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

Click For Summary
In Example 14 of Nicholson's "Introduction to Abstract Algebra," it is established that if u and u + v are algebraic over the field F, then v must also be algebraic over F. The solution begins with defining L as F(u + v), leading to the assertion that L(u) equals F(u, v). The discussion clarifies that since both u + v and u belong to F(v, u), the two fields are equivalent: F(u + v, u) equals F(v, u). This equivalence is crucial in demonstrating the algebraic nature of v over F. The conclusion reinforces the relationship between the fields and the algebraic properties involved.
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 $L=F(v,u)$.
 
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
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K