REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 12 references
A note on Misiurewicz polynomials
T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read For prime d, a modulo-d polynomial controls Galois conjugacy of all Misiurewicz points of a given type.
desk verdict Genuinely new reduction for Misiurewicz polynomials, but the main proof has a real gap in Proposition 2.6 that needs a comaximality or valuation argument. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The engine is an ideal-structure theorem for the critical orbit of $f_{c,d}(x)=x^d+c$: when $d$ is prime and the map is post-critically finite of exact type $(m,n)$, the orbit element $a_i=f^i_{c,d}(0)$ at any multiple $i$ of the period satisfies $(a_i)^{M_{m,n}}=(d)$, where $M_{m,n}=d^{m-1}(d-1)$ if $n\nmid m-1$ and $(d^{m-1}-1)(d-1)$ if $n\mid m-1$. The proof converts this into polynomial information by way of three lemmas: $a_n$ equals $G_{d,0,n}(c_0)$ up to a unit in $O_K$, $G_{d,m,n}(c)$ is congruent modulo $d$ to $G_{d,0,n}(c)^{M_{m,n}}$, and the ideal $(d)$ factors as a product of powers of ideals $(d,\tilde f_i(c_0))$ indexed by the irreducible factors of the reduction of $G_{d,0,n}$. With that factorization in hand, a resultant computation plus the classical index criterion proves the index non-divisibility theorem. The machinery makes the dependence on $m$ disappear modulo $d$, so an infinite family of irreducibility questions reduces to one fixed polynomial over $\mathbb{F}_d$.
What would settle it
In the open case $d=2$, $n=4$, factor $G_{2,m,4}(c)$ over $\mathbb{Q}$ for progressively larger $m$; Theorem 1.4 predicts at most two irreducible factors, so a single $m$ with three or more factors would refute it. Independently, for any root $c_0$ of $G_{d,m,n}(c)$, compute the norm of the periodic critical-orbit element $a_n$ in $K=\mathbb{Q}(c_0)$ and compare its $M_{m,n}$-th power with $\pm d^{\deg G_{d,0,n}}$; a mismatch would falsify the ideal-structure theorem on which every main result depends.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The paper's central claim is a factorization-bound theorem: for $d$ prime and any $m \ge 2$, the number of irreducible factors of the Misiurewicz polynomial $G_{d,m,n}(c)$ over $\mathbb{Q}$ is no larger than the number of irreducible factors of the reduced polynomial $G_{d,0,n}(c)$ in $\mathbb{F}_d[c]$. Because irreducibility of $G_{d,m,n}(c)$ over $\mathbb{Q}$ is equivalent to the Galois conjugacy of all Misiurewicz points of type $(m,n)$, the theorem gives a uniform answer to the conjugacy question in every case where the reduction is irreducible. The same circle of ideas yields Theorem 1.9: for a root $c_0$ of $G_{d,m,n}(c)$, with $K=\mathbb{Q}(c_0)$, the prime $d$ does not divide $[O_K:\mathbb{Z}[c_0]]$, so the splitting of $d$ in $K$ is described by the factorization of $G_{d,m,n}(c)$ modulo $d$; Corollary 3.5 then says the critical orbit's non-unit elements are square-free in $O_K$.
Load-bearing premise
The load-bearing premise is the imported theorem that for a prime $d$ and a post-critically finite map $x^d+c$ of exact type $(m,n)$, the critical-orbit element at the period satisfies $(a_i)^{M_{m,n}}=(d)$; if that identity fails, or needs extra hypotheses, Theorems 1.4 and 1.9 collapse.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- Whenever $G_{d,0,n}(c)$ is irreducible in $\mathbb{F}_d[c]$, the polynomial $G_{d,m,n}(c)$ is irreducible over $\mathbb{Q}$ for every $m \ge 2$, and all Misiurewicz points of type $(m,n)$ are Galois conjugates; this answers the conjugacy question for those $(d,n)$ once and for all.
- The number of irreducible factors of $G_{d,m,n}(c)$ over $\mathbb{Q}$ is independent of $m$ and bounded by the number of irreducible factors of $G_{d,0,n}(c)$ modulo $d$; for $d=2$, $n=4$, for example, $G_{2,m,4}(c)$ can have at most two factors for every $m$.
- For $d=3$ and $n=2$ the theorem produces a new infinite family of irreducible polynomials: since $c^2+1$ is irreducible in $\mathbb{F}_3[c]$, $G_{3,m,2}(c)$ is irreducible over $\mathbb{Q}$ for all $m \ge 2$.
