In algebra I'm having trouble with this definition: simple extension

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of simple extensions in algebra, specifically the definition of a field extension K of F being a simple extension if F = F(a) for some element a in K. Participants express confusion regarding the notation F(a) and its implications, as well as the nature of field extensions involving algebraic and transcendental elements.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Exploratory

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the meaning of F(a) and question whether it represents values obtained from polynomials over the field F. There is discussion about the implications of including multiple elements, such as a and b, in the notation F(a, b) and how this relates to polynomial expressions. Some participants also inquire about the nature of elements in field extensions, particularly regarding algebraic versus transcendental numbers.

Discussion Status

The conversation has progressed with some participants gaining clarity on the definitions and properties of field extensions. There is acknowledgment of the complexity involved in understanding how elements can be expressed in terms of polynomials and the conditions under which these expressions hold. Multiple interpretations of the definitions and properties are being explored, with no explicit consensus reached yet.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention constraints related to the definitions of fields and the nature of elements being extended. There is a specific focus on the distinction between algebraic and transcendental elements, as well as the implications of these distinctions for field extensions. Additionally, there is a reference to potential misunderstandings stemming from prior explanations given by a professor.

futurebird
Messages
270
Reaction score
0
In algebra I'm having trouble with this definition:

The extensions K of F is a simple extension of F if F = F(a) for some a in K.

What I understand so far:

F is a set. But the notation F(a) has me lost-- what is it? Is is the values you get when you plug a into any polynomial over th field F? So, one value in the set F(a) would be:

[tex]b_{1}(a)+b_{2}(a)^{3}+b_{3}(a)^{9}+b_{4}[/tex]

Where the bi are from F ? And I can make any polynomial like that then fin it's value for a?

This is hard to think about.

Also... is the meaning for F(a,b) ... that I can plug in a or b? or can I mix and match like this:

[tex]c_{1}(a)-c_{2}(b)^{5}+c_{3}(b)^{9}+c_{4}[/tex]

Is that in F(a, b)... or is it just stuff like:

[tex]c_{1}(a)+c_{2}(a)^{5}-c_{3}(a)^{9}+c_{4}[/tex]
[tex]c_{1}(b)+c_{2}(b)^{5}+c_{3}(b)^{9}+c_{4}(b)^{9}+c_{5}[/tex]

with the ci in F.

Help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What you "understand" apparently is not correct. F is NOT just a set, it is a subFIELD of K. If F is a subfield of K and a is a member of K, then F(a) is the smallest subfield of K that contains all member of F and a. If, for example, a is already in F, then F(a)= F. If a is not in F then F(a) is some larger field, the "extension" field.

Here's an example. Let F be the field of real numbers and R be the field of rational numbers. [itex]\sqrt{2}[/itex] is a real number but not a rational number. What is the smallest field that contains all rational numbers and [itex]\sqrt{2}[/itex]. Since a field must be closed under multiplication, it certainly must contain any number of the form [itex]a\sqrt{2}[/itex] where a is any rational number. Since a field is closed under addition, it must contain any number of the form [itex]a\sqrt{2}+ b[/itex] where a and b are rational numbers. We don't have to specifically mention numbers of the form [itex]a\sqrt{2}+ b\sqrt{2}[/itex] because that is equal to [itex](a+b)\sqrt{2}[/itex], already a "rational number times [itex]\sqrt{2}[/itex]". But, again because a field is closed under multiplication, it must contain things like [itex](a\sqrt{2}+ b)(c\sqrt{2}+ d)[/itex]. Multiplying that out, we get [itex]ac(2)+ (ad+bc)\sqrt{2}+ bd= (2ac+bd)+ (ad+bc)\sqrt{2}[/itex], already of the form "a rational number times [itex]\sqrt{2}[/itex] plus a rational number".

