MHB Is t Algebraic Over F(S) in Field Extension E/F?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

We have field extension $E/F$. We have that $S\subseteq E$ is algebraically independent over $F$. Let $t\in E$, then $S\cup \{t\}$ is algebraically independent over $F$.
I want to show that $t$ is algebraic over $F(S)$. Since $S\subseteq E$ is algebraically independent over $F$ we have that there exist $s_1, \ldots s_n\in S$ (different from each other) and non-zero $f\in F[x_1, \ldots , x_n]$ such that $f(s_1, \ldots , s_n)\neq 0$.

Since $S\cup \{t\}$ is algebraically independent over $F$ we have that there exist $s_1, \ldots s_n, t\in S\cup \{t\}$ (different from each other) and non-zero $g\in F[x_1, \ldots , x_n, y]$ such that $g(s_1, \ldots , s_n, t)=0$.

To show that $t$ is algebraic over $F(S)$, we have to show that there exist $s_1, \ldots , s_n\in S$ and non-zero $h\in F[x_1, \ldots , x_n]$ such that $t=h(s_1, \ldots , s_n)$.
But how exactly can we show the existence of such a polynomial? (Wondering)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I tried now the following:

Since $S\cup \{t\}$ is algebraically independent over $F$ we have that there exist $s_1, \ldots s_n, t\in S\cup \{t\}$ (different from each other) and non-zero $g\in F[x_1, \ldots , x_n, y]$ such that $g(s_1, \ldots , s_n, t)=0$.

We collect all the terms with the same powers of $y$ and then we can write the polynomial as follows:
$$g(x_1, \ldots , x_n, y)=b_0+b_1y+\ldots b_m y^m$$ where $b_i\in F[x_1, \ldots , x_n]$.

Since $g$ is a non-zero polynomial we have that for exampe $b_m$ is non-zero. It cannot be that $b_0\neq 0$ and $b_i=0, i=1, \ldots , m$ because then we would have the polynomial $g(x_1, \ldots , x_n)$ such that $g(s_1, \ldots , s_n)=0$, and that contradicts to the fact that $S$ is algebraically independent over $F$, right? (Wondering) Form the definition that $S\subseteq E$ is algebraically independent over $F$ do we have that for every non-zeropolynomial $h\in F[x_1, \ldots , x_n]$ there exist $s_1, \ldots s_n\in S$ (different from each other) such that $h(s_1, \ldots , s_n)\neq 0$ ? (Wondering) If yes, then it would hold for the non-zero polynomial $b_m\in F[x_1, \ldots , x_n]$, so $b_m(s_1, \ldots , s_n)\neq 0$. Then we would have the following $$g(s_1, \ldots , s_n, t)=0 \Rightarrow b_0(s_1, \ldots , s_n)+b_1(s_1, \ldots , s_n)t+\ldots b_m(s_1, \ldots , s_n) t^m=0$$

Therefore, we have a non-zero polynomial, where $t$ is a root.

Do we conclude from that that $t$ is algebraic over $F(S)$? (Wondering)
 
I thought about it again...

Since $S\cup \{t\}$ is algebraically independent over $F$ we have that there exist $s_1, \ldots s_n\in S$ (different from each other) and a non-zero polynomial $g\in F[x_1, \ldots , x_n, y]$ such that $g(s_1, \ldots , s_n, t)=0$.

We collect all the terms with the same powers of $y$ and then we can write the polynomial as follows:
$$g(x_1, \ldots , x_n, y)=b_0+b_1y+\ldots b_m y^m$$ where $b_i\in F[x_1, \ldots , x_n]$.

It cannot be that $b_i=0, i=1, \ldots , m$ because then we would have the polynomial $g(x_1, \ldots , x_n)$ such that $g(s_1, \ldots , s_n)=0$, and that contradicts to the fact that $S$ is algebraically independent over $F$, right?

So, we have that $b_i\neq 0$, for at least one $i\in \{1, \ldots , m\}$.

Then $t$ is a root of a non-zero polynomial of $F(S)$.

Therefore, $t$ is algebraic over $F(S)$. Is everything correct? (Wondering)
 
mathmari said:
Hey! :o

We have field extension $E/F$. We have that $S\subseteq E$ is algebraically independent over $F$. Let $t\in E$, then $S\cup \{t\}$ is algebraically independent over $F$.

Do you mean that "Let $t\in E$, and $S\cup\{t\}$ be algebraically dependent over $F$?"

mathmari said:
Since $S\subseteq E$ is algebraically independent over $F$ we have that there exist $s_1, \ldots s_n\in S$ (different from each other) and non-zero $f\in F[x_1, \ldots , x_n]$ such that $f(s_1, \ldots , s_n)\neq 0$.

What you infer is right but this is much weaker than what algeraic independence means.

mathmari said:
Since $S\cup \{t\}$ is algebraically independent over $F$ we have that there exist $s_1, \ldots s_n, t\in S\cup \{t\}$ (different from each other) and non-zero $g\in F[x_1, \ldots , x_n, y]$ such that $g(s_1, \ldots , s_n, t)=0$.

Again, it seems you want to say that $S\cup\{t\}$ is algebraically dependent over $F$.
 
caffeinemachine said:
Do you mean that "Let $t\in E$, and $S\cup\{t\}$ be algebraically dependent over $F$?"

Yes, you are right! (Blush)

Is my idea of #3 correct? (Wondering)
caffeinemachine said:
What you infer is right but this is much weaker than what algeraic independence means.

What do you mean? (Wondering)
 
mathmari said:
Is my idea of #3 correct? (Wondering)

You are certainly on the right track. But thee again, you seem to have typos. You write "algebraically independent" when your intention seems to be "algebraically dependent".

mathmari said:
What do you mean? (Wondering)

Here is what I mean. Given an extension $E:F$, and a subset $S$ of $E$, we say that $S$ is algebraically independent over $F$ to mean the following: For any finite subset $\{s_1, \ldots, s_n\}$ of $S$, and any polynomial $f(x_1, \ldots, x_n)$ over $F$, if $f(s_1, \ldots, s_n)=0$, then $f=0$.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K