- For any root $c_0$ of $G_{d,m,n}(c)$, the splitting of $d$ in $\mathbb{Q}(c_0)$ is governed by the factorization of $G_{d,m,n}(c)$ modulo $d$, because $d$ does not divide the index $[O_K:\mathbb{Z}[c_0]]$.
- The known irreducibility results for $G_{d,m,1}(c)$, $G_{2,m,2}(c)$, and $G_{2,m,3}(c)$ follow from the same theorem, since their reduced period polynomials are irreducible in $\mathbb{F}_d[c]$.
Reading between the lines
- Beyond the paper, this gives a one-time computational test for the Galois-conjugacy question: for fixed $(d,n)$, factor $G_{d,0,n}(c)$ modulo $d$ once; if it is irreducible, the answer for every preperiod $m \ge 2$ is uniform, so the infinite family is collapsed to a finite check.
- The index theorem opens a route to stability of iterates of $x^d+c$: since non-unit critical-orbit elements are square-free in $O_K$, the standard obstruction of such an element being a $\pm d$-th power is absent outside the units; checking whether the unit elements can ever be such powers would settle the remaining stability cases.
- Example 1.8 turns the $d=2$, $n=4$ case into a searchable problem: any reducible $G_{2,m,4}(c)$ must be a product of two integer polynomials whose reductions modulo $2$ are powers of $c^2+c+1$ and $c^4+c+1$, and a computer search over $m$ can either expose such an $m$ or accumulate evidence for full irreducibility.
Signed reviews
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper studies the Misiurewicz polynomials G_{d,m,n}(c) for the unicritical family f_{c,d}(x)=x^d+c, with d prime. The main result, Theorem 1.4, claims that the number of irreducible factors of G_{d,m,n} over Q is bounded above by the number of irreducible factors of the reduction G_{d,0,n} in F_d[c], so that irreducibility mod d implies irreducibility over Q. The proof strategy is to factor the ideal (a_n) in the number field K=Q(c_0) attached to a root c_0 of G_{d,m,n} as a product of ideals (d,\tilde f_i(c_0)), using the critical-orbit ideal relation (a_n)^{M_{m,n}}=(d) imported from the author's earlier paper [5]. Theorem 1.9 states that d does not divide the index [O_K:Z[c_0]], and Corollary 3.5 deduces that the critical orbit elements are square-free. A new corollary, G_{3,m,2} irreducible for all m≥2, is also derived. The paper includes an instructive example for d=2,n=4.
Significance. If Theorem 1.4 is correct, it is a substantial reduction: it ties irreducibility of G_{d,m,n} over Q to the mod d factorization of G_{d,0,n} independent of m, going beyond the previously known period-size-at-most-3 cases and giving the new family G_{3,m,2}. The paper is also honest about its main imported input, Theorem 2.1 from [5], and the explicit factorization example for G_{2,0,4} is correct. However, the proof as written contains two load-bearing gaps: the descent argument in Proposition 2.6 is invalid in the case k>M_{m,n}, and the ideal containment (2.4) in the proof of Theorem 1.4 does not follow from the displayed equality. Additional loose ends in the proof of Theorem 1.9 involve the use of Lemma 2.3 for a degree equality and the choice of the polynomial G in (3.1). These issues make the central claims currently unproved, although the overall strategy appears plausible and likely repairable.
major comments (3)
- [§2, Proposition 2.6 (⊆ direction, k>M_{m,n} case)] The descent step in the proof of the containment (2.1) is invalid. From the block decomposition the author obtains a_n^{l+1} ∈ J = ∏_{i=1}^k (d,\tilde f_i(c_0)). The conclusion d ∈ J is justified only when l+1 ≤ M_{m,n}, because then (a_n)^{M_{m,n}} = (d) ⊆ (a_n)^{l+1} ⊆ J. When l+1 > M_{m,n} the inclusion reverses: (a_n)^{l+1} ⊆ (a_n)^{M_{m,n}}, so knowing that a large power of a_n lies in J gives no information about whether d, or a_n^{M_{m,n}}, lies in J. The statement 'repeating the same argument' does not remove this obstruction because k is fixed and the same inequality reappears. This gap matters because equation (2.3), which is derived from Proposition 2.6, is used in the proofs of Theorem 1.4 and Corollary 3.5. A repair is likely available by first proving that the ideals (d,\tilde f_i(c_0)) are pairwise comaximal, since the reductions f_i are distinct irreducibles in F_d[c], and then using that their product equals their intersection; this argument is absent from the manuscript.
