Galois theory. field extension, constructible/algebraic numbers

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the field extension between the subfield of constructible numbers, K, and the subfield of algebraic numbers, A, in the context of Galois theory. The original poster questions whether the extension A:K is finite, noting that while all constructible numbers are algebraic, there exist algebraic numbers that are not constructible.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the nature of field extensions, with some conjecturing that A:K is infinite based on examples of proper field extensions involving roots of 2. Others question the implications of certain roots being constructible and whether specific extensions are proper.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing insights and conjectures regarding the nature of the extensions. Some guidance has been offered regarding the irreducibility of polynomials and the implications of the degrees of extensions, but no consensus has been reached on the overall question.

Contextual Notes

Participants are considering the implications of the minimal polynomials of certain algebraic numbers and their degrees, particularly in relation to the constructibility of these numbers. There is also a focus on the need to demonstrate the irreducibility of specific polynomials over K.

annawells
Messages
11
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Let K be the subfield of all constructible numbers in C
Let A be the subfield of all algebraic numbers in C
Is the field extension A:K finite?


The Attempt at a Solution



I don't know where to start! I have read and understood proofs that all constructible numbers are algebraic. I can think of some algebraic numbers which are not constructible, such as cube root of 2, coming from the equation (x^3)-2.
But I can't think how to go about seeing if there are a finite amount of such numbers?

please point me in the right direction! :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's a long time ago since I did Galois theory. But I think this is it.

I conjeccture that [A:K] is infinite.

I see that because of the following inclusions

K\subset K[\sqrt[3]{2}] \subset K[\sqrt[3]{2},\sqrt[5]{2}]\subset K[\sqrt[3]{2},\sqrt[5]{2},\sqrt[7]{2}]\subset K[\sqrt[3]{2},\sqrt[5]{2},\sqrt[7]{2},\sqrt[11]{2}]\subset ...

So you got an infinite number of proper field extensions. So this means that [A:K] must be infinite.

I'm sorry if all of this doesn't make sense, it's probably to long ago then (:
 
micromass said:
It's a long time ago since I did Galois theory. But I think this is it.

I conjeccture that [A:K] is infinite.

I see that because of the following inclusions

K\subset K[\sqrt[3]{2}] \subset K[\sqrt[3]{2},\sqrt[5]{2}]\subset K[\sqrt[3]{2},\sqrt[5]{2},\sqrt[7]{2}]\subset K[\sqrt[3]{2},\sqrt[5]{2},\sqrt[7]{2},\sqrt[11]{2}]\subset ...

So you got an infinite number of proper field extensions. So this means that [A:K] must be infinite.

I'm sorry if all of this doesn't make sense, it's probably to long ago then (:

Thanks, that makes sense! So you are looking at all the pth roots for p prime yeh? and each extension has a degree of 2? so with some application of towers law (which says that for M<N<L, [L:M] = [L:N]*[N:M] ) we get that its infinite.

Instead of adding all the elements pth root of 2, would it be okay to make extensions using the elements cube root of p, eg cube root of 3, cube root of 5, cube root of 7, cube root of 11, ...etc?
(I don't have a preference though!)
thanks! :)
 
Doing it with the cube roots of the primes is what I thought up first. But I wasn't sure if all the field extensions would be proper. But I think it should work...
 
okay thanks! is there some lemma/theorem that states that these numbers are not constructable?? for either pth root of 2, or cube root of p?!
 
annawells said:
okay thanks! is there some lemma/theorem that states that these numbers are not constructable?? for either pth root of 2, or cube root of p?!

Yeah, you have the following. If a number is constructible, then the minimal polynomial of that number is a power of 2.
 
okay. sooo, the argument is that:

If z is constructible then its minimal polynomial has a degree which is a power of 2.
For z = 2^(1/p), z has minimal polynomial i(z^p)-2, which has degree p (which is obviously not a power of 2). So z is not constructible.

Is it obvious to say that clearly 2^(1/3) > 2^(1/5) > 2^(1/7) > 2^(1/11) >... so each extension is proper?
 
Hmm, why would 2^(1/3) > 2^(1/5) > 2^(1/7) > 2^(1/11) >... imply that every extension is proper? I don't really see that...

On the other hand, we have that \sqrt[5]{2}=\sqrt{2}\sqrt[3]{2}. So the extension

K[ \sqrt[3]{2} ] \subseteq K [ \sqrt[3]{2}, \sqrt[5]{2}]

is not proper, **** :mad:

But maybe the other method, with the cube roots of the primes will work...
 
So obviously the extension K\subseteq K[\sqrt[3]{2}] is proper. An element in K[\sqrt[3]{2}] has the form a+b\sqrt[3]{2}, were a and b are in K (and thus have degree a power of two).

To prove that the extension
K[\sqrt[3]{2}]\subseteq K[\sqrt[3]{2},\sqrt[3]{3}]

is proper. You need to show that \sqrt[3]{3} cannot be written as a+b\sqrt[3]{2}...
 
  • #10
OK, I've got it now. And it's not that hard. Forget everything about proper extensions.

The field extension K[\sqrt[p]{2}]:K is proper. Moreover, the minimal polynomial of \sqrt[p](2) is X^p-2. Thus we have that [K[\sqrt[p]{2}]:K]=p. Thus we have that

[K:A] \geq [K[\sqrt[p]{2}]:K] = p

for every prime p. so [K:A] must be infinite.
 
  • #11
micromass said:
OK, I've got it now. And it's not that hard. Forget everything about proper extensions.

The field extension K[\sqrt[p]{2}]:K is proper. Moreover, the minimal polynomial of \sqrt[p](2) is X^p-2. Thus we have that [K[\sqrt[p]{2}]:K]=p. Thus we have that

[K:A] \geq [K[\sqrt[p]{2}]:K] = p

for every prime p. so [K:A] must be infinite.

yessssss! :) :D thanks a million!
 
  • #12
To be honest, you still have to do a bit of work :smile: sorry...

I mean, you still need to show that X^p-2 is irreducible over K. I don't find that completely obvious...
 
  • #13
micromass said:
To be honest, you still have to do a bit of work :smile: sorry...

I mean, you still need to show that X^p-2 is irreducible over K. I don't find that completely obvious...

ohhhh :( okay I will think about it! does anything make a difference that K contains complex numbers no?
 
  • #14
No, I don't suppose that makes much of a difference...
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
9K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K