If $E/F$ is algebraic and every $fin F[X]$ has a root in $E$, why is $E$ algebraically closed?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
15
down vote

favorite
7












Suppose $E/F$ is an algebraic extension, where every polynomial over $F$ has a root in $E$. It's not clear to me why $E$ is actually algebraically closed.



I attempted the following, but I don't think it's correct:



I let $f$ be an irreducible polynomial in $E[X]$. I let $alpha$ be a root in some extension, so $f=m_alpha,E$. Since $alpha$ is algebraic over $E$, it is also algebraic over $F$, let $m_alpha,F$ be it's minimal polynomial. I now let $K$ be a splitting field of $m_alpha,F$, which is a finite extension since each root has finite degree over $F$.



If $m_alpha,F$ is separable, then $K/F$ is also separable, so as a finite, separable extension, we can write $K=F(beta)$ for some primitive element $beta$. By assumption, $m_alpha,F$ has a root in $E$, call it $r$. Then we can embed $F(beta)$ into $r$ by mapping $beta$ to $r$. It follows that $m_alpha,F$ splits in $E$. Since $fmid m_alpha,F$, we must also have the $f$ is split in $E$.



But what happens if $m_alpha,F$ is not separable? In such case, $F$ must have characteristic $p$. I know we can express $m_alpha,F=g(X^p^k)$ for some irreducible, separable polynomial $g(X)in F[X]$. But I'm not sure what follows after that.



NB: I say $E$ is algebraically closed if every nonconstant polynomial in $E[X]$ has a root in $E$.







share|cite|improve this question





















  • There are (unfortunately) two slightly different definitions of algebraically closed. Which one are you using?
    – Eric Towers
    Mar 21 '14 at 22:43










  • @EricTowers I say $E$ is algebraically closed if every nonconstant polynomial in $E[X]$ has a root in $E$.
    – Nastassja
    Mar 21 '14 at 22:44










  • You cannot map $beta$ to $r$ in general: a primitive element for the splitting field of a polynomial need not be a root of the polynomial.
    – Jan Ladislav Dussek
    Mar 21 '14 at 23:04










  • Your title and first sentence don't match. Does every polynomial in $F[x]$ have a root in $F$ or in $E$?
    – Greg Martin
    Mar 21 '14 at 23:08










  • @GregMartin I'm sorry, that was a typo, every polynomial in $F[X]$ has a root in $E$.
    – Nastassja
    Mar 21 '14 at 23:09














up vote
15
down vote

favorite
7












Suppose $E/F$ is an algebraic extension, where every polynomial over $F$ has a root in $E$. It's not clear to me why $E$ is actually algebraically closed.



I attempted the following, but I don't think it's correct:



I let $f$ be an irreducible polynomial in $E[X]$. I let $alpha$ be a root in some extension, so $f=m_alpha,E$. Since $alpha$ is algebraic over $E$, it is also algebraic over $F$, let $m_alpha,F$ be it's minimal polynomial. I now let $K$ be a splitting field of $m_alpha,F$, which is a finite extension since each root has finite degree over $F$.



If $m_alpha,F$ is separable, then $K/F$ is also separable, so as a finite, separable extension, we can write $K=F(beta)$ for some primitive element $beta$. By assumption, $m_alpha,F$ has a root in $E$, call it $r$. Then we can embed $F(beta)$ into $r$ by mapping $beta$ to $r$. It follows that $m_alpha,F$ splits in $E$. Since $fmid m_alpha,F$, we must also have the $f$ is split in $E$.



But what happens if $m_alpha,F$ is not separable? In such case, $F$ must have characteristic $p$. I know we can express $m_alpha,F=g(X^p^k)$ for some irreducible, separable polynomial $g(X)in F[X]$. But I'm not sure what follows after that.



NB: I say $E$ is algebraically closed if every nonconstant polynomial in $E[X]$ has a root in $E$.







share|cite|improve this question





















  • There are (unfortunately) two slightly different definitions of algebraically closed. Which one are you using?
    – Eric Towers
    Mar 21 '14 at 22:43










  • @EricTowers I say $E$ is algebraically closed if every nonconstant polynomial in $E[X]$ has a root in $E$.
    – Nastassja
    Mar 21 '14 at 22:44










  • You cannot map $beta$ to $r$ in general: a primitive element for the splitting field of a polynomial need not be a root of the polynomial.
    – Jan Ladislav Dussek
    Mar 21 '14 at 23:04










  • Your title and first sentence don't match. Does every polynomial in $F[x]$ have a root in $F$ or in $E$?
    – Greg Martin
    Mar 21 '14 at 23:08










  • @GregMartin I'm sorry, that was a typo, every polynomial in $F[X]$ has a root in $E$.
    – Nastassja
    Mar 21 '14 at 23:09












up vote
15
down vote

favorite
7









up vote
15
down vote

favorite
7






7





Suppose $E/F$ is an algebraic extension, where every polynomial over $F$ has a root in $E$. It's not clear to me why $E$ is actually algebraically closed.



