MHB Field Theory: Nicholson, 6.2 Algebraic Extensions - Example 14 (p. 282) Solution

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Nicholson: Introduction to Abstract Algebra, Section 6.2 Algebraic Extensions.

Example 14 on page 282 (see attachment) reads as follows:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example 14. Let E \supseteq F be fields and let u, v \in E.

If u and u + v are algebraic over F, show that v is algebraic over F.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the solution, Nicholson writes the following:

Solution. Write L = F(u + v) so that L(u) = F(u, v). ... ... etc etc
Can someone please show me (formally and exactly) why L = F(u + v) \Longrightarrow L(u) = F(u, v).

Peter

[This has also been posted on MHF]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
I am reading Nicholson: Introduction to Abstract Algebra, Section 6.2 Algebraic Extensions.

Example 14 on page 282 (see attachment) reads as follows:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example 14. Let E \supseteq F be fields and let u, v \in E.

If u and u + v are algebraic over F, show that v is algebraic over F.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the solution, Nicholson writes the following:

Solution. Write L = F(u + v) so that L(u) = F(u, v). ... ... etc etc
Can someone please show me (formally and exactly) why L = F(u + v) \Longrightarrow L(u) = F(u, v).

Peter

[This has also been posted on MHF]
We have $L=F(u+v)$. Thus $L(u)=(F(u+v))(u)=F(u+v,u)$.

We claim that $F(u+v,u)=F(v,u)$. Now that $u+v,u\in F(v,u)$. Thus $F(u+v,u)\subseteq F(v,u)$. Also, $u,v\in F(u+v,u)$. This is simply because $u+v-u$ is in $F(u+v,u)$. So we have $F(v,u)\subseteq F(u+v,u)$.
Thus we have $F(u+v,u)=F(v,u)$.

From here it's easy to get $L=F(v,u)$.
 
##\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...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...
Back
Top