If $E/F$ is algebraic and every $fin F[X]$ has a root in $E$, why is $E$ algebraically closed?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
15
down vote
favorite
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 $E$.
abstract-algebra field-theory
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
15
down vote
favorite
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 $E$.
abstract-algebra field-theory
There are (unfortunately) two slightly different definitions of algebraically closed. Which one are you using?
â 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 $E$.
â 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.
â 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 $E$?
â 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 $E$.
â Nastassja
Mar 21 '14 at 23:09
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
15
down vote
favorite
up vote
15
down vote
favorite
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 $E$.
abstract-algebra field-theory
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 $E$.
abstract-algebra field-theory
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?
â 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 $E$.
â 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.
â 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 $E$?
â 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 $E$.
â Nastassja
Mar 21 '14 at 23:09
 |Â
show 2 more comments
There are (unfortunately) two slightly different definitions of algebraically closed. Which one are you using?
â 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 $E$.
â 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.
â 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 $E$?
â 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 $E$.
â Nastassja
Mar 21 '14 at 23:09
There are (unfortunately) two slightly different definitions of algebraically closed. Which one are you using?
â Eric Towers
Mar 21 '14 at 22:43
There are (unfortunately) two slightly different definitions of algebraically closed. Which one are you using?
â 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 $E$.
â 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 $E$.
â 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.
â 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.
â 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 $E$?
â 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 $E$?
â 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 $E$.
â Nastassja
Mar 21 '14 at 23:09
@GregMartin I'm sorry, that was a typo, every polynomial in $F[X]$ has a root in $E$.
â Nastassja
Mar 21 '14 at 23:09
 |Â
show 2 more comments
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.
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 $E$?
â 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.
â Dustan Levenstein
Mar 22 '14 at 1:08
Thanks, I had not heard that terminology for polynomials before.
â Nastassja
Mar 22 '14 at 1:10
Done! Thanks both for your help.
â Nastassja
Mar 22 '14 at 1:55
lol, Bruno, thanks! :P
â Dustan Levenstein
Mar 22 '14 at 6:22
 |Â
show 2 more comments
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.
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?
â 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?).
â 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 $;E;$ !
â 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 $;F;$) ?
â 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.
â DonAntonio
Mar 22 '14 at 0:34
 |Â
show 4 more comments
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.
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 $E$?
â 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.
â Dustan Levenstein
Mar 22 '14 at 1:08
Thanks, I had not heard that terminology for polynomials before.
â Nastassja
Mar 22 '14 at 1:10
Done! Thanks both for your help.
â Nastassja
Mar 22 '14 at 1:55
lol, Bruno, thanks! :P
â Dustan Levenstein
Mar 22 '14 at 6:22
 |Â
show 2 more comments
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.
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 $E$?
â 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.
â Dustan Levenstein
Mar 22 '14 at 1:08
Thanks, I had not heard that terminology for polynomials before.
â Nastassja
Mar 22 '14 at 1:10
Done! Thanks both for your help.
â Nastassja
Mar 22 '14 at 1:55
lol, Bruno, thanks! :P
â Dustan Levenstein
Mar 22 '14 at 6:22
 |Â
show 2 more comments
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.
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.
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 $E$?
â 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.
â Dustan Levenstein
Mar 22 '14 at 1:08
Thanks, I had not heard that terminology for polynomials before.
â Nastassja
Mar 22 '14 at 1:10
Done! Thanks both for your help.
â Nastassja
Mar 22 '14 at 1:55
lol, Bruno, thanks! :P
â Dustan Levenstein
Mar 22 '14 at 6:22
 |Â
show 2 more comments
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 $E$?
â 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.
â Dustan Levenstein
Mar 22 '14 at 1:08
Thanks, I had not heard that terminology for polynomials before.
â Nastassja
Mar 22 '14 at 1:10
Done! Thanks both for your help.
â Nastassja
Mar 22 '14 at 1:55
lol, Bruno, thanks! :P
â 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 $E$?
â 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 $E$?
â 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.
â 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.
â Dustan Levenstein
Mar 22 '14 at 1:08
Thanks, I had not heard that terminology for polynomials before.
â Nastassja
Mar 22 '14 at 1:10
Thanks, I had not heard that terminology for polynomials before.
â Nastassja
Mar 22 '14 at 1:10
Done! Thanks both for your help.
â Nastassja
Mar 22 '14 at 1:55
Done! Thanks both for your help.
â Nastassja
Mar 22 '14 at 1:55
lol, Bruno, thanks! :P
â Dustan Levenstein
Mar 22 '14 at 6:22
lol, Bruno, thanks! :P
â Dustan Levenstein
Mar 22 '14 at 6:22
 |Â
show 2 more comments
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.
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?
â 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?).
â 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 $;E;$ !
â 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 $;F;$) ?
â 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.
â DonAntonio
Mar 22 '14 at 0:34
 |Â
show 4 more comments
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.
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?
â 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?).
â 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 $;E;$ !
â 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 $;F;$) ?
â 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.
â DonAntonio
Mar 22 '14 at 0:34
 |Â
show 4 more comments
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.
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.
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?
â 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?).
â 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 $;E;$ !
â 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 $;F;$) ?
â 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.
â DonAntonio
Mar 22 '14 at 0:34
 |Â
show 4 more comments
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?
â 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?).
â 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 $;E;$ !
â 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 $;F;$) ?
â 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.
â 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?
â 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?
â 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?).
â 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?).
â 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 $;E;$ !
â 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 $;E;$ !
â 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 $;F;$) ?
â 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 $;F;$) ?
â 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.
â 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.
â DonAntonio
Mar 22 '14 at 0:34
 |Â
show 4 more comments
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
There are (unfortunately) two slightly different definitions of algebraically closed. Which one are you using?
â 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 $E$.
â 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.
â 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 $E$?
â 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 $E$.
â Nastassja
Mar 21 '14 at 23:09