I attempted the following, but I don't think it's correct:



I let $f$ be an irreducible polynomial in $E[X]$. I let $alpha$ be a root in some extension, so $f=m_alpha,E$. Since $alpha$ is algebraic over $E$, it is also algebraic over $F$, let $m_alpha,F$ be it's minimal polynomial. I now let $K$ be a splitting field of $m_alpha,F$, which is a finite extension since each root has finite degree over $F$.



If $m_alpha,F$ is separable, then $K/F$ is also separable, so as a finite, separable extension, we can write $K=F(beta)$ for some primitive element $beta$. By assumption, $m_alpha,F$ has a root in $E$, call it $r$. Then we can embed $F(beta)$ into $r$ by mapping $beta$ to $r$. It follows that $m_alpha,F$ splits in $E$. Since $fmid m_alpha,F$, we must also have the $f$ is split in $E$.



But what happens if $m_alpha,F$ is not separable? In such case, $F$ must have characteristic $p$. I know we can express $m_alpha,F=g(X^p^k)$ for some irreducible, separable polynomial $g(X)in F[X]$. But I'm not sure what follows after that.



NB: I say $E$ is algebraically closed if every nonconstant polynomial in $E[X]$ has a root in $E$.







share|cite|improve this question













Suppose $E/F$ is an algebraic extension, where every polynomial over $F$ has a root in $E$. It's not clear to me why $E$ is actually algebraically closed.



I attempted the following, but I don't think it's correct:



I let $f$ be an irreducible polynomial in $E[X]$. I let $alpha$ be a root in some extension, so $f=m_alpha,E$. Since $alpha$ is algebraic over $E$, it is also algebraic over $F$, let $m_alpha,F$ be it's minimal polynomial. I now let $K$ be a splitting field of $m_alpha,F$, which is a finite extension since each root has finite degree over $F$.



If $m_alpha,F$ is separable, then $K/F$ is also separable, so as a finite, separable extension, we can write $K=F(beta)$ for some primitive element $beta$. By assumption, $m_alpha,F$ has a root in $E$, call it $r$. Then we can embed $F(beta)$ into $r$ by mapping $beta$ to $r$. It follows that $m_alpha,F$ splits in $E$. Since $fmid m_alpha,F$, we must also have the $f$ is split in $E$.



But what happens if $m_alpha,F$ is not separable? In such case, $F$ must have characteristic $p$. I know we can express $m_alpha,F=g(X^p^k)$ for some irreducible, separable polynomial $g(X)in F[X]$. But I'm not sure what follows after that.



NB: I say $E$ is algebraically closed if every nonconstant polynomial in $E[X]$ has a root in $E$.









share|cite|improve this question












share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Mar 21 '14 at 23:08
























asked Mar 21 '14 at 22:38









Nastassja

670413




670413











  • There are (unfortunately) two slightly different definitions of algebraically closed. Which one are you using?
    – Eric Towers
    Mar 21 '14 at 22:43










  • @EricTowers I say $E$ is algebraically closed if every nonconstant polynomial in $E[X]$ has a root in $E$.
    – Nastassja
    Mar 21 '14 at 22:44










  • You cannot map $beta$ to $r$ in general: a primitive element for the splitting field of a polynomial need not be a root of the polynomial.
    – Jan Ladislav Dussek
    Mar 21 '14 at 23:04










  • Your title and first sentence don't match. Does every polynomial in $F[x]$ have a root in $F$ or in $E$?
    – Greg Martin
    Mar 21 '14 at 23:08










  • @GregMartin I'm sorry, that was a typo, every polynomial in $F[X]$ has a root in $E$.
    – Nastassja
    Mar 21 '14 at 23:09
















  • There are (unfortunately) two slightly different definitions of algebraically closed. Which one are you using?
    – Eric Towers
    Mar 21 '14 at 22:43










  • @EricTowers I say $E$ is algebraically closed if every nonconstant polynomial in $E[X]$ has a root in $E$.
    – Nastassja
    Mar 21 '14 at 22:44










  • You cannot map $beta$ to $r$ in general: a primitive element for the splitting field of a polynomial need not be a root of the polynomial.
    – Jan Ladislav Dussek
    Mar 21 '14 at 23:04










  • Your title and first sentence don't match. Does every polynomial in $F[x]$ have a root in $F$ or in $E$?
    – Greg Martin
    Mar 21 '14 at 23:08










  • @GregMartin I'm sorry, that was a typo, every polynomial in $F[X]$ has a root in $E$.
    – Nastassja
    Mar 21 '14 at 23:09















There are (unfortunately) two slightly different definitions of algebraically closed. Which one are you using?
– Eric Towers
Mar 21 '14 at 22:43




There are (unfortunately) two slightly different definitions of algebraically closed. Which one are you using?
– Eric Towers
Mar 21 '14 at 22:43












@EricTowers I say $E$ is algebraically closed if every nonconstant polynomial in $E[X]$ has a root in $E$.
– Nastassja
Mar 21 '14 at 22:44




