Finding the inverse of an element in Q[√2,√3].

  • Thread starter Thread starter Boorglar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Element Inverse
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that the set Q[√2,√3] is a field, specifically focusing on the existence of inverses for nonzero elements. Participants explore various approaches to demonstrate linear independence and the structure of the field.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss proving linear independence of the elements 1, √2, √3, and √6, and some suggest calculating the dimension of Q[√2,√3] as a vector space over Q. Others question the necessity of complex algebraic manipulations versus simpler methods for finding inverses.

Discussion Status

There are multiple lines of reasoning being explored, including attempts to find explicit formulas for inverses and discussions about field extensions. Some participants have provided guidance on rationalizing expressions and suggested alternative approaches, but no consensus on a definitive method has been reached.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the confusion around notation for field extensions and the relevance of the exercise to concepts in abstract algebra, specifically regarding rings and fields. The discussion reflects an ongoing exploration of the topic without a clear resolution on the invertibility aspect.

Boorglar
Messages
210
Reaction score
10

Homework Statement


I need to prove that [itex]Q[√2,√3] = \{a+b√2+c√3+d√6: a, b, c, d \in Q\}[/itex] is a field.


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


I proved all axioms except the existence of inverses for nonzero elements. My problem is that multiplication is quite hairy. I ended up trying to invert a 4x4 matrix with letters, which got tedious very quickly and I couldn't finish it. Actually, proving that the determinant is never 0 would be good enough since this would prove linear independence and the existence of a unique solution.

Is there a much simpler method, or do I really have to deal with ugly algebra?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A totally different approach is to calculate the dimension of [itex]Q[\sqrt{2},\sqrt{3}][/itex] (or at least an upper bound) as a vector space over Q, and then confirm that you have a linearly independent set of the right size that is spanning your field.
 
Well, any element in [itex]Q[√2,√3][/itex] is by definition a linear combination of [itex]1,√2,√3,√6[/itex] over the rationals, so the dimension is at most 4.

Now, to show that [itex]1, √2, √3[/itex] and [itex]√6[/itex] are linearly independent, I guess I can set up the equation [itex]a+b√2+c√3+d√6=0[/itex]. I will divide the proof in 2 parts.

PART 1
First, I will show that [itex]1, √2[/itex] and [itex]√3[/itex] are linearly independent.
Suppose [itex](*) a + b√2 + c√3 = 0[/itex]. Then:

[itex](b√2+c√3)^2 = a^2[/itex] so [itex]2b^2+3c^2+2bc√6 = a^2[/itex]. Rearranging:
[itex]2bc√6 = a^2 - 2b^2 - 3c^2[/itex]. But the RHS is rational, so [itex]bc = 0[/itex].

Case I: [itex]b = 0[/itex]
[itex]a^2 = 3c^2[/itex] so [itex]a = 0, c = 0[/itex] (since [itex]√3[/itex] is irrational).

Case II: [itex]c = 0[/itex]
[itex]a^2 = 2b^2[/itex] so [itex]a = 0, b = 0[/itex] (since [itex]√2[/itex] is irrational).

Thus the only solution to [itex](*)[/itex] is [itex]a=b=c=0[/itex], and [itex]1, √2[/itex] and [itex]√3[/itex] are linearly independent over the rationals.

PART 2
Now it remains to be shown that [itex]√6[/itex] is linearly independent from [itex]1, √2[/itex] and [itex]√3[/itex]. Suppose [itex]a+b√2+c√3 = √6[/itex].
Then, move [itex]a[/itex] to the RHS and square both sides:
[itex]2b^2+3c^2+2bc√6 = a^2+6-2a√6[/itex] so
[itex]a^2-2b^2-3c^2 + 6 = 2(a+bc)√6[/itex]. So [itex]a+bc=0[/itex] (√6 is irrational).
Replacing [itex]a = -bc[/itex]: [itex]2b^2-b^2c^2+3c^2-6 = 0[/itex]
Factoring: [itex](c^2-2)(3-b^2) = 0[/itex] which has no solutions in the rationals.

Thus the set [itex]\{1,√2,√3,√6\}[/itex] is linearly independent over the rationals, and the dimension of [itex]Q[√2,√3][/itex] is 4.


Good, this is done! But I don't see how this proves invertibility.
 
Ah nuts, I realize now that I bungled my field extension notation (Q(...) vs Q[...] - I thought the intent of the question was to prove that the field Q(sqrt(2),sqrt(3)) was representable as the set on the right) - perhaps my answer isn't applicable for where you are in your class/this specific question. Do you know what the tower theorem for field extensions is?
 
