts the fact that n≡1(mod3).
Subcase 2.2. Now we consider the case where the coefficient of the second term is zero, i.e. n≡3(modp).
We prove the following.
Dn is a DO if and only if n=2⋅pk.
When n=2, we have D2=−2xd=(p−2)xpi+1, which is clearly DO for p≥3.
Now we claim that when n=2⋅pk and p≥3, Dn is not DO. Recall that gcd(n,p)=1.
Assume that n=2⋅pk and n≡3(modp). Since the last term is nonzero, consider x2dn (note that when p=3, last term is the only term of the polynomial). Since gcd(n,p)=1 and gcd(d,p)=1, let 2dn=pi+1 and d=pj+1 for some nonnegative integers i and j. Then we have
[TABLE]
If j=0, then n=pi+1, which implies n≡2(modp) or n≡1(modp) depending on whether i=0 or i>0, respectively. A contradiction.
If j>0, we have pjn+n=2pi+2. If i>0, then n≡2(modp). A contradiction. If i=0, pjn+n=4, which implies n≡4(modp). A contradiction.
This completes the proof.
∎
Remark 2.2**.**
The DO polynomials obtained in the previous theorem are monomials, binomials or trinomials. We list them below.
- (1)
p=3, d=(pi+1)pℓ, n=2pm, Dn=xpℓ+m+i+pℓ+m.
2. (2)
p=3, d=2pℓ, n=4pm, Dn=2x2⋅pℓ+m+2x4⋅pℓ+m.
3. (3)
p=3, d=2pℓ, n=5pm, Dn=x2⋅pℓ+m+2x4⋅pℓ+m.
4. (4)
p=3, d=2pℓ, n=7pm, Dn=2x2⋅pℓ+m+2x4⋅pℓ+m+x6⋅pℓ+m.
5. (5)
p>3, d=(pi+1)pℓ, n=2pm, Dn=(p−2)xdpm.
6. (6)
p>3, d=(pi+1)pℓ, n=3pm, Dn=(p−3)xdpm.
3. DO polynomials from reversed Dickson polynomials of the second kind
In this Section, we consider reversed Dickson polynomials of the second kind. Recall that
En(a,x) is DO if and only if En(1,x) is DO.
Let d be a positive integer. We denote En(1,xd)−En(1,0) by En. Then
[TABLE]
In this case, Enp=Enp, but En(xpd)=En(xd)p. So we always assume that gcd(d,p)=1.
We first consider the case p=3.
Theorem 3.1**.**
Let p=3. The polynomial En is a Dembowski-Ostrom polynomial over Fq if and only if one of the following holds.
- (i)
n=2,3,5, or 6, d=(pα+1)pk.
2. (ii)
n=4, d=\Big{(}\frac{p^{\alpha}+1}{2}\Big{)}p^{k}.
3. (iii)
n=7, d=2pk.
4. (iv)
n=10, d=2pk.
5. (v)
n=13, d=2pk.
6. (vi)
n=15, d=4pk.
7. (vii)
n=19, d=2pk.
Proof.
We have E2=2xd, E3=xd, E5=2xd, and E6=xd+2x3d. It is clear that these polynomials are DO if and only if d=pα+1.
Now consider the case n=15. We have E15=xd+2x3d+x7d. Assume that E15 is DO. Then d=3α+1 and 7d=3i+1, which implies 7(3α+1)=3i+1 if and only if α=1, and i=3, i.e. d=4.
Let n=4. E4=x2d, which is DO if and only if d=2pα+1.
Let n=7. Then E7=x2d+2x3d, which is DO if and only if d=23α+1 and 3d=3i+3i+1. This implies
[TABLE]
which is true if and only if i=1 and α=1, i.e. d=2.
Consider the cases n=10 and n=19. Since E10=x2d+x3d+2x5d and E19=x2d+x3d+2x5d+2x9d, a similar argument to that of E7 shows that E10 and E19 are DO if and only if d=2.
