MHB Does the Isomorphism Between Field Extensions Determine the Minimal Polynomial?

caffeinemachine
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
799
Reaction score
15
Let $L$ be an extension of a field $F$. Let $\alpha_1, \alpha_2\in L$ be such that both of them are algebraic over $F$ and have the same minimal polynomial $m$ over $F$. We know that there is an isomorphism $\phi:F(\alpha_1)\to F(\alpha_2)$ defined as $\phi(\alpha_1)=\alpha_2$ and $\phi(x)=x$ for all $x\in F$. We can extend $\phi$ to an isomorphism $\psi:F(\alpha_1)[x]\to F(\alpha_2)[x]$ defined as $\psi(\sum_{j=0}^k a_jx^j)=\sum_{j=0}^k \phi(a_j)x^j$. Let $l_1$ be the minimal polynomial of $\alpha_2$ over $F(\alpha_1)$ and define $l_2(x)=\psi(l_1(x))$.

QUESTION: Is is necessarily true that $\alpha_1$ has $l_2$ as its minimal polynomial over $F(\alpha_2)$.

I have some evidence which says that $l_2$ indeed is the minimal polynomial of $\alpha_1$ over $F(\alpha_2)$.

1. Say $l_2^*$ is the minimal polynomial of $\alpha_1$ over $F(\alpha_2)$. Then $[F(\alpha_1,\alpha_2):F(\alpha_2)]=\deg l_2^*$. Which gives $[F(\alpha_1,\alpha_2):F]=\deg l_2^*\cdot\deg m$. Similarly $[F(\alpha_1,\alpha_2):F]=\deg l_1\cdot\deg m$ and we conclude that $\deg l_1=\deg l_2^*$.

2. Since $l_1$ is the minimal polynomial of $\alpha_2$ over $F(\alpha_1)$, we must have that $l_1(x)|m(x)$ in $F(\alpha_1)[x]$. Thus there is an element $q_1(x)\in F(\alpha_1)[x]$ such that $l_1(x)q_1(x)=m(x)$. Operating $\psi$ on both the sides we get $l_2(x)q_2(x)=m(x)$, where $q_2(x)=\psi(q_1(x))$. Now since $m(\alpha_1)=0$, we have $l_2(\alpha_1)q_2(\alpha_1)=0$. If from here we can show that $l_2(\alpha_1)=0$ then we'd be done. But I can't rule out the possibility that $q_2(\alpha_1)=0$.

Can anyone help?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
caffeinemachine said:
Let $L$ be an extension of a field $F$. Let $\alpha_1, \alpha_2\in L$ be such that both of them are algebraic over $F$ and have the same minimal polynomial $m$ over $F$. We know that there is an isomorphism $\phi:F(\alpha_1)\to F(\alpha_2)$ defined as $\phi(\alpha_1)=\alpha_2$ and $\phi(x)=x$ for all $x\in F$. We can extend $\phi$ to an isomorphism $\psi:F(\alpha_1)[x]\to F(\alpha_2)[x]$ defined as $\psi(\sum_{j=0}^k a_jx^j)=\sum_{j=0}^k \phi(a_j)x^j$. Let $l_1$ be the minimal polynomial of $\alpha_2$ over $F(\alpha_1)$ and define $l_2(x)=\psi(l_1(x))$.

QUESTION: Is is necessarily true that $\alpha_1$ has $l_2$ as its minimal polynomial over $F(\alpha_2)$.

I have some evidence which says that $l_2$ indeed is the minimal polynomial of $\alpha_1$ over $F(\alpha_2)$.

1. Say $l_2^*$ is the minimal polynomial of $\alpha_1$ over $F(\alpha_2)$. Then $[F(\alpha_1,\alpha_2):F(\alpha_2)]=\deg l_2^*$. Which gives $[F(\alpha_1,\alpha_2):F]=\deg l_2^*\cdot\deg m$. Similarly $[F(\alpha_1,\alpha_2):F]=\deg l_1\cdot\deg m$ and we conclude that $\deg l_1=\deg l_2^*$.

2. Since $l_1$ is the minimal polynomial of $\alpha_2$ over $F(\alpha_1)$, we must have that $l_1(x)|m(x)$ in $F(\alpha_1)[x]$. Thus there is an element $q_1(x)\in F(\alpha_1)[x]$ such that $l_1(x)q_1(x)=m(x)$. Operating $\psi$ on both the sides we get $l_2(x)q_2(x)=m(x)$, where $q_2(x)=\psi(q_1(x))$. Now since $m(\alpha_1)=0$, we have $l_2(\alpha_1)q_2(\alpha_1)=0$. If from here we can show that $l_2(\alpha_1)=0$ then we'd be done. But I can't rule out the possibility that $q_2(\alpha_1)=0$.

Can anyone help?

Here's an answer. abstract algebra - Minimal Polynomial Trouble - Mathematics Stack Exchange
 
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
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K