MHB Algebraic Extensions: Dummit & Foote Section 13.2, Example 2 pg 526 - Help!

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Dummit and Foote on algebraic extensions. I am having some issues understanding Example 2 on page 526 - see attachment.

Example 2 on page 526 reads as follows:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Consider the field \mathbb{Q} ( \sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3} ) generated over \mathbb{Q} by \sqrt{2} and \sqrt{3}.

Since \sqrt{3} is of degree 2 over \mathbb{Q} the degree of the extension \mathbb{Q} ( \sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3} ) is at most 2 and is precisely 2 if and only if x^2 - 3 is irreducible over \mathbb{Q} ( \sqrt{2} ). ... ... etc etc

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My question is: why exactly does it follow that the degree of the extension \mathbb{Q} ( \sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3} ) is at most 2 and is precisely 2 if and only if x^2 - 3 is irreducible over \mathbb{Q} ( \sqrt{2} )?

Although I may be being pedantic I also have a concern about why exactly \sqrt{3} is of degree 2 over \mathbb{Q}. I know it is intuitively the case or it seems the case that the minimal polynomial is in this case x^2 - 3 but how do we demonstrate this for sure - or is it obvious? (I may be overthinking this??)

Can someone help with the above issues/problems?

Peter

[Note: This has also been posted on MHF]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Her Peter. This is related to your previous post http://mathhelpboards.com/linear-abstract-algebra-14/field-theory-algebrais-extensions-dummit-foote-section-13-2-a-6694.html

Peter said:
I am reading Dummit and Foote on algebraic extensions. I am having some issues understanding Example 2 on page 526 - see attachment.

Example 2 on page 526 reads as follows:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Consider the field \mathbb{Q} ( \sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3} ) generated over \mathbb{Q} by \sqrt{2} and \sqrt{3}.

Since \sqrt{3} is of degree 2 over \mathbb{Q} the degree of the extension \mathbb{Q} ( \sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3} ) is at most 2 and is precisely 2 if and only if x^2 - 3 is irreducible over \mathbb{Q} ( \sqrt{2} ). ... ... etc etc

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My question is: why exactly does it follow that the degree of the extension \mathbb{Q} ( \sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3} ) is at most 2 and is precisely 2 if and only if x^2 - 3 is irreducible over \mathbb{Q} ( \sqrt{2} )?
One thing you should always make sure is that whenever you talk about degree of the extension field $K$, you should also mention the field over which you are viewing $K$ as an extension. Here you say that the degree if the extension $\mathbb Q(\sqrt 2,\sqrt 3)$ is is at most two... You didn't mention over which field are you viewing $\mathbb Q(\sqrt 2,\sqrt 3)$ as an extension field.

What we can show is that the degree of $\mathbb Q(\sqrt 2,\sqrt 3)$ as an extension of $\mathbb Q(\sqrt 2)$ is at most $2$. Say $F=\mathbb Q(\sqrt 2)$ and $\alpha =\sqrt 3$. It is easy to see that $\alpha$ is algebraic over $F$ simply because $\alpha$ satisfies $x^2-3$ which is a polynomial over $F$. This also shows that $\deg m_\alpha$, where $m_\alpha$ is the minimal polynomial of $\alpha$ over $F$, is at most $2$. Thus $F(\alpha)\cong F[x]/\langle m_\alpha(x)\rangle$ is a vector space over $F$ with dimension $\deg m_\alpha$. This is same as saying that $[F(\alpha):F]=\deg m_\alpha$. But $\deg m_\alpha\leq 2$ and hence $[F(\alpha):F]\leq 2$. This is same as $[\mathbb Q(\sqrt 2, \sqrt 3):\mathbb Q(\sqrt 2)]\leq 2$.
 
caffeinemachine said:
Her Peter. This is related to your previous post http://mathhelpboards.com/linear-abstract-algebra-14/field-theory-algebrais-extensions-dummit-foote-section-13-2-a-6694.htmlOne thing you should always make sure is that whenever you talk about degree of the extension field $K$, you should also mention the field over which you are viewing $K$ as an extension. Here you say that the degree if the extension $\mathbb Q(\sqrt 2,\sqrt 3)$ is is at most two... You didn't mention over which field are you viewing $\mathbb Q(\sqrt 2,\sqrt 3)$ as an extension field.

What we can show is that the degree of $\mathbb Q(\sqrt 2,\sqrt 3)$ as an extension of $\mathbb Q(\sqrt 2)$ is at most $2$. Say $F=\mathbb Q(\sqrt 2)$ and $\alpha =\sqrt 3$. It is easy to see that $\alpha$ is algebraic over $F$ simply because $\alpha$ satisfies $x^2-3$ which is a polynomial over $F$. This also shows that $\deg m_\alpha$, where $m_\alpha$ is the minimal polynomial of $\alpha$ over $F$, is at most $2$. Thus $F(\alpha)\cong F[x]/\langle m_\alpha(x)\rangle$ is a vector space over $F$ with dimension $\deg m_\alpha$. This is same as saying that $[F(\alpha):F]=\deg m_\alpha$. But $\deg m_\alpha\leq 2$ and hence $[F(\alpha):F]\leq 2$. This is same as $[\mathbb Q(\sqrt 2, \sqrt 3):\mathbb Q(\sqrt 2)]\leq 2$.

