Hints for finding a Galois closure

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mystic998
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    closure
Click For Summary
To find the Galois closure of the field \(\mathbb{Q}(\alpha)\) over \(\mathbb{Q}\), where \(\alpha = \sqrt{1 + \sqrt{2}}\), the minimal polynomial \(x^{4} - 2x^{2} - 1\) is identified, and its irreducibility over the rationals is acknowledged as a challenge. The discussion emphasizes that finding the splitting field of this polynomial is sufficient to determine the Galois closure. It is noted that the splitting field must include the conjugates of \(\alpha\), which are derived from the roots of the minimal polynomial. The conclusion is that the minimal Galois extension containing \(\mathbb{Q}(\alpha)\) will also encompass these conjugates, potentially including non-real numbers. The understanding of the relationship between the splitting field and the Galois closure is clarified, reinforcing the importance of including all conjugates.
Mystic998
Messages
203
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Find the Galois closure of the field \mathbb{Q}(\alpha) over \mathbb{Q}, where \alpha = \sqrt{1 + \sqrt{2}}.


Homework Equations


Um...the Galois closure of E over F, where E is a finite separable extension is a Galois extension of F containing E which is minimal.


The Attempt at a Solution


I've found that the minimal polynomial of \alpha is x^{4} - 2x^{2} - 1 (at least I think. I'm having a heck of a time showing it's irreducible over the rationals but I'm willing to just leave that as an exercise for the reader, so to speak), and it's separable, so I know a Galois closure exists. But I can't figure out a good way to generate it.

There are no examples of actually doing this explicitly in the book, though the proof of existence implies that you should take the intersection of all Galois extensions of F containing E. Or would finding explicitly the splitting field of the minimal polynomial be enough in this case? If so, could you guys help me out with that? This is kind of tricky.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, finding the splitting field will be enough. You're just going to throw in the conjugates of \alpha, and that will make your extension normal. Can you guess what they are? One of them is obviously -\alpha. What about the other 2? Considering \alpha^2 will be helpful.
 
I believe the splitting field is just the original extension adjoin i. So that's handy. But it seems like that really shouldn't be the Galois closure. Why would any Galois extension of the rationals that contains \mathbb{Q}(\alpha) have to contain i? It seems like it would only have to be a subset of the reals.
 
There's no reason it should be real at all. Think about it: any normal extension of \mathbb{Q} that contains \alpha will contain the conjugates of \alpha, so the minimal such extension is the one you get by adjoining these elements to \mathbb{Q}(\alpha). And there's nothing saying \alpha can't have non-real conjugates, just because it itself is real.
 
I think I understand... The splitting field is the minimal field that contains all the roots of the minimal polynomial, and anything that's Galois over the rationals contains all the conjugates of \alpha (i.e., the roots of the minimal polynomial). So it contains the splitting field. Thanks!

Edit: Er...Galois over the rationals and contains alpha. Heh.
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K