MHB Proving the Dimension Bound for Intermediate Field Extensions

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Field
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving the dimension bound for intermediate field extensions, specifically showing that for finite extensions $L_1$ and $L_2$ of a field $F$, the dimension of the composite field $L_1L_2$ over $L_1$ consists of elements from $L_2$. It is established that $[L_1L_2:F] \leq [L_1:F] \cdot [L_2:F]$, with the basis of $L_1L_2$ over $L_1$ being derived from the basis of $L_2$ over $F$. The proof involves using the Basis Reduction Theorem to demonstrate that the dimension of $L_1L_2$ as a vector space over $L_1$ is less than or equal to the dimension of $L_2$ over $F.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of finite field extensions
  • Knowledge of vector spaces and basis concepts
  • Familiarity with the Basis Reduction Theorem
  • Comprehension of dimension theory in field extensions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of finite field extensions in algebra
  • Learn about the Basis Reduction Theorem in detail
  • Explore the concept of vector space dimension and its implications
  • Investigate intermediate field extensions and their applications in Galois theory
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, algebraists, and students studying field theory, particularly those interested in the properties and applications of field extensions and vector spaces.

mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

Let $K$ be a finite extension of $F$ and let $L_1, L_2$ be intermediate extensions.
  1. Show that there is a basis of $L_1L_2$ over $L_1$ that consists of elements of $L_2$.
  2. Prove that $[L_1L_2:F]\leq [L_1:F]\cdot [L_2:F]$.
I have done the following:

  1. Let $[L_1:F]=n$, $[L_2:F]=m$.

    Let $a_1, a_2, \ldots , a_n$ be a basis for $L_1$ over $F$ and let $b_1, b_2, \ldots , b_m$ be a basis for $L_2$ over $F$.

    $L_1L_2$ is the smallest field that contains $L_1$ and $L_2$.

    So, we have that $$L_1L_2=F(a_1, a_2, \ldots , a_n, b_1, b_2, \ldots , b_m)=L_1(b_1, b_2, \ldots , b_m)$$

    Does this mean that $b_1, b_2, \ldots , b_m$ is a basis for $L_1L_2$ over $L_1$ that consists of elements of $L_2$ ? (Wondering)

    $ $
  2. We have that $F\subseteq L_1\subseteq L_1L_2$ so we get that $[L_1L_2:F]=[L_1L_2:L_1][L_1:F]$.

    We have that $[L_1L_2:L_1]=[L_1(b_1, b_2, \ldots , b_m):L_1]$. We have to show that this is smaller or equal to $[L_2:F]$, right?

    How could we show that? (Wondering)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mathmari said:
Hey! :o

Let $K$ be a finite extension of $F$ and let $L_1, L_2$ be intermediate extensions.
  1. Show that there is a basis of $L_1L_2$ over $L_1$ that consists of elements of $L_2$.
  2. Prove that $[L_1L_2:F]\leq [L_1:F]\cdot [L_2:F]$.
I have done the following:

  1. Let $[L_1:F]=n$, $[L_2:F]=m$.

    Let $a_1, a_2, \ldots , a_n$ be a basis for $L_1$ over $F$ and let $b_1, b_2, \ldots , b_m$ be a basis for $L_2$ over $F$.

    $L_1L_2$ is the smallest field that contains $L_1$ and $L_2$.

    So, we have that $$L_1L_2=F(a_1, a_2, \ldots , a_n, b_1, b_2, \ldots , b_m)=L_1(b_1, b_2, \ldots , b_m)$$

    Does this mean that $b_1, b_2, \ldots , b_m$ is a basis for $L_1L_2$ over $L_1$ that consists of elements of $L_2$ ? (Wondering)

    $ $
  2. We have that $F\subseteq L_1\subseteq L_1L_2$ so we get that $[L_1L_2:F]=[L_1L_2:L_1][L_1:F]$.

    We have that $[L_1L_2:L_1]=[L_1(b_1, b_2, \ldots , b_m):L_1]$. We have to show that this is smaller or equal to $[L_2:F]$, right?

    How could we show that? (Wondering)
Hi mathmari,

It is true that $L_1L_2=L_1(b_1,\dots,b_m)$, but the $b_i$ are not necessarily independent over $L1$; we only know that they are independent over $F$.

In a vector space, any spanning set contains a basis. By removing redundant elements, you can extract form the $b_i$ a basis of $L_1L_2$ over $L_1$. This shows that $[L_1L_2:L_1]\le m$, and the result follows.
 
castor28 said:
It is true that $L_1L_2=L_1(b_1,\dots,b_m)$, but the $b_i$ are not necessarily independent over $L1$; we only know that they are independent over $F$.

In a vector space, any spanning set contains a basis. By removing redundant elements, you can extract form the $b_i$ a basis of $L_1L_2$ over $L_1$.

Since $L_1L_2=L_1(b_1, b_2, \ldots , b_m)$ it follows that $L_2$ spans $L_1L_2$ as a vector space over $L_1$. From the Basis Reduction Theorem we get that we can remove some elements of $L_2$ to obtain a basis of $L_1L_2$ over $L_1$.

Have I understood that correctly? (Wondering)
castor28 said:
This shows that $[L_1L_2:L_1]\le m$, and the result follows.

We have that $[L_1L_2:L_1]$= dimension of $L_1L_2$ as a $L_1$-vector space = $\dim_{L_1}(L_1L_2)$ = number of elements of the basis of $L_1L_2$ over $L_1$.

Since the basis consists of some elements of $L_2$, we get that $[L_1L_2:L_1]\leq $ dimension of $L_2$. Is this correct?

Is this same as to say that $[L_1L_2:L_1]\leq $ dimension of $L_2$ as a $F$-vector space?

(Wondering)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi mathmari

All that is correct. For the second part, we could be a little more precise and modify the second paragraph as:

Since the basis consists of some elements of the basis of $L_2$ over $F$, we get that $[L_1L_2:L_1]\leq$ dimension of $L_2$ over $F$.
 
castor28 said:
All that is correct. For the second part, we could be a little more precise and modify the second paragraph as:

Since the basis consists of some elements of the basis of $L_2$ over $F$, we get that $[L_1L_2:L_1]\leq$ dimension of $L_2$ over $F$.

Ah ok! Thank you so much! (Smile)
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K