I'm sure whoever is familiar with this subject has already seen this several times. I've seen it several times myself, and I even remember proving it in detail a couple of years ago, but now I'm stuck.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

I'm quoting what my professor did in class.

Given some separable extension L/K, say for simplicity char(K)=0 and forget separability issues, we know that there are exactly n=[L:K] K embeddings of L into some algebraic closure C of L. For a in L we define its trace and norm (with respect to the extension L/K) respectively as the sum and the product of the n embeddings' actions on a.

All good.

Now the proposition that's bugging me is the following one: had we defined a linear operator on L by T_a(x)=ax, then the trace and the norm of a are exactly that trace and determinant of T_a.

I'm trying to show that the characteristic polynomial of T_a is exactly (x-a_1)...(x-a_n), where a_1,...,a_n are the images of a under the K embeddings of L into C. While this is a very nice idea, I'm failing miserably.

Help?

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Field trace and norm (Equivalence between definitions)

Loading...

Similar Threads - Field trace norm | Date |
---|---|

I Need clarification on a theorem about field extensions/isomorphisms | Dec 19, 2017 |

I Splitting Fields: Anderson and Feil, Theorem 45.6 ... | Jun 23, 2017 |

I Splitting Fields: Anderson and Feil, Theorem 45.5 ... | Jun 22, 2017 |

I Splitting Fields: Anderson and Feil, Theorem 45.4 ... | Jun 21, 2017 |

A stupid question on norm and trace of fields | Jul 31, 2010 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**