But a field also contains multiplicative inverses for all non-zero numbers. What is the multiplicative inverse of [itex]a\sqrt{2}+ b[/itex]? "Rationalize" the denominator of
[tex]\frac{1}{a\sqrt{2}+ b}[/tex]
by multiplying numerator and denominator by [itex]a\sqrt{2}- b[/itex]:
[tex]\frac{1}{a\sqrt{2}+ b}\frac{a\sqrt{2}-b}{a\sqrt{2}-b}= \frac{a\sqrt{2}-b}{2a^2-b^2}[/tex]
[tex]= \frac{a}{2a^2- b^2}\sqrt{2}+\frac{-b}{2a^2- b^2}[/itex]<br /> again a "rational number times [itex]\sqrt{2}[/itex] plus a rational number."<br /> (Note that [itex]2a^2- b^2[/itex] cannot be 0- if [itex]2a^2- b^2= 0[/itex], then [itex]2a^2= b^2[/itex] so [itex]b^2/a^2= 2[/itex] or [itex]b/a= \sqrt{2}[/itex], which is impossible as [itex]\sqrt{2}[/itex] is not a rational number.)<br /> <br /> In other words, every member of [itex]Q(\sqrt{2})[/itex] can be written in the form "[itex]a\sqrt{2}+ b[/itex]" for rational numbers a and b. Notice that is the same as saying that we can use "[itex]\sqrt{2}[/itex]" and "1" as "basis vectors" to write [itex]Q(\sqrt{2})[/itex] as a vector space of dimension 2 over the rational numbers.<br /> <br /> All of that clearly depends on the algebraic properties of "[itex]\sqrt{2}[/itex]". I don't know where you got the exponents "3" and "9". Now, I don't know <b>where</b> you got the exponents 3 and 6 but they would have to depend on the specific value of "a". Is it something like "[itex]^9\sqrt{x}[/itex]" for some rational number x?<br /> <br /> What can be shown is "If a is <b>algebraic</b> of degree n, then Q(a) can be written as a vector space of dimension n over the rational numbers." "Algebraic of degree n" means "satisfies a polynomial equation with rational coefficients but no such polynomial equation of lower degree". "A vector space of dimension n over the rational numbers" means we can pick out n numbers in the set and write all the others as sums of rational numbers times those n numbers. [itex]\sqrt{2}[/itex] is "algebraic of order 2" because it satisfies x<sup>2</sup>= 2 but no linear equation. The two "basis" vectors, as I said above, are "1" and "[itex]\sqrt{2}[/itex]". The number [itex]^9\sqrt{n}[/itex] where n is, say, an integer, not a perfect 9th power,or cube, is algebraic of degree 9. If it happens to be a perfect cube, then [itex]^9\sqrt{n}[/itex] is algebraic of order 3 which looks like the case here.<br /> <br /> But, again, the way you can write members of F(a) depends strongly on what both F and a are! In fact, there exist numbers, like "e" and "[itex]\pi[/itex]" that are "transcendental", not algebraic of any degree. Members of Q(e) or [itex]Q(\pi)[/itex] cannot be written in that way at all.[/tex]
 
Thanks!

Okay that helped a lot. So, just to see if I'm getting this the members of [tex]Q(\pi)[/tex] would be everything in Q, [tex]\pi[/tex], and all of the other real numbers we'd need to make that a field.

So, we'd also need [tex]r \pi[/tex] where r is rational. We'd need [tex]r_{1} \pi + r_{2}[/tex]... [tex](r_{1} \pi + r_{2})(r_{3} \pi + r_{4}) = r_{5} \pi^{2}+ r_{6} \pi + r_{7}[/tex]... so we also require the powers of [tex]\pi[/tex]... so any polynomial with rational coefficient ... and then you can plug in pi.

A field needs multiplicative inverses, if we let the powers of the polynomial be integers we have those... But the thing is this only works for Q-- because in Q we are able to show that the required elements for the field are in the form of the polynomial ... OK. I think that makes sense--- But, if we don't know what the field is we don't know that it will take on the polynomial form.
 
The required elements for the field are NOT always in the form of a polynomial. For [tex]Q(\pi)[/tex] you need [tex]\frac{1}{\pi}[/tex] which in this case can't be written as a polynomial in terms of pi (if it could, then pi would be algebraic)

Often, the element you're extending the field by is the solution to a polynomial [tex]p(x) = a_0 + a_1x +... + a_nx^n[/tex] where the ai's are all in your base field. In cases like these the field extension behaves nicely... for example, if your new element is a solution and we call it 'a', p(a) = 0 gives us [tex]0 = a_0 + a_1a +... + a_na^n[/tex] so dividing both sides by a and rearranging we get

[tex]\frac{1}{a} = -\frac{1}{a_0}*(a_1 + a_2a +... + a_na^{n-1})[/tex] (if the constant term is zero, you just need to divide by a twice, or three times, or however many times to get a 1/a term).

In fact, it turns out that if you're extending by an algebraic element (some a s.t. p(a) = 0 for a polynomial in the base field) then your field extension is always a finite dimensional vector space over the base field. If the element isn't algebraic, then your field extension is never a finite dimensional vector space over the base field
 
Office_Shredder, I meant a polynomial where the powers could be any integers... that would cover [tex]\frac{1}{\pi}[/tex] right?

Office_Shredder said:
In fact, it turns out that if you're extending by an algebraic element (some a s.t. p(a) = 0 for a polynomial in the base field) then your field extension is always a finite dimensional vector space over the base field. If the element isn't algebraic, then your field extension is never a finite dimensional vector space over the base field

This comment is very helpful-- I think I'm starting to get this a little more. I've been confused because of something my prof. said-- I might have heard him wrong, but he was explaining the difference between:

F[x] and F(x)

He said that F[x] is the set of all polynomials in x with coefficients from the field F. And F(x) is the set of polynomials and quotients of polynomials. Is this true for all kinds of fields?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K