MHB Show That $F(S)$ Is the Smallest Subfield of $K$

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

Let $F$ be a subfield of the field $K$ and $S$ a non-empty subset (not necessarily, subfield) of $K$, finite or infinite. Let $F(S)$ be the subset of $K$ that is defined as follows:
An element $u\in K$ is in $F(S)$ iff there are finitely many elements of $S$, say $s_1, \dots , s_n$, and polynomials with $n$ variables $f,g\in F[x_1, \dots , x_n]$, with $g(s_1, \dots , s_n)\neq 0$, so that $u=f(s_1, \dots , s_n)/g(s_1, \dots , s_n)$.

I want to show that $F(S)$ is a subfield of $K$ and even the smallest subfield of $K$, that contains $F$ and $S$. So, if $E$ is the subfield of $K$ and $F\cup S\subseteq E$, then $F(S)\subseteq E$. I have done the following:

$F(S)$ is a subring of $K$ :

We have that $a,b\in F(S)$ then $a=\frac{f_1(s_1, \dots , s_n)}{g_1(s_1, \dots , s_n)}$ and $b=\frac{f_2(s_1, \dots , s_n)}{g_2(s_1, \dots , s_n)}$.
Then $a\cdot b=\frac{f_1(s_1, \dots , s_n)f_2(s_1, \dots , s_n)}{g_1(s_1, \dots , s_n)g_2(s_1, \dots , s_n)}\in F(S)$ and $a-b=\frac{f_1(s_1, \dots , s_n)g_2(s_1, \dots , s_n)-f_2(s_1, \dots , s_n)g_1(s_1, \dots , s_n)}{g_1(s_1, \dots , s_n)g_2(s_1, \dots , s_n)}\in F(S)$.

Since $K$ is a field, it is also an integral domain and since $F(S)$ is a subring of $K$, $F(S)$ is also an integral domain.

We have that $F(S)$ is a subfield of $K$, since it is an integral domain and for each non-zero element $u\in F(S)$, $u=\frac{f(s_1, \dots , s_n)}{g(s_1, \dots , s_n)}$ there is its inverse, $u^{-1}=\frac{g(s_1, \dots , s_n)}{f(s_1, \dots , s_n)}$.
Let $E$ a subfield of $K$ and $F\cup S\subseteq E$.
The elements of $F(S)$ are of the form $\frac{f(s_1, \dots , s_n)}{g(s_1, \dots , s_n)}$. Since $F\cup S\subseteq E$ we have that $f(s_1, \dots , s_n)\in E$ and $g(s_1, \dots , s_n)\in E$. Since $E$ is a field we have that $\frac{f(s_1, \dots , s_n)}{g(s_1, \dots , s_n)}\in E$. Therefore, $F(S)\subseteq E$. Is everything correct? Could I improve something? (Wondering)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mathmari said:
Hey! :o

Let $F$ be a subfield of the field $K$ and $S$ a non-empty subset (not necessarily, subfield) of $K$, finite or infinite. Let $F(S)$ be the subset of $K$ that is defined as follows:
An element $u\in K$ is in $F(S)$ iff there are finitely many elements of $S$, say $s_1, \dots , s_n$, and polynomials with $n$ variables $f,g\in F[x_1, \dots , x_n]$, with $g(s_1, \dots , s_n)\neq 0$, so that $u=f(s_1, \dots , s_n)/g(s_1, \dots , s_n)$.

I want to show that $F(S)$ is a subfield of $K$ and even the smallest subfield of $K$, that contains $F$ and $S$. So, if $E$ is the subfield of $K$ and $F\cup S\subseteq E$, then $F(S)\subseteq E$. I have done the following:

$F(S)$ is a subring of $K$ :

We have that $a,b\in F(S)$ then $a=\frac{f_1(s_1, \dots , s_n)}{g_1(s_1, \dots , s_n)}$ and $b=\frac{f_2(s_1, \dots , s_n)}{g_2(s_1, \dots , s_n)}$.
Then $a\cdot b=\frac{f_1(s_1, \dots , s_n)f_2(s_1, \dots , s_n)}{g_1(s_1, \dots , s_n)g_2(s_1, \dots , s_n)}\in F(S)$ and $a-b=\frac{f_1(s_1, \dots , s_n)g_2(s_1, \dots , s_n)-f_2(s_1, \dots , s_n)g_1(s_1, \dots , s_n)}{g_1(s_1, \dots , s_n)g_2(s_1, \dots , s_n)}\in F(S)$.

Since $K$ is a field, it is also an integral domain and since $F(S)$ is a subring of $K$, $F(S)$ is also an integral domain.

We have that $F(S)$ is a subfield of $K$, since it is an integral domain and for each non-zero element $u\in F(S)$, $u=\frac{f(s_1, \dots , s_n)}{g(s_1, \dots , s_n)}$ there is its inverse, $u^{-1}=\frac{g(s_1, \dots , s_n)}{f(s_1, \dots , s_n)}$.
Let $E$ a subfield of $K$ and $F\cup S\subseteq E$.
The elements of $F(S)$ are of the form $\frac{f(s_1, \dots , s_n)}{g(s_1, \dots , s_n)}$. Since $F\cup S\subseteq E$ we have that $f(s_1, \dots , s_n)\in E$ and $g(s_1, \dots , s_n)\in E$. Since $E$ is a field we have that $\frac{f(s_1, \dots , s_n)}{g(s_1, \dots , s_n)}\in E$. Therefore, $F(S)\subseteq E$. Is everything correct? Could I improve something? (Wondering)
This seems fine to me.
 
mathmari said:
Let $E$ a subfield of $K$ and $F\cup S\subseteq E$.
The elements of $F(S)$ are of the form $\frac{f(s_1, \dots , s_n)}{g(s_1, \dots , s_n)}$. Since $F\cup S\subseteq E$ we have that $f(s_1, \dots , s_n)\in E$ and $g(s_1, \dots , s_n)\in E$. Since $E$ is a field we have that $\frac{f(s_1, \dots , s_n)}{g(s_1, \dots , s_n)}\in E$. Therefore, $F(S)\subseteq E$.

I thought about it again and I got stuck right now...
Why do we have that $f(s_1, \dots , s_n), g(s_1, \dots , s_n) \in F\cup S$ ?
$f(s_1, \dots , s_n), g(s_1, \dots , s_n)$ are polynomials with coefficients in $F$. Are the variables then elements of $S$ ? (Wondering)
 
mathmari said:
Why do we have that $f(s_1, \dots , s_n), g(s_1, \dots , s_n) \in F\cup S$ ?

Or doesn't it stand? (Wondering)
 
caffeinemachine said:
This seems fine to me.

Thank you! (Yes)
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
Back
Top