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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of algebraic dependence in the context of field extensions. Participants explore the conditions under which a set of elements, including an algebraic element over a field, can be shown to be algebraically dependent over a given field.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that since \( t \) is algebraic over \( F(S) \), there exists a non-zero polynomial \( f \in F(S)[x] \) such that \( f(t) = 0 \).
  • There is a proposal that to demonstrate algebraic dependence of the set \( \{s_1, \ldots, s_r, t\} \), one must find a non-zero polynomial \( g \in F[x_1, \ldots, x_r, y] \) such that \( g(s_1, \ldots, s_r, t) = 0 \).
  • Participants discuss the form of the polynomial \( f \) and suggest that its coefficients can be expressed as ratios of polynomials evaluated at elements of \( S \).
  • It is mentioned that by rationalizing \( f \), one can derive the required polynomial \( g \) to show the algebraic dependence of the set.
  • There is a detailed explanation of how to manipulate \( f \) by multiplying it with the least common multiple of the denominators of its coefficients to obtain a polynomial \( \tilde{f} \) with polynomial coefficients.
  • One participant questions whether the reasoning and steps taken to arrive at the conclusion of algebraic dependence are correct.
  • A later reply confirms that the reasoning presented is indeed correct.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There appears to be a consensus on the correctness of the reasoning presented in the later posts, but earlier posts raise questions about the steps taken, indicating some uncertainty in the initial understanding.

Contextual Notes

The discussion involves assumptions about the nature of the polynomials and their coefficients, as well as the specific properties of the field extension and the elements involved. These assumptions are not fully explored or resolved within the thread.

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
4K
  • · 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
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K