@EricTowers I say $E$ is algebraically closed if every nonconstant polynomial in $E[X]$ has a root in $E$.
– Nastassja
Mar 21 '14 at 22:44












You cannot map $beta$ to $r$ in general: a primitive element for the splitting field of a polynomial need not be a root of the polynomial.
– Jan Ladislav Dussek
Mar 21 '14 at 23:04




You cannot map $beta$ to $r$ in general: a primitive element for the splitting field of a polynomial need not be a root of the polynomial.
– Jan Ladislav Dussek
Mar 21 '14 at 23:04












Your title and first sentence don't match. Does every polynomial in $F[x]$ have a root in $F$ or in $E$?
– Greg Martin
Mar 21 '14 at 23:08




Your title and first sentence don't match. Does every polynomial in $F[x]$ have a root in $F$ or in $E$?
– Greg Martin
Mar 21 '14 at 23:08












@GregMartin I'm sorry, that was a typo, every polynomial in $F[X]$ has a root in $E$.
– Nastassja
Mar 21 '14 at 23:09




@GregMartin I'm sorry, that was a typo, every polynomial in $F[X]$ has a root in $E$.
– Nastassja
Mar 21 '14 at 23:09










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
9
down vote



accepted










This is a recent qual question at my school. :)



If $F$ is not perfect, say it has characteristic $p$. Let $F_perf$ be the extension of $F$ obtained by adjoining a root for $x^p^n-a$ for every $n in mathbb N, a in F$. Since these polynomials are purely inseparable, $F_perf$ embeds (via a unique isomorphism) into $E$, and we may identify $F_perf$ with its isomorphic copy in $E$.



Two facts for you to verify: $F_perf$ is a perfect field, and every element of $F_perf$ is a root of $x^p^n-a$ for some $n in mathbb N$ and $a in F$.



Now let $f$ be a polynomial with coefficients in $F_perf$, say $f(x) = x^k + a_k-1 x^k-1 + cdots + a_0$. Then for sufficiently large $n$, $a_i^p^n in F$ for all $i$. So $$f^p^n(x) = x^k p^n + a_k-1^p^n x^(k-1)p^n + cdots + a_0^p^n in F[x],$$ which has a root in $E$ by assumption. But $f$ and $f^p^n$ have the same roots, hence $f$ has a root in $E$. So without loss of generality, we may assume $F = F_perf$, and Bruno's answer gets us the rest of the way.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Ah, so you want to take a perfect closure of $F$. May I ask, why is it that each $x^p^n-a$ is purely inseparable, and why is that needed to embed $F_perf$ into $E$?
    – Nastassja
    Mar 22 '14 at 1:05










  • Purely inseparable means that the polynomial has only one root. If $alpha$ is a root of $x^p^n-a$, then $x^p^n-a = x^p^n-alpha^p^n = (x-alpha)^p^n$. Since each of these polynomials has only one root, they all split in $E$, which can't be said, a priori, for a polynomial with more than one root.
    – Dustan Levenstein
    Mar 22 '14 at 1:08










  • Thanks, I had not heard that terminology for polynomials before.
    – Nastassja
    Mar 22 '14 at 1:10










  • Done! Thanks both for your help.
    – Nastassja
    Mar 22 '14 at 1:55










  • lol, Bruno, thanks! :P
    – Dustan Levenstein
    Mar 22 '14 at 6:22

















up vote
7
down vote













Note: feel free to ignore the warzone in the comments; it's not really relevant anymore.



If $F$ is perfect, we can proceed like this. Let $f$ be a polynomial with coefficients in $F$. Let $K/F$ be a splitting field for $f$. Then $K=F(alpha)$ for some $alpha in K$. Let $g$ be the minimal polynomial of $alpha$ over $F$. Then $g$ has a root in $E$ by assumption, hence $E$ contains a copy of $F(alpha)$, i.e. a splitting field for $f$.



Thus every $fin F[X]$ splits in $E$. Now I claim that $E$ is algebraically closed. Let $E'/E$ be an algebraic extension and let $beta in E'$. By transitivity, $beta$ is algebraic over $F$; let $h(X)$ be its minimal polynomial over $F$. By the above, $h$ splits in $E$, and therefore $beta in E$. Thus $E$ is algebraically closed.






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 2




    Thank you. But how does the assumption on $E$ imply $f$ splits in $E$? If $f$ has a root $betain E$, $f=(X-beta)g(X)$ for $gin E[X]$. If $alpha=beta$, we are done, otherwise $g(alpha)=0$...not sure what follows next?
    – Nastassja
    Mar 21 '14 at 23:14











  • @Nastassja Oops, I misread the assumption. My bad. I'm not immediately sure how to prove it (and I'm actually not sure that it's true - where did you get this statement?).
    – Bruno Joyal
    Mar 21 '14 at 23:35






  • 1




    @BrunoJoyal, where and how did you prove that every non-constant pol. in $;E[x];$ (!!) has a root in $;E;$ ? You don't even mess with any pol. over $;E;$ !
    – DonAntonio
    Mar 22 '14 at 0:19