Now let n=13. Then E13=x2d+x5d+x6d. E13 is DO if and only if 2d=3α+1 and 5d=3i+1. This implies
[TABLE]
which is true if and only if i=2 and α=1, i.e. d=2.
This completes the proof of the necessity part.
Now we show that if n∈{2,3,4,5,6,7,10,13,15,19}, then En is not DO. Let d be any positive integer such that gcd(d,p)=1.
It is straightforward to see that when n∈{8,9,11,12,17,18}, (1n−1)≡0(mod3) and (4n−4)≡0(mod3). This means the coefficients of the first polynomial term, xd, and the fourth polynomial term, x4d, are non-zero. Assume to the contrary that En is DO when n∈{8,9,11,12,17,18}. Then d=3α+1 and 4d=3i+1. This implies 4(3α+1)=3i+1, which is not true for any α and i. Thus
En is not DO when n∈{8,9,11,12,17,18}.
When n=14, we have E14=2xd+x6d+2x7d. Assume to the contrary that E14 is DO. Then d=3α+1 and 6d=3i+1. This implies 6(3α+1)=3i+1, which is not true for any α and i. Thus E14 is not DO.
When n=16, we have E16=x2d+2x3d+x8d. Assume to the contrary that E16 is DO. Then 2d=3α+1 and 8d=3i+1. This implies 8(23α+1)=3i+1, which is not true for any α and i. Thus E16 is not DO.
Now let n>19. We divide this into two cases.
Case 1. n≡0,2,3,8(mod9).
In this case, clearly (1n−1)≡0,3,6(mod9), which implies (1n−1)≡0(mod3). Also, (4n−4)≡0,3,6(mod9), which implies (4n−4)≡0(mod3). This means the coefficients of the first polynomial term, xd, and the fourth polynomial term, x4d, are non-zero. An argument similar to a previous argument shows that En is not DO.
Case 2. n≡1,4,5,6,7(mod9).
Sub Case 2.1 n≡5,6(mod9).
First consider the case where n≡5,6(mod9).
When n≡5,6(mod9), (1n−1)≡4,5(mod9), which implies (1n−1)≡0(mod3).
When n≡5(mod9), (6n−6)≡1(mod9), which implies (6n−6)≡0(mod3).
Since (1n−1)≡0(mod3) and (6n−6)≡0(mod3), we have xd and x6d. Assume to the contrary that En is DO. Then d=3α+1 and 6d=3i+1, which implies 6(3α+1)=3i+1 if and only if 3i−6⋅3α=5, which is a contradiction.
When n≡6(mod9), (3n−3)≡1(mod9), which implies (3n−3)≡0(mod3).
Since (1n−1)≡0(mod3) and (3n−3)≡0(mod3), we have xd and x3d. Assume to the contrary that En is DO. Then d=3α+1 and 3d=3i+1, which implies 3(3α+1)=3i+1 if and only if 3i−3α+1=2, which is a contradiction.
Sub Case 2.2 n≡1,4,7(mod9).
When n≡1,4,7(mod9), (2n−2)≡1(mod9), which implies (2n−2)≡0(mod3).
Let n≡1or7(mod9). Then (3n−3)≡5or4(mod9), which implies (3n−3)≡0(mod3).
Assume to the contrary that En is DO. Then 2d=3α+1 and 3d=3i+1, which implies 3\Big{(}\frac{3^{\alpha}+1}{2}\Big{)}=3^{i}+1 if and only if 2⋅3i−3α+1=1, which is a contradiction.
Let n≡4(mod9). Then (6n−6)≡7(mod9), which implies (6n−6)≡0(mod3).
Assume to the contrary that En is DO. Then 2d=3α+1 and 6d=3i+1, which implies 6\Big{(}\frac{3^{\alpha}+1}{2}\Big{)}=3^{i}+1 if and only if 2⋅3i−6⋅3α=4, which is a contradiction.
∎
Theorem 3.2**.**
Let p=5. The polynomial En is a Dembowski-Ostrom polynomial over Fq if and only if one of the following holds.
