Field extensions, proving an element is in a field

  • Thread starter Thread starter Firepanda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Element Field
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around field extensions, specifically addressing the inclusion of the square root of 2 in the field generated by the sum of square roots, Q(√2 + √3). Participants are exploring the implications of irreducibility and the structure of polynomial rings.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are attempting to express √2 in terms of a linear combination involving √2 + √3, questioning the validity of their algebraic manipulations. Some are exploring the differences between field notation and polynomial notation, while others are discussing irreducibility in different polynomial rings.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing insights and questioning each other's reasoning. Some guidance has been offered regarding the nature of fields and irreducibility, but there is no explicit consensus on the implications of these concepts for the original problem.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the complexities of field theory and polynomial irreducibility, with some expressing uncertainty about their previous notes and understanding of the subject matter.

Firepanda
Messages
425
Reaction score
0
2vj7xmx.jpg


I can do all the question apart from the 'Conclude rt(2) in an element of Q(rt(2) + rt(3))'

That's all I need help on.

I tried

rt(2) = a + b(rt(2) + rt(3))

squaring it and equating you get

2 = a2 + 5b2 + (some other terms of rt(2) rt(3) rt(5))

but this cannot be true for a, b in Q, how else are you supposed to do this?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Solve for the square root of 2.
 
Solve what exactly?
 
You know that [itex](\sqrt{2}+\sqrt{3})^2 - 2\sqrt{2}(\sqrt{2}+\sqrt{3}) - 1 = 0[/itex]. Here, we're fortunate because there is a [itex]\sqrt{2}[/itex] available that we can isolate.
 
I tried that before but it left me with something pretty messy when all i wanted to show was it could be written as a + b(rt(2) + rt(3))

i ended up with rt(2) = -(2 + rt(5)) / (rt(2) + rt(3))
 
Remember that this is [itex]\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2}+\sqrt{3})[/itex], not [itex]\mathbb{Q}[\sqrt{2}+\sqrt{3}][/itex]. Also, I don't see from where the [itex]\sqrt{5}[/itex] comes.
 
hmm what's the difference?

guess I was slacking when jotting down notes and didn't realize when they were curvy brackets and not :(
 
The former is the smallest field containing (root 2 + root 3), which means there are inverses. I've slacked before in math classes, so I know the feeling.
 
Then that sort of ruins my answer for part i) of

33cou48.jpg


isn't k = {0, 1, T, 1+T} since k = {a + bT | a, b in {0,1}}?

and so g is irreducible since no element of k is a root

but you're saying k isn't {a + bT | a, b in {0,1}}
 
  • #10
It turns out that F2(T) contains all quotients of polynomials in F2[T]. Interpret it as the field of fractions of F2[T]. What have you learned that you can apply relating irreducible polynomials over the two?
 
  • #11
Probably missed your point but ill take a stab

if it's irreducible in Fp[T], p prime, then it's irreducible in Z[X]
 
  • #12
It can be tough to wrap your head around, but the indeterminate variable is X. So from what you proved we know that our polynomial g(X) is irreducible in (F2[T])[X]. It is not even in Z[X]. However, we would like to say something about its irreducibility in (F2(T))[X]. This might remind you of the connection between irreducibility in Z[X] and Q[X].
 
  • #13
If it's irreducible in Q[X] then it's irreducible in Z[X] is gauss's lemma, and them I am stumped

Is this point crucial to the solution?
 
  • #14
I think it's the opposite, that irreducibility in Z[X] implies irreducibility in Q[X]. I've also just finished studying these kinds of things, so I can't be sure that this is crucial, but it seems so to me. We can use Gauss's lemma to conclude what you need passing from the ring to the field of fractions.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K