  • 1




    @BrunoJoyal, or I'm missing some rather simple point here, or you are...or something: in order to prove some field $;B;$ is an alg. clos. of another field $;A;$ you must prove THAT $;B;$ is both algebraic over $;A;$ and alg. closed. For the third time, where did you prove $;E;$ is alg. closed (the only interesting thing to do since we're given it is alg. over $;F;$) ?
    – DonAntonio
    Mar 22 '14 at 0:24






  • 2




    Ah! Now I get your point, @BrunoJoyal ....finally! It must be my two remaining living neurons are on vacation in Bahamas...Yes, you're right: if we're given (or if we prove) that $;E;$ is s.t. that any non-constant pol. in $;F;$ splits there then we're done.
    – DonAntonio
    Mar 22 '14 at 0:34











Your Answer




StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);








 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f721608%2fif-e-f-is-algebraic-and-every-f-in-fx-has-a-root-in-e-why-is-e-algebr%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest






























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
9
down vote



accepted










This is a recent qual question at my school. :)



If $F$ is not perfect, say it has characteristic $p$. Let $F_perf$ be the extension of $F$ obtained by adjoining a root for $x^p^n-a$ for every $n in mathbb N, a in F$. Since these polynomials are purely inseparable, $F_perf$ embeds (via a unique isomorphism) into $E$, and we may identify $F_perf$ with its isomorphic copy in $E$.



Two facts for you to verify: $F_perf$ is a perfect field, and every element of $F_perf$ is a root of $x^p^n-a$ for some $n in mathbb N$ and $a in F$.



Now let $f$ be a polynomial with coefficients in $F_perf$, say $f(x) = x^k + a_k-1 x^k-1 + cdots + a_0$. Then for sufficiently large $n$, $a_i^p^n in F$ for all $i$. So $$f^p^n(x) = x^k p^n + a_k-1^p^n x^(k-1)p^n + cdots + a_0^p^n in F[x],$$ which has a root in $E$ by assumption. But $f$ and $f^p^n$ have the same roots, hence $f$ has a root in $E$. So without loss of generality, we may assume $F = F_perf$, and Bruno's answer gets us the rest of the way.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Ah, so you want to take a perfect closure of $F$. May I ask, why is it that each $x^p^n-a$ is purely inseparable, and why is that needed to embed $F_perf$ into $E$?
    – Nastassja
    Mar 22 '14 at 1:05










  • Purely inseparable means that the polynomial has only one root. If $alpha$ is a root of $x^p^n-a$, then $x^p^n-a = x^p^n-alpha^p^n = (x-alpha)^p^n$. Since each of these polynomials has only one root, they all split in $E$, which can't be said, a priori, for a polynomial with more than one root.
    – Dustan Levenstein
    Mar 22 '14 at 1:08










  • Thanks, I had not heard that terminology for polynomials before.
    – Nastassja
    Mar 22 '14 at 1:10










  • Done! Thanks both for your help.
    – Nastassja
    Mar 22 '14 at 1:55










  • lol, Bruno, thanks! :P
    – Dustan Levenstein
    Mar 22 '14 at 6:22














up vote
9
down vote



accepted










This is a recent qual question at my school. :)



If $F$ is not perfect, say it has characteristic $p$. Let $F_perf$ be the extension of $F$ obtained by adjoining a root for $x^p^n-a$ for every $n in mathbb N, a in F$. Since these polynomials are purely inseparable, $F_perf$ embeds (via a unique isomorphism) into $E$, and we may identify $F_perf$ with its isomorphic copy in $E$.



Two facts for you to verify: $F_perf$ is a perfect field, and every element of $F_perf$ is a root of $x^p^n-a$ for some $n in mathbb N$ and $a in F$.



Now let $f$ be a polynomial with coefficients in $F_perf$, say $f(x) = x^k + a_k-1 x^k-1 + cdots + a_0$. Then for sufficiently large $n$, $a_i^p^n in F$ for all $i$. So $$f^p^n(x) = x^k p^n + a_k-1^p^n x^(k-1)p^n + cdots + a_0^p^n in F[x],$$ which has a root in $E$ by assumption. But $f$ and $f^p^n$ have the same roots, hence $f$ has a root in $E$. So without loss of generality, we may assume $F = F_perf$, and Bruno's answer gets us the rest of the way.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Ah, so you want to take a perfect closure of $F$. May I ask, why is it that each $x^p^n-a$ is purely inseparable, and why is that needed to embed $F_perf$ into $E$?
    – Nastassja
    Mar 22 '14 at 1:05










  • Purely inseparable means that the polynomial has only one root. If $alpha$ is a root of $x^p^n-a$, then $x^p^n-a = x^p^n-alpha^p^n = (x-alpha)^p^n$. Since each of these polynomials has only one root, they all split in $E$, which can't be said, a priori, for a polynomial with more than one root.
    – Dustan Levenstein
    Mar 22 '14 at 1:08










  • Thanks, I had not heard that terminology for polynomials before.
    – Nastassja
    Mar 22 '14 at 1:10










  • Done! Thanks both for your help.
    – Nastassja
    Mar 22 '14 at 1:55










  • lol, Bruno, thanks! :P
    – Dustan Levenstein
    Mar 22 '14 at 6:22












up vote
9
down vote



accepted







up vote
9
down vote



accepted






This is a recent qual question at my school. :)



If $F$ is not perfect, say it has characteristic $p$. Let $F_perf$ be the extension of $F$ obtained by adjoining a root for $x^p^n-a$ for every $n in mathbb N, a in F$. Since these polynomials are purely inseparable, $F_perf$ embeds (via a unique isomorphism) into $E$, and we may identify $F_perf$ with its isomorphic copy in $E$.



