Galois Theory - Fixed Subfield of K by H ....

  • I
  • Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Theory
  • #1
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
3,997
48
I am reading "Abstract Algebra: Structures and Applications" by Stephen Lovett ...

I am currently focused on Chapter 8: Galois Theory, Section 1: Automorphisms of Field Extensions ... ...

I need help with Proposition 11.1.11 on page 560 ... ...Proposition 11.1.11 reads as follows:
?temp_hash=b73d2c3295f7984285d98c67b26cdd93.png

In the above Proposition from Lovett we read the following:" ... ... Since ##\sigma## is a homomorphism ##U(F) \ \rightarrow \ U(F)## ... ... "My question is ... ... what is ##F## ... is it a typo ... should it be ##K ##...Hoping someone can help ... ...

PeterNOTE: ##U(F)## in Lovett means the group of units of the ring ##F## ...
 

Attachments

  • Lovett - Proposition 11.1.11 ... ....png
    Lovett - Proposition 11.1.11 ... ....png
    20 KB · Views: 581
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
It looks like a typo to me. ##F## is first mentioned at the end of the second line, in ##(F,+)##. If we replace ##F## by ##K## the proof still works.

Is it possible that, in the context of the book, ##K## has been assumed to be a sub-field of some larger field ##F##? If so, and that has been stated in the preceding pages, then it wouldn't be a typo.

It's also not clear to me what ##U(F)## means, although from the context I'm guessing it's referring to the multiplicative group ##(F-\{0\},\times)## which, if we assume that ##F## really means ##K##, is ##(K-\{0\},\times)##.
 
  • Like
Likes Math Amateur
  • #3
FWIW. I recall a situation, in which ##F \subseteq K## has been the extension. I remember it, as I confused both and finally built a mnemonic ##F =## fixed elements.
 
  • Like
Likes Math Amateur
  • #4
fresh_42 said:
FWIW. I recall a situation, in which ##F \subseteq K## has been the extension. I remember it, as I confused both and finally built a mnemonic ##F =## fixed elements.

Hmm ... yes ... Lovett often uses K/F for a field extension ... but still ... seems to me that that doesn't resolve the problem of the exact nature of F ...

Do you think that Lovett meant K when he wrote F?

Peter
 
  • #5
I have the same difficulties as @andrewkirk to understand what ##F## and ##U(F)## are. ##U(.)## could be units, the multiplicative group of a field, and ##F=K## which makes sense, if I didn't miss something. As the entire topic is about the correspondence between fields and automorhism groups, it might well be that a ##F## somehow found its way into the proof although it should have been ##K##.
 
  • Like
Likes Math Amateur
  • #6
HI fresh_42 ...

The notation U(K) in Lovett is the group of units of K ...

Thanks ... I also think F should be K ... glad to have your agreement ...

Peter
 

Similar threads

Back
Top