MHB Field Extensions - Discussion of Dummit and Foote - page 512

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Discussion Field
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am trying to understand a discussion of field extensions by Dummit and Foote: Abstract Algebra, page 512 ...

The relevant text is as follows:View attachment 4832When I first read the second paragraph, starting "Given any field $$F$$ and any polynomial $$p(x) \in F[x]$$ ... ... ... ", I thought that D&F were trying to construct a situation where $$p(x)$$ did not have a root in $$F$$ ... ... and then go on to construct an extension field $$K = F[x]/p(x)$$ that did indeed have a root of the polynomial $$p(x)$$ ... ...BUT ... ... D&F appear (to me, anyway) to try to ensure that $$p(x)$$ does not have a root in $$F$$ by stipulating or declaring that $$p(x)$$ must be irreducible ... at least I think this is their intention .. ...

BUT ... ... ? ... ... linear polynomials such as $$x - 7$$ are irreducible in $$F[x]$$ when $$F = \mathbb{Q}$$ ... but $$p(x) = x - 7$$ does have a root in $$\mathbb{Q}$$ ... that is no need for an extension field (except the 'extension' $$\mathbb{Q} = \mathbb{Q}$$) ...

So it seems to me I am not fully understanding D&F's discussion ...

Can someone please clarify D&F's discussion for me by explaining what they are really getting at ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Lots of polynomials have roots in the underlying field their polynomial coefficients are in. For example, $x^2 - 3x + 2$ does, as it equals $(x - 2)(x - 1)$ (assuming an underlying field of characteristic $0$, so as to avoid ambiguity).

The point being, if we want to find roots of ALL polynomials, it suffices to consider roots of IRREDUCIBLE polynomials, because we can factor polynomials into their irreducible factors (this is, essentially, the statement that $F[x]$ is a UFD. In a UFD, "irreducible" and "prime" mean the same thing- see here).

A polynomial like $x - 7$ is indeed irreducible (over $\Bbb Q$, let's say). All this leads us to conclude is that the only possible root it has is $7$, and yes, $7 \in \Bbb Q$. If a polynomial factors completely, over a field, into linear factors, we say it SPLITS, and the smallest field containing all of its roots is called its SPLITTING FIELD. For a polynomial like $x - 7$, the splitting field is $\Bbb Q$. This is not particularly interesting.

On the other hand, anyone familiar with the quadratic formula knows it entails square roots. So, even if a quadratic polynomial has rational coefficients, it may not have rational roots-because $\Bbb Q$ does not contain all square roots of rational numbers. For example $\sqrt{2} \not\in \Bbb Q$. This is the kind of situation in which we seek to extend $\Bbb Q$.

But how? Imagine we don't yet know about $\Bbb R$ (for square roots of positive rational numbers) or $\Bbb C$ (for square roots of negative rational numbers). How can we, only having knowledge of polynomials and rings, CREATE an extension of $\Bbb Q$ that contains a square root we need as a root of a quadratic? Ideally, we want a "minimal" construction, so we only do the amount of work we HAVE to.
 
Deveno said:
Lots of polynomials have roots in the underlying field their polynomial coefficients are in. For example, $x^2 - 3x + 2$ does, as it equals $(x - 2)(x - 1)$ (assuming an underlying field of characteristic $0$, so as to avoid ambiguity).

The point being, if we want to find roots of ALL polynomials, it suffices to consider roots of IRREDUCIBLE polynomials, because we can factor polynomials into their irreducible factors (this is, essentially, the statement that $F[x]$ is a UFD. In a UFD, "irreducible" and "prime" mean the same thing- see here).

A polynomial like $x - 7$ is indeed irreducible (over $\Bbb Q$, let's say). All this leads us to conclude is that the only possible root it has is $7$, and yes, $7 \in \Bbb Q$. If a polynomial factors completely, over a field, into linear factors, we say it SPLITS, and the smallest field containing all of its roots is called its SPLITTING FIELD. For a polynomial like $x - 7$, the splitting field is $\Bbb Q$. This is not particularly interesting.

On the other hand, anyone familiar with the quadratic formula knows it entails square roots. So, even if a quadratic polynomial has rational coefficients, it may not have rational roots-because $\Bbb Q$ does not contain all square roots of rational numbers. For example $\sqrt{2} \not\in \Bbb Q$. This is the kind of situation in which we seek to extend $\Bbb Q$.

But how? Imagine we don't yet know about $\Bbb R$ (for square roots of positive rational numbers) or $\Bbb C$ (for square roots of negative rational numbers). How can we, only having knowledge of polynomials and rings, CREATE an extension of $\Bbb Q$ that contains a square root we need as a root of a quadratic? Ideally, we want a "minimal" construction, so we only do the amount of work we HAVE to.
Thanks for the help, Deveno ...

Will reflect on this more in the morning ... after midnight here in Tasmania ...

Grateful for your help, as usual ...

Peter
 
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...
##\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...
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...
Back
Top