Two facts for you to verify: $F_perf$ is a perfect field, and every element of $F_perf$ is a root of $x^p^n-a$ for some $n in mathbb N$ and $a in F$.



Now let $f$ be a polynomial with coefficients in $F_perf$, say $f(x) = x^k + a_k-1 x^k-1 + cdots + a_0$. Then for sufficiently large $n$, $a_i^p^n in F$ for all $i$. So $$f^p^n(x) = x^k p^n + a_k-1^p^n x^(k-1)p^n + cdots + a_0^p^n in F[x],$$ which has a root in $E$ by assumption. But $f$ and $f^p^n$ have the same roots, hence $f$ has a root in $E$. So without loss of generality, we may assume $F = F_perf$, and Bruno's answer gets us the rest of the way.






share|cite|improve this answer













This is a recent qual question at my school. :)



If $F$ is not perfect, say it has characteristic $p$. Let $F_perf$ be the extension of $F$ obtained by adjoining a root for $x^p^n-a$ for every $n in mathbb N, a in F$. Since these polynomials are purely inseparable, $F_perf$ embeds (via a unique isomorphism) into $E$, and we may identify $F_perf$ with its isomorphic copy in $E$.



Two facts for you to verify: $F_perf$ is a perfect field, and every element of $F_perf$ is a root of $x^p^n-a$ for some $n in mathbb N$ and $a in F$.



Now let $f$ be a polynomial with coefficients in $F_perf$, say $f(x) = x^k + a_k-1 x^k-1 + cdots + a_0$. Then for sufficiently large $n$, $a_i^p^n in F$ for all $i$. So $$f^p^n(x) = x^k p^n + a_k-1^p^n x^(k-1)p^n + cdots + a_0^p^n in F[x],$$ which has a root in $E$ by assumption. But $f$ and $f^p^n$ have the same roots, hence $f$ has a root in $E$. So without loss of generality, we may assume $F = F_perf$, and Bruno's answer gets us the rest of the way.







share|cite|improve this answer













share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer











answered Mar 22 '14 at 0:52









Dustan Levenstein

9,79411545




9,79411545











  • Ah, so you want to take a perfect closure of $F$. May I ask, why is it that each $x^p^n-a$ is purely inseparable, and why is that needed to embed $F_perf$ into $E$?
    – Nastassja
    Mar 22 '14 at 1:05










  • Purely inseparable means that the polynomial has only one root. If $alpha$ is a root of $x^p^n-a$, then $x^p^n-a = x^p^n-alpha^p^n = (x-alpha)^p^n$. Since each of these polynomials has only one root, they all split in $E$, which can't be said, a priori, for a polynomial with more than one root.
    – Dustan Levenstein
    Mar 22 '14 at 1:08










  • Thanks, I had not heard that terminology for polynomials before.
    – Nastassja
    Mar 22 '14 at 1:10










  • Done! Thanks both for your help.
    – Nastassja
    Mar 22 '14 at 1:55










  • lol, Bruno, thanks! :P
    – Dustan Levenstein
    Mar 22 '14 at 6:22
















  • Ah, so you want to take a perfect closure of $F$. May I ask, why is it that each $x^p^n-a$ is purely inseparable, and why is that needed to embed $F_perf$ into $E$?
    – Nastassja
    Mar 22 '14 at 1:05










  • Purely inseparable means that the polynomial has only one root. If $alpha$ is a root of $x^p^n-a$, then $x^p^n-a = x^p^n-alpha^p^n = (x-alpha)^p^n$. Since each of these polynomials has only one root, they all split in $E$, which can't be said, a priori, for a polynomial with more than one root.
    – Dustan Levenstein
    Mar 22 '14 at 1:08










  • Thanks, I had not heard that terminology for polynomials before.
    – Nastassja
    Mar 22 '14 at 1:10










  • Done! Thanks both for your help.
    – Nastassja
    Mar 22 '14 at 1:55










  • lol, Bruno, thanks! :P
    – Dustan Levenstein
    Mar 22 '14 at 6:22















Ah, so you want to take a perfect closure of $F$. May I ask, why is it that each $x^p^n-a$ is purely inseparable, and why is that needed to embed $F_perf$ into $E$?
– Nastassja
Mar 22 '14 at 1:05




