It is an algebraically dependent set over F

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Set
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on demonstrating that a set $\{s_1, \ldots, s_r, t\}$ is algebraically dependent over a field $F$ when $t$ is algebraic over the field extension $F(S)$. Participants confirm that there exists a non-zero polynomial $f \in F(S)[x]$ such that $f(t) = 0$, and they explore how to construct another polynomial $g \in F[x_1, \ldots, x_r, y]$ that satisfies $g(s_1, \ldots, s_r, t) = 0$. The method involves rationalizing $f$ and ensuring that the coefficients are polynomials over $F$. This leads to the conclusion that the set is indeed algebraically dependent.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of field extensions, specifically $E/F$
  • Knowledge of algebraic elements and polynomial equations
  • Familiarity with the concept of algebraic dependence
  • Proficiency in manipulating polynomials and rational functions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of algebraic extensions in field theory
  • Learn about the construction and manipulation of polynomial rings, particularly $F(S)[x]$
  • Explore the concept of the least common multiple (lcm) in polynomial contexts
  • Investigate examples of algebraically dependent sets in various field extensions
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, particularly those specializing in abstract algebra and field theory, as well as students studying algebraic structures and their properties.

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)
 

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
1K
  • · 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