Constructible polygon
A constructible polygon is a regular -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 -gon is constructible iff
is the product of a power of
and distinct fermat primes. For instance, a
-gon, a
-gon, a
-gon and a
-gon are all constructible, but a
-gon isn't.
Proof
First notice that constructing a regular -gon is equivalent to constructing the
roots of unity in the complex plane, starting with the points
and
(because the
roots of unity form a regular
-gon).
Now consider a primitive root of unity
. So now the
roots of unity are
. As the set of constructible numbers is a field, these numbers will be constructible iff
is constructible. Hence a regular
-gon is constructible iff
is a constructible number.
Now by the characterization of constructible numbers, will be constructible iff there is a chain of field extensions
such that each extension
is quadratic (i.e.
). We claim that this happens iff
(where
is Euler's totient function) is a power of
.
First we note that is the
cyclotomic field, and hence
.
Now assume that such a chain of field extensions exists. Then by the tower law:
as desired.
Now assume that , for some
.
is the splitting field of
cyclotomic polynomial,
and hence
is a Galois extension. Now the order of the Galois group
is just
. Thus
is a 2-group, and hence there must exist a chain of subgroups
with
for all
. Now by the fundamental theorem of Galois theory, if
is the fixed field of
then
and
. Therefore
is indeed constructible.
We have now shown that a regular -gon is constructible iff
is a power of
. It only remains to show that the integers which satisfy this are precisely the integers in the given form.
Let the prime factorization of be
(where
are distinct odd primes,
for all
and
). Then by the formula for
we have
(or
if
).
Now assume that . Now a power of
cannot be divisible by an odd prime, so we cannot have
for any
(otherwise we would have
), so
. Also, any divisor of a power of
must also be a power of
, so
is a power of
for each
, from which is easily follows that each
is a fermat prime. Hence
is in the desired form.
Conversely assume that , were
are distinct fermat primes, say
. Then
or
if
. In either case this is a power of
, as desired. This completes the proof.