Ah, so you want to take a perfect closure of $F$. May I ask, why is it that each $x^p^n-a$ is purely inseparable, and why is that needed to embed $F_perf$ into $E$?
– Nastassja
Mar 22 '14 at 1:05












Purely inseparable means that the polynomial has only one root. If $alpha$ is a root of $x^p^n-a$, then $x^p^n-a = x^p^n-alpha^p^n = (x-alpha)^p^n$. Since each of these polynomials has only one root, they all split in $E$, which can't be said, a priori, for a polynomial with more than one root.
– Dustan Levenstein
Mar 22 '14 at 1:08




Purely inseparable means that the polynomial has only one root. If $alpha$ is a root of $x^p^n-a$, then $x^p^n-a = x^p^n-alpha^p^n = (x-alpha)^p^n$. Since each of these polynomials has only one root, they all split in $E$, which can't be said, a priori, for a polynomial with more than one root.
– Dustan Levenstein
Mar 22 '14 at 1:08












Thanks, I had not heard that terminology for polynomials before.
– Nastassja
Mar 22 '14 at 1:10




Thanks, I had not heard that terminology for polynomials before.
– Nastassja
Mar 22 '14 at 1:10












Done! Thanks both for your help.
– Nastassja
Mar 22 '14 at 1:55




Done! Thanks both for your help.
– Nastassja
Mar 22 '14 at 1:55












lol, Bruno, thanks! :P
– Dustan Levenstein
Mar 22 '14 at 6:22




lol, Bruno, thanks! :P
– Dustan Levenstein
Mar 22 '14 at 6:22










up vote
7
down vote













Note: feel free to ignore the warzone in the comments; it's not really relevant anymore.



If $F$ is perfect, we can proceed like this. Let $f$ be a polynomial with coefficients in $F$. Let $K/F$ be a splitting field for $f$. Then $K=F(alpha)$ for some $alpha in K$. Let $g$ be the minimal polynomial of $alpha$ over $F$. Then $g$ has a root in $E$ by assumption, hence $E$ contains a copy of $F(alpha)$, i.e. a splitting field for $f$.



Thus every $fin F[X]$ splits in $E$. Now I claim that $E$ is algebraically closed. Let $E'/E$ be an algebraic extension and let $beta in E'$. By transitivity, $beta$ is algebraic over $F$; let $h(X)$ be its minimal polynomial over $F$. By the above, $h$ splits in $E$, and therefore $beta in E$. Thus $E$ is algebraically closed.






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 2




    Thank you. But how does the assumption on $E$ imply $f$ splits in $E$? If $f$ has a root $betain E$, $f=(X-beta)g(X)$ for $gin E[X]$. If $alpha=beta$, we are done, otherwise $g(alpha)=0$...not sure what follows next?
    – Nastassja
    Mar 21 '14 at 23:14











  • @Nastassja Oops, I misread the assumption. My bad. I'm not immediately sure how to prove it (and I'm actually not sure that it's true - where did you get this statement?).
    – Bruno Joyal
    Mar 21 '14 at 23:35






  • 1




    @BrunoJoyal, where and how did you prove that every non-constant pol. in $;E[x];$ (!!) has a root in $;E;$ ? You don't even mess with any pol. over $;E;$ !
    – DonAntonio
    Mar 22 '14 at 0:19







  • 1




    @BrunoJoyal, or I'm missing some rather simple point here, or you are...or something: in order to prove some field $;B;$ is an alg. clos. of another field $;A;$ you must prove THAT $;B;$ is both algebraic over $;A;$ and alg. closed. For the third time, where did you prove $;E;$ is alg. closed (the only interesting thing to do since we're given it is alg. over $;F;$) ?
    – DonAntonio
    Mar 22 '14 at 0:24






  • 2




    Ah! Now I get your point, @BrunoJoyal ....finally! It must be my two remaining living neurons are on vacation in Bahamas...Yes, you're right: if we're given (or if we prove) that $;E;$ is s.t. that any non-constant pol. in $;F;$ splits there then we're done.
    – DonAntonio
    Mar 22 '14 at 0:34















up vote
7
down vote













Note: feel free to ignore the warzone in the comments; it's not really relevant anymore.



If $F$ is perfect, we can proceed like this. Let $f$ be a polynomial with coefficients in $F$. Let $K/F$ be a splitting field for $f$. Then $K=F(alpha)$ for some $alpha in K$. Let $g$ be the minimal polynomial of $alpha$ over $F$. Then $g$ has a root in $E$ by assumption, hence $E$ contains a copy of $F(alpha)$, i.e. a splitting field for $f$.



Thus every $fin F[X]$ splits in $E$. Now I claim that $E$ is algebraically closed. Let $E'/E$ be an algebraic extension and let $beta in E'$. By transitivity, $beta$ is algebraic over $F$; let $h(X)$ be its minimal polynomial over $F$. By the above, $h$ splits in $E$, and therefore $beta in E$. Thus $E$ is algebraically closed.






