In
, the characteristic polynomial
of
splits as
where
,
et
. The factor
occurs since
is embedded into
, and the three others
factors are defining
-classes of proper elements of
.
It can be checked that
and
.
In what follows, it assumed that one among the four root of the polynomial
has been elected as ``the true
''. The other three roots of
are therefore the successive images of
by
, i.e.
and
splits as
.
For any
in
, we define
as
. Therefore, we have
,
expressing
as a linear combination of the
.
In Table 1, the first two columns give the correspondence
, enlarged by the convention
that
and
. For an easier identification
of the
, the third column gives the
computed inside
(e.g.
is mapped to
).
The key point to observe in Table 1 is that all polynomials
inside
are obtained, proving
that
is a primitive root of
. All these primitive
roots are the
elements
where
. Four of them are
i.e. the roots of
, and the remaining four :
are the roots of
(the other factor of
).
Defining
as
, we have
since
and therefore
where
. Computation of the
leads to the second part of 1.
It can be seen that
is a root of
,
the other being
,
and
.
Here again,
can be described by polynomials in
(which is a proper element of
), but not by powers of
(which is not a primitive root). We obtain the third part of Table 1.
Table 2 explains the Imamura's algorithm to compute the
Zech logarithm relative to a given primitive polynomial. While tabulating the
correspondence
, the reverse correspondence
can be tabulated on the fly (the first
part of Table 2). Thereafter, adding
to
is adding
to
and therefore going forwards
to the next
, or going
places backwards
in the
list [7]. If we take
, we
obtain
, i.e.
.
Therefore
,
i.e.
and
.
It is obvious that all the Zech functions relative to
-conjugates
of a given
are identical : the Zech function depends only from the
chosen primitive polynomial, and not of a particular root of that polynomial.
Therefore, we have two Zech's logarithms that are defined over
: the
already tabulated and the
obtained using
(tabulated in last column of Table 2).
Putting
(where
),
we have
leading to the translation formula
The usual way to solve the equation
is not relevant
in the
fields. Discarding the obvious cases where
,
we put
and obtain
. Therefore,
if
is a root of that equation, the other is
,
leading to
. Taking the (discrete)
logarithm we get
,
and the problem is restated as finding
such that
has the prescribed value.
Taking
as example, we get
.
From Table 2,
and =
are obtained, leading to the requested roots :
and
.