Thanks Caffeinemachine.

So (to repeat your post a bit to emphasize a couple of points) to show that the degree of $$ \mathbb Q(\sqrt 2,\sqrt 3) $$ as an extension of $$ \mathbb Q(\sqrt 2) $$ is at most 2, we take $$ F = \mathbb Q(\sqrt 2) $$ and $$ \alpha =\sqrt 3 $$.Then we argue that $$ \alpha =\sqrt 3 $$ is algebraic over $$ F = \mathbb Q(\sqrt 2) $$ because it satisfies the polynomial $$ x^2 - 3 $$.

$$ x^2 - 3 $$ is a polynomial over $$ F = \mathbb Q(\sqrt 2) $$ because its coefficients (i.e. 1 and 3) are both in $$ \mathbb Q(\sqrt 2) $$

that is $$ \ 1 = 1 + 0 \star \sqrt 2$$

and $$ 3 = 3 + 0 \star \sqrt 2 $$


Then, given the above we have $$ [ \mathbb Q(\sqrt 2,\sqrt 3) \ : \ \mathbb Q(\sqrt 2)] \le 2 $$ ... ... ... ... ... (1)

Now, similarly we can show that $$ [ \mathbb Q(\sqrt 2) \ : \ \mathbb Q] \le 2 $$ ... ... ... ... ... (2)

and the equality is actually the case in both (1) and (2) above because the polynomials concerned are irreducible (is that correct?)

So we have the following

$$ [ \mathbb Q(\sqrt 2,\sqrt 3) \ : \ \mathbb Q(\sqrt 2)] = 2 $$

and

$$ [ \mathbb Q(\sqrt 2) \ : \ \mathbb Q] = 2 $$

So

$$ [\mathbb Q(\sqrt 2,\sqrt 3) \ : \ \mathbb Q] = [ \mathbb Q(\sqrt 2,\sqrt 3) \ : \ \mathbb Q(\sqrt 2)] \ [ \mathbb Q(\sqrt 2) \ : \ \mathbb Q] = 4 $$

Can someone confirm that the above reasoning is correct ... or not?

Peter
 
Peter said:
Thanks Caffeinemachine.

So (to repeat your post a bit to emphasize a couple of points) to show that the degree of $$ \mathbb Q(\sqrt 2,\sqrt 3) $$ as an extension of $$ \mathbb Q(\sqrt 2) $$ is at most 2, we take $$ F = \mathbb Q(\sqrt 2) $$ and $$ \alpha =\sqrt 3 $$.Then we argue that $$ \alpha =\sqrt 3 $$ is algebraic over $$ F = \mathbb Q(\sqrt 2) $$ because it satisfies the polynomial $$ x^2 - 3 $$.

$$ x^2 - 3 $$ is a polynomial over $$ F = \mathbb Q(\sqrt 2) $$ because its coefficients (i.e. 1 and 3) are both in $$ \mathbb Q(\sqrt 2) $$

that is $$ \ 1 = 1 + 0 \star \sqrt 2$$

and $$ 3 = 3 + 0 \star \sqrt 2 $$


Then, given the above we have $$ [ \mathbb Q(\sqrt 2,\sqrt 3) \ : \ \mathbb Q(\sqrt 2)] \le 2 $$ ... ... ... ... ... (1)

Now, similarly we can show that $$ [ \mathbb Q(\sqrt 2) \ : \ \mathbb Q] \le 2 $$ ... ... ... ... ... (2)

and the equality is actually the case in both (1) and (2) above because the polynomials concerned are irreducible (is that correct?)

So we have the following

$$ [ \mathbb Q(\sqrt 2,\sqrt 3) \ : \ \mathbb Q(\sqrt 2)] = 2 $$

and

$$ [ \mathbb Q(\sqrt 2) \ : \ \mathbb Q] = 2 $$

So

$$ [\mathbb Q(\sqrt 2,\sqrt 3) \ : \ \mathbb Q] = [ \mathbb Q(\sqrt 2,\sqrt 3) \ : \ \mathbb Q(\sqrt 2)] \ [ \mathbb Q(\sqrt 2) \ : \ \mathbb Q] = 4 $$

Can someone confirm that the above reasoning is correct ... or not?

Peter
Yes. This is correct. Only thing, I think you need to fill in some details as to why the polynomials in question were irreducibles. Otherwise it's fantastic.
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
Back
Top