Is \( \mathbb{Q} \subseteq L \subseteq \mathbb{Q}(c) \) a Galois Extension?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PsychonautQQ
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Extension
PsychonautQQ
Messages
781
Reaction score
10

Homework Statement


Let Q < L < Q(c) where c is a primitive nth root of unity over Q. Is [L:Q] a Galois extension?

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


L must be equal to Q(d) where d is a non primitive nth root of unity. [Q(d):Q] is not a galois extension because the minimal polynomial of d over Q is x^d -1, and this polynomial has d roots, not all of which are in Q. Is this correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What does it mean for ##\mathbb{Q}\subsetneq \mathbb{Q}(d)## to be a Galois extension? Can the minimal polynomial of ##d## have other roots than powers of ##d##? By the way ##x^d-1## is not the minimal polynomial, but only a factor of this: ##x-1## divides ##x^d-1## and the result is still in ##\mathbb{Q}[x]##. So why should we call such a polynomial minimal though?
 
  • Like
Likes PsychonautQQ
fresh_42 said:
What does it mean for ##\mathbb{Q}\subsetneq \mathbb{Q}(d)## to be a Galois extension? Can the minimal polynomial of ##d## have other roots than powers of ##d##? By the way ##x^d-1## is not the minimal polynomial, but only a factor of this: ##x-1## divides ##x^d-1## and the result is still in ##\mathbb{Q}[x]##. So why should we call such a polynomial minimal though?
Q<Q(d) is a galois extension if Q(d) is a finite normal and separable extension. We know it is separable because Char(Q)=0. If Q(d) is a finite and normal extension then it is a splitting field for the minimal polynomial of d in Q. The minimal polynomial of d will be a factor of x^d-1, but I'm not sure if the roots of it's minimal polynomial are all powers of d; if they are, then I suspect this is a Galois extension.
 
PsychonautQQ said:
Q<Q(d) is a galois extension if Q(d) is a finite normal and separable extension. We know it is separable because Char(Q)=0. If Q(d) is a finite and normal extension then it is a splitting field for the minimal polynomial of d in Q. The minimal polynomial of d will be a factor of x^d-1, but I'm not sure if the roots of it's minimal polynomial are all powers of d; if they are, then I suspect this is a Galois extension.
You don't need the powers. Only the definition of normal. Firstly, how did you find ##d##? And why has it to be of the claimed form, i.e. its minimal polynomial a divisor of ##(x^d-1)##? Btw, it's a bit confusing to denote the element by ##d## as well as the degree of ##x^d-1##. One is a complex and one a natural number. And then, does this situation differ at any point from the one you started at?
 
  • Like
Likes PsychonautQQ
fresh_42 said:
You don't need the powers. Only the definition of normal. Firstly, how did you find ##d##? And why has it to be of the claimed form, i.e. its minimal polynomial a divisor of ##(x^d-1)##? Btw, it's a bit confusing to denote the element by ##d## as well as the degree of ##x^d-1##. One is a complex and one a natural number. And then, does this situation differ at any point from the one you started at?

my bad, I'm more lost than I thought I suppose. I was thinking something like if the degree of d is n then the minimal polynomial of d will be a divisor of x^n-1. Am I way off track here?
 
PsychonautQQ said:
my bad, I'm more lost than I thought I suppose. I was thinking something like if the degree of d is n then the minimal polynomial of d will be a divisor of x^n-1. Am I way off track here?
You should proceed step by step.

What we have is ##\mathbb{Q} \subseteq \mathbb{Q}(c)## with a primitive ##h-##th root of unity, i.e. ##c^h=1##. (I choose ##h## because you burnt ##n## in your question.) Let us define the minimal polynomial of ##c## by ##m_c(x)##. Then ##m_c(x)\,\vert \,(x^h-1)## and ##m_c(x)## is the product of all ##(x-c^k)## with ##(k,h)=1## being coprime. The Galois group of ##\mathbb{Q}(c)## over ##\mathbb{Q}## is isomorphic to the cyclic group ##\mathbb{Z}_h^* = \mathbb{Z}_{\varphi(h)}##.

Now we assume a field ##\mathbb{Q} \subseteq L \subseteq \mathbb{Q}(c)## and we know, that its Galois group is a cyclic subgroup ##\mathbb{Z}_n## of ##\mathbb{Z}_{\varphi(h)}##, i.e. ##n\cdot m = \varphi(h)## for some ##m##. We may further assume that ##\mathbb{Z}_n## is generated by a (single) automorphism of order ##n##, which is also an automorphism ##\sigma## of ##\mathbb{Q}(c)## and therefore ##\sigma^{\varphi(h)}=(\sigma^m)^n = 1##. So ##\mathbb{Z}_n=\{\sigma^m,\sigma^{2m},\ldots,\sigma^{(n-1)m},\sigma^{nm}=1\}## is the Galois group of ##L##. This means in return that ##L## consists of all elements ##a##, that can be substituted by ##\sigma^{m}(a)##.

This is what we know from the given situation. And it might be helpful to have examples like ##h=12, 16## or ##24## in mind. Now from here we can either list all elements ##a \in L## given a basis of ##\mathbb{Q}(c)## over ##\mathbb{Q}##, i.e. powers of ##c##, or construct a primitive element ##d## (and show that ##L=\mathbb{Q}(d)##).
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top