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 2




    Thank you. But how does the assumption on $E$ imply $f$ splits in $E$? If $f$ has a root $betain E$, $f=(X-beta)g(X)$ for $gin E[X]$. If $alpha=beta$, we are done, otherwise $g(alpha)=0$...not sure what follows next?
    – Nastassja
    Mar 21 '14 at 23:14











  • @Nastassja Oops, I misread the assumption. My bad. I'm not immediately sure how to prove it (and I'm actually not sure that it's true - where did you get this statement?).
    – Bruno Joyal
    Mar 21 '14 at 23:35






  • 1




    @BrunoJoyal, where and how did you prove that every non-constant pol. in $;E[x];$ (!!) has a root in $;E;$ ? You don't even mess with any pol. over $;E;$ !
    – DonAntonio
    Mar 22 '14 at 0:19







  • 1




    @BrunoJoyal, or I'm missing some rather simple point here, or you are...or something: in order to prove some field $;B;$ is an alg. clos. of another field $;A;$ you must prove THAT $;B;$ is both algebraic over $;A;$ and alg. closed. For the third time, where did you prove $;E;$ is alg. closed (the only interesting thing to do since we're given it is alg. over $;F;$) ?
    – DonAntonio
    Mar 22 '14 at 0:24






  • 2




    Ah! Now I get your point, @BrunoJoyal ....finally! It must be my two remaining living neurons are on vacation in Bahamas...Yes, you're right: if we're given (or if we prove) that $;E;$ is s.t. that any non-constant pol. in $;F;$ splits there then we're done.
    – DonAntonio
    Mar 22 '14 at 0:34













up vote
7
down vote










up vote
7
down vote









Note: feel free to ignore the warzone in the comments; it's not really relevant anymore.



If $F$ is perfect, we can proceed like this. Let $f$ be a polynomial with coefficients in $F$. Let $K/F$ be a splitting field for $f$. Then $K=F(alpha)$ for some $alpha in K$. Let $g$ be the minimal polynomial of $alpha$ over $F$. Then $g$ has a root in $E$ by assumption, hence $E$ contains a copy of $F(alpha)$, i.e. a splitting field for $f$.



Thus every $fin F[X]$ splits in $E$. Now I claim that $E$ is algebraically closed. Let $E'/E$ be an algebraic extension and let $beta in E'$. By transitivity, $beta$ is algebraic over $F$; let $h(X)$ be its minimal polynomial over $F$. By the above, $h$ splits in $E$, and therefore $beta in E$. Thus $E$ is algebraically closed.






share|cite|improve this answer















Note: feel free to ignore the warzone in the comments; it's not really relevant anymore.



If $F$ is perfect, we can proceed like this. Let $f$ be a polynomial with coefficients in $F$. Let $K/F$ be a splitting field for $f$. Then $K=F(alpha)$ for some $alpha in K$. Let $g$ be the minimal polynomial of $alpha$ over $F$. Then $g$ has a root in $E$ by assumption, hence $E$ contains a copy of $F(alpha)$, i.e. a splitting field for $f$.



Thus every $fin F[X]$ splits in $E$. Now I claim that $E$ is algebraically closed. Let $E'/E$ be an algebraic extension and let $beta in E'$. By transitivity, $beta$ is algebraic over $F$; let $h(X)$ be its minimal polynomial over $F$. By the above, $h$ splits in $E$, and therefore $beta in E$. Thus $E$ is algebraically closed.







share|cite|improve this answer















share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Mar 22 '14 at 0:34


























answered Mar 21 '14 at 23:10









Bruno Joyal

41.8k693181




41.8k693181







  • 2




    Thank you. But how does the assumption on $E$ imply $f$ splits in $E$? If $f$ has a root $betain E$, $f=(X-beta)g(X)$ for $gin E[X]$. If $alpha=beta$, we are done, otherwise $g(alpha)=0$...not sure what follows next?
    – Nastassja
    Mar 21 '14 at 23:14











  • @Nastassja Oops, I misread the assumption. My bad. I'm not immediately sure how to prove it (and I'm actually not sure that it's true - where did you get this statement?).
    – Bruno Joyal
    Mar 21 '14 at 23:35






  • 1




    @BrunoJoyal, where and how did you prove that every non-constant pol. in $;E[x];$ (!!) has a root in $;E;$ ? You don't even mess with any pol. over $;E;$ !
    – DonAntonio
    Mar 22 '14 at 0:19







  • 1




    @BrunoJoyal, or I'm missing some rather simple point here, or you are...or something: in order to prove some field $;B;$ is an alg. clos. of another field $;A;$ you must prove THAT $;B;$ is both algebraic over $;A;$ and alg. closed. For the third time, where did you prove $;E;$ is alg. closed (the only interesting thing to do since we're given it is alg. over $;F;$) ?
    – DonAntonio
    Mar 22 '14 at 0:24






  • 2




    Ah! Now I get your point, @BrunoJoyal ....finally! It must be my two remaining living neurons are on vacation in Bahamas...Yes, you're right: if we're given (or if we prove) that $;E;$ is s.t. that any non-constant pol. in $;F;$ splits there then we're done.
    – DonAntonio
    Mar 22 '14 at 0:34













