MHB Could you explain me about 'relation algebraic property with conjugate'?

bw0young0math
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone. At first, I appreciate your click this page.

I have a book named 'A first Course in Abstract Algebra 7th' by Fraleigh.

I have a question about 'relation algebraic property with conjugate' in automorhisms of fields.
in page415,
this book explains "Let E is algebraic extension of F& a,b∈E. Then a and b have the same algebraic property iff irr(a,F)=irr(b,F)."
What's mean algebraic property in that sentense? If you explain me, I will be happy:)Thanks. Have a nice day:)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
bw0young0math said:
Hello everyone. At first, I appreciate your click this page.

I have a book named 'A first Course in Abstract Algebra 7th' by Fraleigh.

I have a question about 'relation algebraic property with conjugate' in automorhisms of fields.
in page415,
this book explains "Let E is algebraic extension of F& a,b∈E. Then a and b have the same algebraic property iff irr(a,F)=irr(b,F)."
What's mean algebraic property in that sentense? If you explain me, I will be happy:)Thanks. Have a nice day:)
I don't have the book. But what Fraleigh is trying to say is the following:

Let $a, b\in K$ be algebraic over $F$ satisfying $irr(a, F)=irr(b, F)$. Then there is a "natural isomorphism" between $F(a)$ and $F(b)$ which is identity on $F$.

The isomorphism is given by $\phi:F(a)\to F(b)$, where $\phi(p(a))=p(b)$ for all $p(x)\in F[x]$.

The fact that $\phi$ is well defined requires $irr(a, F)=irr(b, F)$.
 
caffeinemachine said:
I don't have the book. But what Fraleigh is trying to say is the following:

Let $a, b\in K$ be algebraic over $F$ satisfying $irr(a, F)=irr(b, F)$. Then there is a "natural isomorphism" between $F(a)$ and $F(b)$ which is identity on $F$.

The isomorphism is given by $\phi:F(a)\to F(b)$, where $\phi(p(a))=p(b)$ for all $p(x)\in F[x]$.

The fact that $\phi$ is well defined requires $irr(a, F)=irr(b, F)$.
Thanks! I understand it! F(a)and F(b) are isomorphic so we can think that they have the same algebraic constructure and algebraic properties. Thank you:)
 
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 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
750
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
892
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
931
Replies
14
Views
2K