Unfortunately not. Also, I might have mistaken the () braces with [] braces. Not sure which should be used.
To put you in context, this question comes from the exercise set of a chapter dealing with the definition of rings, integral domains and fields (from an intro to abstract algebra book). Field extensions have not yet been mentioned.
 
Last edited:
My guess is that the inverse formula is relatively simple and analogous to that in the field of quaternions. But I don't want to keep guessing how the inverse might look like. A systematic approach would be better.
 
Here is a trick that might help to find an explicit formula for the inverse. Note that we can write a general element of ##\mathbb{Q}[\sqrt{2},\sqrt{3}]## as
$$a + b\sqrt{2} + c\sqrt{3} + d\sqrt{6} = (a + b\sqrt{2}) + (c + d\sqrt{2})\sqrt{3} = x + y\sqrt{3}$$
where ##x = a + b\sqrt{2}## and ##y = c + d\sqrt{2}##. Since ##(x+y\sqrt{3})(x-y\sqrt{3}) = x^2 - 3y^2##, we have
$$(x + y\sqrt{3})^{-1} = \frac{x-y\sqrt{3}}{x^2 - 3y^2}$$
Now plug in the values for ##x## and ##y## and simplify.
 
No you got the right notation, [ ] means take the ring generated by sqrt(2) and sqrt(3) (which is what you have), ( ) means take the field generated by them (which would make the question silly, but I deformed it slightly in my head to make it reasonable).

If you do get to field extensions and the tower theorem, I recommend coming back to this problem and seeing how much more systematic it becomes.

Anyway, for the straightforward approach I recommend trying
[tex]\frac{1}{(a+b\sqrt{2}+c\sqrt{3}+d\sqrt{6}} \frac{a-b\sqrt{2}+c\sqrt{3}-d\sqrt{6}}{a-b\sqrt{2}+c\sqrt{3}-d\sqrt{6}}[/tex]

I'm trying to rationalize with respect to sqrt(2) by itself, instead of both at the same time, which is generally a good approach to taking multiple smaller steps against these kinds of problems.
 
jbunniii, this is a great idea!
Now, the denominator [itex]x^2-3y^2[/itex] can only be 0 if [itex]x = y = 0[/itex] since [itex]√3 = \frac{a+b√2}{c+d√2} = \frac{(a+b√2)(c-d√2)}{c^2-2d^2}[/itex] can not happen, which in turn means [itex]a=b=c=d=0[/itex]. Also, since [itex]x^2-3y^2[/itex] is a linear combination of 1 and √2, it can be rationalized and [itex]\frac{x-y√3}{x^2-3y^2}[/itex] is a l.c of 1, √2, √3 and √6.

Office_Shredder:
I get the following
[tex]\frac{a-b\sqrt{2}+c\sqrt{3}-d\sqrt{6}}{a^2-2b^2+3c^2-6d^2+2(ac-2bd)\sqrt{3}}[/tex]
which can also be easily rationalized. Thank you both!
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Yes, that looks good. The other approach you tried, involving the 4x4 matrix, will also work, but as you noted, the calculation is really nasty.
 
  • #11
By the way, the factorization I used illustrates a general principle regarding field extensions.

As you have now shown, ##\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2},\sqrt{3})## is a field. In fact, it is the smallest field that contains ##\mathbb{Q}##, ##\sqrt{2}##, and ##\sqrt{3}##, because any field containing these items must also contain all linear combinations over the rationals of ##1##, ##\sqrt{2}##, ##\sqrt{3}##, and ##\sqrt{6}##.

Moreover, this field can be constructed in two steps.

First, extend ##\mathbb{Q}## to ##\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2})##, which is the set of all linear combinations of ##1## and ##\sqrt{2}## over the rationals, or equivalently, the smallest field containing ##\mathbb{Q}## and ##\sqrt{2}##. Then extend ##\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2})## to ##(\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2}))(\sqrt{3})##. This is the set of all linear combinations of ##1## and ##\sqrt{3}## over the field ##\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2})##, or equivalently, the smallest field containing both ##\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2})## and ##\sqrt{3}##.

Of course, you can also construct it in the reverse order, first extending to include ##\sqrt{3}##, resulting in ##\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{3})## and then to include ##\sqrt{2}##, resulting in ##(\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{3}))(\sqrt{2})##.

In both cases you get the same field, which justifies the notation ##\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2},\sqrt{3})## instead of the more cumbersome ##(\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2}))(\sqrt{3})## or ##(\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{3}))(\sqrt{2})##.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K