  • 2




    Thank you. But how does the assumption on $E$ imply $f$ splits in $E$? If $f$ has a root $betain E$, $f=(X-beta)g(X)$ for $gin E[X]$. If $alpha=beta$, we are done, otherwise $g(alpha)=0$...not sure what follows next?
    – Nastassja
    Mar 21 '14 at 23:14











  • @Nastassja Oops, I misread the assumption. My bad. I'm not immediately sure how to prove it (and I'm actually not sure that it's true - where did you get this statement?).
    – Bruno Joyal
    Mar 21 '14 at 23:35






  • 1




    @BrunoJoyal, where and how did you prove that every non-constant pol. in $;E[x];$ (!!) has a root in $;E;$ ? You don't even mess with any pol. over $;E;$ !
    – DonAntonio
    Mar 22 '14 at 0:19







  • 1




    @BrunoJoyal, or I'm missing some rather simple point here, or you are...or something: in order to prove some field $;B;$ is an alg. clos. of another field $;A;$ you must prove THAT $;B;$ is both algebraic over $;A;$ and alg. closed. For the third time, where did you prove $;E;$ is alg. closed (the only interesting thing to do since we're given it is alg. over $;F;$) ?
    – DonAntonio
    Mar 22 '14 at 0:24






  • 2




    Ah! Now I get your point, @BrunoJoyal ....finally! It must be my two remaining living neurons are on vacation in Bahamas...Yes, you're right: if we're given (or if we prove) that $;E;$ is s.t. that any non-constant pol. in $;F;$ splits there then we're done.
    – DonAntonio
    Mar 22 '14 at 0:34








2




2




Thank you. But how does the assumption on $E$ imply $f$ splits in $E$? If $f$ has a root $betain E$, $f=(X-beta)g(X)$ for $gin E[X]$. If $alpha=beta$, we are done, otherwise $g(alpha)=0$...not sure what follows next?
– Nastassja
Mar 21 '14 at 23:14





Thank you. But how does the assumption on $E$ imply $f$ splits in $E$? If $f$ has a root $betain E$, $f=(X-beta)g(X)$ for $gin E[X]$. If $alpha=beta$, we are done, otherwise $g(alpha)=0$...not sure what follows next?
– Nastassja
Mar 21 '14 at 23:14













@Nastassja Oops, I misread the assumption. My bad. I'm not immediately sure how to prove it (and I'm actually not sure that it's true - where did you get this statement?).
– Bruno Joyal
Mar 21 '14 at 23:35




@Nastassja Oops, I misread the assumption. My bad. I'm not immediately sure how to prove it (and I'm actually not sure that it's true - where did you get this statement?).
– Bruno Joyal
Mar 21 '14 at 23:35




1




1




@BrunoJoyal, where and how did you prove that every non-constant pol. in $;E[x];$ (!!) has a root in $;E;$ ? You don't even mess with any pol. over $;E;$ !
– DonAntonio
Mar 22 '14 at 0:19





@BrunoJoyal, where and how did you prove that every non-constant pol. in $;E[x];$ (!!) has a root in $;E;$ ? You don't even mess with any pol. over $;E;$ !
– DonAntonio
Mar 22 '14 at 0:19





1




1




@BrunoJoyal, or I'm missing some rather simple point here, or you are...or something: in order to prove some field $;B;$ is an alg. clos. of another field $;A;$ you must prove THAT $;B;$ is both algebraic over $;A;$ and alg. closed. For the third time, where did you prove $;E;$ is alg. closed (the only interesting thing to do since we're given it is alg. over $;F;$) ?
– DonAntonio
Mar 22 '14 at 0:24




@BrunoJoyal, or I'm missing some rather simple point here, or you are...or something: in order to prove some field $;B;$ is an alg. clos. of another field $;A;$ you must prove THAT $;B;$ is both algebraic over $;A;$ and alg. closed. For the third time, where did you prove $;E;$ is alg. closed (the only interesting thing to do since we're given it is alg. over $;F;$) ?
– DonAntonio
Mar 22 '14 at 0:24




2




2




Ah! Now I get your point, @BrunoJoyal ....finally! It must be my two remaining living neurons are on vacation in Bahamas...Yes, you're right: if we're given (or if we prove) that $;E;$ is s.t. that any non-constant pol. in $;F;$ splits there then we're done.
– DonAntonio
Mar 22 '14 at 0:34





Ah! Now I get your point, @BrunoJoyal ....finally! It must be my two remaining living neurons are on vacation in Bahamas...Yes, you're right: if we're given (or if we prove) that $;E;$ is s.t. that any non-constant pol. in $;F;$ splits there then we're done.
– DonAntonio
Mar 22 '14 at 0:34













 

draft saved


draft discarded


























 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f721608%2fif-e-f-is-algebraic-and-every-f-in-fx-has-a-root-in-e-why-is-e-algebr%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest













































































這個網誌中的熱門文章

How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

Mutual Information Always Non-negative

Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?