MHB It is an algebraically dependent set over F

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Set
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on demonstrating that a set containing elements from a field extension, specifically $\{s_1, \ldots, s_r, t\}$, is algebraically dependent over a base field $F$. It begins with the acknowledgment that $t$ is algebraic over $F(S)$, implying the existence of a non-zero polynomial $f$ such that $f(t)=0$. The participants explore how to construct a polynomial $g$ that incorporates the elements of $S$ and shows their dependence on $t$. By rationalizing the polynomial $f$ and ensuring its coefficients are polynomials in $F$, they establish that $g$ is non-zero and satisfies the required condition for algebraic dependence. The conclusion affirms the correctness of the approach taken to demonstrate the algebraic relationship among the elements.
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

Let $E/F$ be a field extension, $S\subseteq E$ and let $t\in E$ be algebraic over $F(S)$.

I want to show that there are distinct $s_1, \ldots , s_r\in S$, different from $t$, such that $\{s_1, \ldots , s_r, t\}$ is an algebraically dependent set over $F$.
I have done the following:
We have that $t\in E$ is algebraic over $F(S)$, i.e., there is a non-zero $f\in F(S)[x]$ such that $f(t)=0$, right? (Wondering)

To show that $\{s_1, \ldots , s_r, t\}$ is an algebraically dependent set over $F$, we have to show that there is a non-zero polynomial $g\in F[x_1, \ldots , x_r, y]$ such that $g(s_1, \ldots , s_r, t)=0$, right? How can we use the polynomial $f$ for that? (Wondering)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mathmari said:
Hey! :o

Let $E/F$ be a field extension, $S\subseteq E$ and let $t\in E$ be algebraic over $F(S)$.

I want to show that there are distinct $s_1, \ldots , s_r\in S$, different from $t$, such that $\{s_1, \ldots , s_r, t\}$ is an algebraically dependent set over $F$.
I have done the following:
We have that $t\in E$ is algebraic over $F(S)$, i.e., there is a non-zero $f\in F(S)[x]$ such that $f(t)=0$, right? (Wondering)

To show that $\{s_1, \ldots , s_r, t\}$ is an algebraically dependent set over $F$, we have to show that there is a non-zero polynomial $g\in F[x_1, \ldots , x_r, y]$ such that $g(s_1, \ldots , s_r, t)=0$, right? How can we use the polynomial $f$ for that? (Wondering)
The coefficients of $f$ are elements of $F(S)$. Thus each coefficient of $f$ looks like a ratio of two polynomials over $F$ evaluated on some members of $S$. Thus there are $s_1, \ldots, s_r\in S$ such that each coefficient of $f$ is of the form $p(s_1, \ldots, s_r)/q(s_1, \ldots, s_r)$, where $p$ and $q$ are polynomials over $F$. Now if you "rationalize" $f$ you will get your required polynomial showing $s_1, \dots, s_r, t$ are algebraically dependent over $F$.
 
caffeinemachine said:
The coefficients of $f$ are elements of $F(S)$. Thus each coefficient of $f$ looks like a ratio of two polynomials over $F$ evaluated on some members of $S$. Thus there are $s_1, \ldots, s_r\in S$ such that each coefficient of $f$ is of the form $p(s_1, \ldots, s_r)/q(s_1, \ldots, s_r)$, where $p$ and $q$ are polynomials over $F$. Now if you "rationalize" $f$ you will get your required polynomial showing $s_1, \dots, s_r, t$ are algebraically dependent over $F$.
We have that $t\in E$ is algebraic over $F(S)$, so for a positive integer $r$ there are elements $s_1, \ldots , s_r\in S$ and a non-zero polynomial $f\in F(s_1, \ldots , s_r)[x]$ such that $f(t)=0$.

Since $f\in F(s_1, \ldots , s_r)[x]$ the polynomial is of the form $$f=\frac{p_0(s_1, \ldots , s_0)}{q_0(s_1, \ldots , s_r)}+\frac{p_1(s_1, \ldots , s_r)}{q_1(s_1, \ldots , s_r)}x+\ldots +\frac{p_n(s_1, \ldots , s_r)}{q_n(s_1, \ldots , s_r)}x^n$$ with $p,q$ polynomials in $F$ and with $\frac{p_n(s_1, \ldots , s_r)}{q_n(s_1, \ldots , s_r)}\neq 0$.

Let $h$ be the lcm of the $q_i$'s. It holds that $h\neq 0$.

When we multiply $f$ by $h$, the coefficients of $f$ are now polynomials. So,
$$\tilde{f}(x)=f\cdot h=h_0(s_1, \ldots , s_r)+h_1(s_1, \ldots , s_r)x+\ldots +h_n(s_1, \ldots , s_r)x^n$$
Let $g(s_1, \ldots , s_r, x):=\tilde{f}(x)$. Since $\tilde{f}$ is non-zero, it follows that $g$ is non-zero.

So, we have a non-zero polynomial $g\in F[x_1, \ldots , x_r, y]$ with $g(s_1, \ldots , s_r, t)=\tilde{f}(t)=0$. This is the definition that the set $\{s_1, \ldots , s_r, t\}$ is algebracailly dependent.

Is everything correct? (Wondering)
 
mathmari said:
We have that $t\in E$ is algebraic over $F(S)$, so for a positive integer $r$ there are elements $s_1, \ldots , s_r\in S$ and a non-zero polynomial $f\in F(s_1, \ldots , s_r)[x]$ such that $f(t)=0$.

Since $f\in F(s_1, \ldots , s_r)[x]$ the polynomial is of the form $$f=\frac{p_0(s_1, \ldots , s_0)}{q_0(s_1, \ldots , s_r)}+\frac{p_1(s_1, \ldots , s_r)}{q_1(s_1, \ldots , s_r)}x+\ldots +\frac{p_n(s_1, \ldots , s_r)}{q_n(s_1, \ldots , s_r)}x^n$$ with $p,q$ polynomials in $F$ and with $\frac{p_n(s_1, \ldots , s_r)}{q_n(s_1, \ldots , s_r)}\neq 0$.

Let $h$ be the lcm of the $q_i$'s. It holds that $h\neq 0$.

When we multiply $f$ by $h$, the coefficients of $f$ are now polynomials. So,
$$\tilde{f}(x)=f\cdot h=h_0(s_1, \ldots , s_r)+h_1(s_1, \ldots , s_r)x+\ldots +h_n(s_1, \ldots , s_r)x^n$$
Let $g(s_1, \ldots , s_r, x):=\tilde{f}(x)$. Since $\tilde{f}$ is non-zero, it follows that $g$ is non-zero.

So, we have a non-zero polynomial $g\in F[x_1, \ldots , x_r, y]$ with $g(s_1, \ldots , s_r, t)=\tilde{f}(t)=0$. This is the definition that the set $\{s_1, \ldots , s_r, t\}$ is algebracailly dependent.

Is everything correct? (Wondering)
Yes.
 
caffeinemachine said:
Yes.

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 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
947
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K