- (i)
n=2,3* and d=pk(pα+1).*
2. (ii)
n=7* and d=2pk.*
Proof.
Let n=2. Then E2=4xd. If E2 is DO, then clearly d=pα+1.
Let n=3. Then E2=3xd. If E3 is DO, then clearly d=pα+1.
Let n=7. Then E2=4xd+x3d. If E3 is DO, then d=5α+1 and 3d=5i+1, which implies 5i−3⋅5α=2. This is true when i=1 and α=0, i.e. d=2.
Now we show that when n=2,3,7, En is not DO.
Assume that n=2,3,7. We divide this into four cases.
When n≡1(mod5), (2n−2)≡1(mod5) and (3n−3)≡1(mod5).
Since (2n−2)≡0(mod5) and (3n−3)≡0(mod5), we have x2d and x3d. Assume to the contrary that En is DO. Then 2d=3α+1 and 3d=3i+1, which implies 3\Big{(}\frac{3^{\alpha}+1}{2}\Big{)}=3^{i}+1 if and only if 2⋅5i−3⋅5α=1, which is a contradiction.
When n≡2(mod5), (1n−1)≡1(mod5) and (5n−5)≡4(mod5).
Since (1n−1)≡0(mod5) and (5n−5)≡0(mod5), we have xd and x5d. Assume to the contrary that En is DO. Then d=3α+1 and 5d=3i+1, which implies 5(3α+1)=3i+1 if and only if 5i−5α+1=4, which is a contradiction.
When n≡3(mod5), (1n−1)≡2(mod5) and (4n−4)≡1(mod5).
Since (1n−1)≡0(mod5) and (4n−4)≡0(mod5), we have xd and x4d. Assume to the contrary that En is DO. Then d=3α+1 and 4d=3i+1, which implies 4(3α+1)=3i+1 if and only if 5i−4⋅5α=3, which is a contradiction.
Now consider the two cases n≡0(mod5) and n≡4(mod5).
When n≡0(mod5), (1n−1)≡4(mod5) and (2n−2)≡3(mod5).
When n≡4(mod5), (1n−1)≡3(mod5) and (2n−2)≡1(mod5).
Since (1n−1)≡0(mod5) and (2n−2)≡0(mod5), we have xd and x2d. Assume to the contrary that En is DO. Then d=3α+1 and 2d=3i+1, which implies 2(3α+1)=3i+1 if and only if 5i−2⋅5α=1, which is a contradiction.
This completes the proof.
∎
Theorem 3.3**.**
Let p>5. The polynomial En is a Dembowski-Ostrom polynomial over Fq if and only if the following holds.
- (i)
n=2,3* and d=pk(pα+1).*
Proof.
Let n=2. Then E2=(p−1)xd. If E2 is DO, then clearly d=pα+1.
Let n=3. Then E2=(p−2)xd. If E3 is DO, then clearly d=pα+1.
Now we show that when n=2,3, En is not DO.
Assume that n=2,3. We consider two cases depending on the parity of n.
Case 1. n even.
[TABLE]
Sub Case 1.1 n≡1(modp).
Since (2n−2)≡1(modp), we have x2d and x2dn. Assume to the contrary that En is DO. Then 2d=pα+1 and 2dn=pi+1, which implies n(pα+1)=4pi+4. This is only true when p=7, i=0 and α>0. Let p=7. Then clearly
(3n−3)≡3(mod7). Since En is DO, we have 3d=7β+1. Recall that 2d=7α+1. Thus we have 2⋅7β−3⋅7α=1, which is a contradiction.
Sub Case 1.2 n≡1,2,3(modp).
We have xd and x2d. Assume to the contrary that En is DO. Then d=pα+1 and 2d=pi+1, which implies 2(pα+1)=pi+1 if and only if pi−2pα=1. This is only true when i=0 and α>0, i.e. 2d=2, which implies d=1. A contradiction since d=pα+1 and α>0.