- [§2, proof of Theorem 1.4, equation (2.4)] The containment (2.4) does not follow from the equality \tilde f_1(c_0)^{α_1}...\tilde f_k(c_0)^{α_k} = -dH_1(c_0). That equality shows only that the single product element lies in the ideal (d). The product ideal ∏ (d,\tilde f_i(c_0))^{α_i} has generators such as \tilde f_1(c_0)^{α_1}\tilde f_2(c_0)^{α_2-1}\tilde f_3(c_0)^{α_3}..., which are not divisible by d, so the claim that 'all the generators of the product ideal are divisible by d' is false. Consequently the conclusion that some (d,\tilde f_i(c_0)) must be the unit ideal is unsupported. This is a second load-bearing gap in the proof of Theorem 1.4; a corrected argument would need to compare prime-exponent vectors using the factorization of (d) obtained from a repaired Proposition 2.6, and that argument is not present.
- [§3, Lemma 3.3 and the proof of Theorem 1.9] Two points in the proof of Theorem 1.9 need attention. First, Lemma 3.3 uses the equality deg(G_{d,m,n}) = M_{m,n} deg(G_{d,0,n}), citing Lemma 2.3; but Lemma 2.3 is a congruence modulo d and by itself does not determine degrees unless the leading coefficient of G_{d,m,n} is shown not to be divisible by d. Second, the polynomial G in (3.1) is determined by the particular lifts A_i chosen, while Lemma 3.4 supplies a special F with the required resultant properties; the proof never shows that the G in (3.1) can be taken to be that F. These are likely fixable by choosing lifts compatibly from the outset, but as written the argument has a gap.
minor comments (4)
- [Throughout] The notation alternates between p and d for the same rational prime, particularly in Proposition 2.6, Lemma 2.5, and Lemma 3.4; standardizing on one symbol would improve readability.
- [§1, first paragraph] The sentence 'all Misiurewicz points lie in Q' should read 'lie in \bar{Q}', since the preceding sentences correctly use \bar{Q}.
- [§2, proof of Lemma 2.4] In the displayed norm computation, 'ap+bk' appears to be a typo for 'ap+bα'.
- [§1, Example 1.8] The displayed expression for the possible factorization of G_{2,m,4} is ambiguous; the exponent M_{m,4} should apply to each irreducible factor of G_{2,0,4} in F_2[c], i.e. (c^2+c+1)^{M_{m,4}} and (c^4+c+1)^{M_{m,4}}, consistent with Lemma 2.3.
Circularity Check
No circularity: the factor-count bound is derived from independent prior ideal-structure results, not assumed.
full rationale
Theorem 1.4 is genuinely derived rather than assumed. Its main external input, Theorem 2.1, is a self-citation to the author's [5], but it is an independent structural statement about the critical orbit of a PCF map: for n|i one has (a_i)^{M_{m,n}} = (d) under the stated hypotheses that d is prime and the type is (m,n). That statement does not mention irreducibility or factor counts of G_{d,m,n}, so using it as a premise is not circular. Lemma 2.3 (G_{d,m,n} ≡ G_{d,0,n}^{M_{m,n}} mod d) is imported from Buff-Epstein-Koch [3], an external source, and the final counting argument in Theorem 1.4 combines (2.3) with Lemma 2.5; no equation in the proof defines the target factor count in terms of itself. Theorem 1.9 is likewise derived from resultant identities plus the externally cited discriminant coprimality (Lemma 3 of [2]); no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The possible gap in the descent step of Proposition 2.6 flagged by the skeptic is a correctness concern about an inequality of exponents, not a circularity. Accordingly, under the review rule that a non-finding is the expected honest result when no step reduces to its own input, the circularity score is 0.
Assumptions & free parameters
assumptions (5)
- domain assumption Ideal structure of the critical orbit: for PCF f_{c,d} of exact type (m,n) with d prime, (a_i) is the unit ideal when n∤i, and (a_i)^{M_{m,n}} = (d) when n|i (Theorem 2.1, from [5]).
- domain assumption Mod-d congruence G_{d,m,n}(c) ≡ G_{d,0,n}(c)^{M_{m,n}} (mod d) (Lemma 2.3, from Buff-Epstein-Koch [3]).
- domain assumption Misiurewicz polynomials are integral and monic (G_{d,m,n} ∈ Z[c] from [7]), and the sequence a_i is a rigid divisibility sequence whose primitive part is G_{d,0,n}(c0), making a_n/G_{d,0,n}(c0) a unit (Lemma 2.2, citing [6] and [9]).
