MHB Basic Theory of Field Extensions - Exercise from D&F ....

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Dummit and Foote, Chapter 13 - Field Theory.

I am currently studying Section 13.1 : Basic Theory of Field Extensions

I need some help with an aspect of Exercise 1 of Section 13.1 ... ...

Exercise 1 reads as follows:
View attachment 6597
My attempt at a solution is as follows:$$p(x) = x^3 + 9x + 6$$ is irreducible by Eisenstein ... ...Now consider $$(x^3 + 9x + 10) = (x + 1) ( x^2 - x + 10) $$
and note that $$(x^3 + 9x + 10) = (x^2 + 9x + 6) + 4$$ ... ...

Now $$\theta$$ is a root of $$(x^3 + 9x + 6)$$ so that ...$$( \theta + 1) ( \theta^2 - \theta +10) = ( \theta^3 + 9 \theta + 6) + 4 = 0 +4 = 4 $$Thus $$( \theta + 1)^{-1} = \frac{ ( \theta^2 - \theta +10) }{4}$$ ... ...Is that correct?

... BUT ... if it is correct I am most unsure of exactly where in the calculation we depend on $$p(x)$$ being irreducible ...Can someone please explain where exactly in the above calculation we depend on $$p(x)$$ being irreducible?Note that I am vaguely aware that we are calculating in $$\mathbb{Q} ( \theta )$$ ... which is isomorphic to $$\mathbb{Q} [x] / ( p(x) )$$ ... if $$p(x)$$ is irreducible ...
... BUT ...I cannot specify the exact point(s) in the above calculation above where the calculation would break down if $$p(x)$$ was not irreducible ... .. in fact, I cannot specify any specific points where the calculation would break down ... so I am not understanding the connection of the theory to this exercise ... ...
Can someone please help to clarify this issue ... ...Peter
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Peter,

Your answer is correct. The irreducibility of $p$ ensures that $\Bbb Q(\theta) \neq \Bbb Q$. The inverse you found lies in $\Bbb Q(\theta)$, not $\Bbb Q$.
 
Euge said:
Hi Peter,

Your answer is correct. The irreducibility of $p$ ensures that $\Bbb Q(\theta) \neq \Bbb Q$. The inverse you found lies in $\Bbb Q(\theta)$, not $\Bbb Q$.
Thanks Euge ... appreciate the help ...

Peter
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

Replies
48
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
840