Sub Case 1.3 n≡1(modp) and n≡2(modp).
Since (3n−3)≡−1(modp), we have xd and x3d. Assume to the contrary that En is DO. Then d=pα+1 and 3d=pi+1, which implies 3(pα+1)=pi+1 if and only if pi−3pα=2. This is a contradiction for any p>5, α and i.
Sub Case 1.4 n≡1(modp) and n≡3(modp).
Since (5n−5)≡−6(modp), we have xd and x5d. Assume to the contrary that En is DO. Then d=pα+1 and 5d=pi+1, which implies 5(pα+1)=pi+1 if and only if pi−5pα=4. This is a contradiction for any p>5, α and i.
Case 2. n odd.
[TABLE]
Sub Case 2.1 n≡1(modp).
Since (2n−2)≡1(modp) and (3n−3)≡−4(modp), we have x2d and x3d. Assume to the contrary that En is DO. Then 2d=pα+1 and 3d=pi+1, which implies 2⋅pi−3⋅pα=1. This is a contradiction for any p>5, α and i.
Sub Case 2.2 n≡1,2,3(modp).
We have xd and x2d. Assume to the contrary that En is DO. Then d=pα+1 and 2d=pi+1, which implies 2(pα+1)=pi+1 if and only if pi−2pα=1. This is only true when i=0 and α>0, i.e. 2d=2, which implies d=1. A contradiction since d=pα+1 and α>0.
Sub Case 2.3 n≡1(modp) and n≡2(modp).
Since (3n−3)≡−1(modp), we have xd and x3d. Assume to the contrary that En is DO. Then d=pα+1 and 3d=pi+1, which implies 3(pα+1)=pi+1 if and only if pi−3pα=2. This is a contradiction for any p>5, α and i.
Sub Case 2.4 n≡1(modp) and n≡3(modp).
Since (5n−5)≡−6(modp), we have xd and x5d. Assume to the contrary that En is DO. Then d=pα+1 and 5d=pi+1, which implies 5(pα+1)=pi+1 if and only if pi−5pα=4. This is a contradiction for any p>5, α and i.
This completes the proof.
∎
Remark 3.4**.**
The DO polynomials of the form En, obtained in Theorem 3.1, Theorem 3.2 and Theorem 3.3, are monomials, binomials, trinomials, and quadrinomials. We list them below.
- (1)
p=3, d=pk(pℓ+1), n=2, \textscEn=2xpk(pℓ+1).
2. (2)
p=3, d=pk(pℓ+1), n=3, En=xpk(pℓ+1).
3. (3)
p=3, d=p^{k}\Big{(}\frac{p^{\ell}+1}{2}\Big{)}, n=4, En=xpk(pℓ+1).
4. (4)
p=3, d=pk(pℓ+1), n=5, En=2xpk(pℓ+1).
5. (5)
p=3, d=pk(pℓ+1), n=6, En=xpk(pℓ+1)+2xpk+1(pℓ+1).
6. (6)
p=3, d=2pk, n=7, En=x4pk+2x2pk+1.
7. (7)
p=3, d=2pk, n=10, En=x4pk+x2pk+1+2x10pk.
8. (8)
p=3, d=2pk, n=13, En=x4pk+x10pk+x12pk.
9. (9)
p=3, d=4pk, n=15, En=x4pk+x4pk+1+x28pk.
10. (10)
p=3, d=2pk, n=19, En=x4pk+x2pk+1+2x10pk+2x2pk+2.
11. (11)
p=5, d=pk(pℓ+1), n=2, En=4xpk(pℓ+1).
12. (12)
p=5, d=pk(pℓ+1), n=3, En=3xpk(pℓ+1).
13. (13)
p=5, d=2pk, n=7, En=4x2pk+x6pk.
14. (14)
p>5, d=pk(pℓ+1), n=2, En=(p−1)xpk(pℓ+1).
15. (15)
p>5, d=pk(pℓ+1), n=3, En=(p−2)xpk(pℓ+1).