- domain assumption Disc(G_{d,0,n}) is coprime to d for prime d, so the mod-d factorization of G_{d,0,n} is square-free (Lemma 3 of Buff [2]).
- standard math Standard algebraic number theory: Dedekind domain unique factorization, Dedekind's criterion (Theorem 3.2, [4]), resultant identities, norm-ideal correspondence (Lemmas 2.4 and 2.5).
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of A note on Misiurewicz polynomials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6HY2E5FA
@misc{pith2026190807361,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: A note on Misiurewicz polynomials},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6HY2E5FA}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07361}
}
abstract
Let $f_{c,d}(x)=x^d+c\in \mathbb{C}[x]$. The $c_0$ values for which $f_{c_0,d}$ has a strictly pre-periodic finite critical orbit are called Misiurewicz points. Any Misiurewicz point lies in $\bar{\mathbb{Q}}$. Suppose that the Misiurewicz points $c_0,c_1\in \bar{\mathbb{Q}}$ are such that the polynomials $f_{c_0,d}$ and $f_{c_1,d}$ have the same orbit type. One classical question is whether $c_0$ and $c_1$ need to be Galois conjugates or not. Recently there has been a partial progress on this question by several authors. In this note, we prove some new results when $d$ is a prime. All the results known so far were in the cases of period size at most $3$. In particular, our work is the first to say something provable in the cases of period size greater than $3$.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[5]
On the orbit of a post-critically finite polynomial of the form $x^d + c$
V.Goksel. On the orbit of a post-critically finite polyno mial of the form xd + c, 2018. To appear in Functiones et Approximatio Commentarii Mathematici, arXiv: 1806.01208
work page Pith review arXiv 2018
-
[1]
Current Trends and Open Problems in Arithmetic Dynamics
R. Benedetto, L. DeMarco, P. Ingram, R. Jones, M. Manes, J . H. Silverman, T.J. Tucker. Current trends and open problems in arithmetic dynamics, 2018. To appear in Bul letin of American Mathematical Society, arXiv: 1806.04980
work page Pith review arXiv 2018
-
[2]
On postcritically finite unicritical polynomial s
X.Buff. On postcritically finite unicritical polynomial s. New York J. Math. 24, 11111122, 2018
work page 2018
-
[3]
Rational maps with a preperiodic critical point
X.Buff; A.Epstein; S.Koch. Rational maps with a preperio dic critical point, Preprint. arXiv:1806.11221
-
[4]
Uber den Zusammenhang zwischen der Theorie der Ideale und der Theorie der h¨ oheran Kongruenzen
R.Dedekind. Uber den Zusammenhang zwischen der Theorie der Ideale und der Theorie der h¨ oheran Kongruenzen. G¨ ottingen Abhandlungen 23: 1-23, 1878
-
[6]
The density of primes in or bits of zd + c
S.Hamblen; R.Jones; K.Madhu. The density of primes in or bits of zd + c. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN, no. 7, 1924-1958, 2015 10 V.GOKSEL
work page 1924
-
[7]
Misiurewicz points for polynomial m aps and transversality
B.Hutz; A.Towsley. Misiurewicz points for polynomial m aps and transversality. New York J. Math. 21, 297-319, 2015
work page 2015
-
[8]
S. Lang. Algebraic Number Theory, Volume 110 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, second edition, 1994
work page 1994
Show all 12 references
-
[9]
Looper, Dynamical Galois groups of trinomials and O doni’s conjecture, 2016
N.R. Looper, Dynamical Galois groups of trinomials and O doni’s conjecture, 2016. To appear in Bulletin of London Mathematical Society, arXiv:1609.03398
2016 arXiv
-
[10]
Marcus: Number Fields
D.A. Marcus: Number Fields. Springer, New York, 1977
1977
-
[11]
Arithmetic of unicritical polynomial maps, Frontiers in Complex Dynamics: In Celebration of John Milnor’s 80th Birthday 15-23, 2012
J.Milnor. Arithmetic of unicritical polynomial maps, Frontiers in Complex Dynamics: In Celebration of John Milnor’s 80th Birthday 15-23, 2012
2012
-
[12]
Silverman
J.H. Silverman. The arithmetic of dynamical systems, v olume 241 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, New York, 2007. Mathematics Department, University of Wisconsin, Madison , WI 53706, USA E-mail address : goksel@math.wisc.edu
2007
Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.