MHB Finite Extensions - A&F Example 44.2 .... ....

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Example Finite
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on understanding why the set {1, √2, √3, √6} is chosen as the basis for the field extension ℚ(√2, √3). The key point is the application of the tower law of fields, which states that the degree of the extension can be determined by the degrees of the intermediate fields. The basis {1, √2} serves as a basis for ℚ(√2), while {1, √3} is a basis for ℚ(√2, √3) over ℚ(√2). The inclusion of √6, which is the product of √2 and √3, ensures that all necessary elements are accounted for in the basis, fulfilling the requirement for a complete basis in this context. This illustrates the structure and relationships within the field extensions clearly.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Anderson and Feil - A First Course in Abstract Algebra.

I am currently focused on Ch. 44: Finite Extensions and Constructibility Revisited ... ...

I need some help in fully understanding Example 44.2 ... ...Example 44.2 reads as follows:
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/6862

I am trying to fully understand EXACTLY why

$$\{ 1, \sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3}, \sqrt{6} \}$$

is the basis chosen for $$\mathbb{Q} ( \sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3} )$$ ... ... I can see why $$1, \sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3}$$ are in the basis ... and I understand that we need 4 elements in the basis ...

... BUT ... why EXACTLY do we add $$\sqrt{6} = \sqrt{2} \cdot \sqrt{3}$$ ... an element that is already in the set generated by $$1, \sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3}$$ ...

... indeed, what is the rigorous justification for adding $$\sqrt{6}$$ ... why not add some other element ... ... for example, why not add $$\sqrt{12}$$ ... Hope someone can help ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Peter,

It looks like the authors are illustrating the tower law of fields in this example. Check to see if they mentioned the tower law before it. The law states that if $K\subset F \subset L$ is a tower of fields, then $[L : F] = [L : K] [K : F]$. The standard proof of this theorem (in the case $[L : F] < \infty$) shows that if $\{u_1,\ldots, u_m\}$ is a $K$-basis for $F$ and $\{v_1,\ldots v_n\}$ is an $F$-basis for $L$, then the set $\beta = \{u_iv_j: 1\le i \le m, 1\le j \le n\}$ is an $F$-basis for $L$.

Going back to the example, the tower $\Bbb Q \subset \Bbb Q(\sqrt{2})\subset \Bbb Q(\sqrt{2},\sqrt{3})$ is used in the first paragraph. Noting that $\{1, \sqrt{2}\}$ is a $\Bbb Q$-basis for $\Bbb Q(\sqrt{2})$ and $\{1, \sqrt{3}\}$ is a $\Bbb Q(\sqrt{2})$-basis for $\Bbb Q(\sqrt{2},\sqrt{3})$, the set $$\beta = \{1\cdot 1, \sqrt{2}\cdot 1, 1\cdot \sqrt{3}, \sqrt{2}\cdot \sqrt{3}\} = \{1, \sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3}, \sqrt{6}\}$$ is a $\Bbb Q$-basis for $\Bbb Q(\sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3})$.
 
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 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K