Show that Q[π] is not a subset of Q(π)

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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between the fields $\mathbb{Q}[\pi]$ and $\mathbb{Q}(\pi)$, specifically aiming to show that $\mathbb{Q}[\pi]$ is not a subset of $\mathbb{Q}(\pi)$. Participants explore the implications of the transcendence of $\pi$ and the properties of polynomial and rational functions in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that $\mathbb{Q}[\pi] \subseteq \mathbb{Q}(\pi)$ holds for certain cases, particularly when considering $g(\pi) = 1$.
  • There is a claim that $\pi$ is not a root of any polynomial with rational coefficients, which leads to questioning whether this implies that $\mathbb{Q}[\pi]$ is not a field.
  • Participants discuss a mapping $f: \mathbb{Q}[x] \to \mathbb{Q}[\pi]$ and explore its properties as a ring isomorphism, emphasizing the implications of $\pi$ being transcendental.
  • Concerns are raised about the invertibility of $x$ in $\mathbb{Q}[x]$, with a proof presented that shows $x$ cannot be invertible.
  • Some participants inquire about the necessity of showing that $f$ is a ring isomorphism and its implications for the invertibility of elements in the respective fields.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints regarding the properties of $\mathbb{Q}[\pi]$ and $\mathbb{Q}(\pi)$, with no clear consensus reached on whether $\mathbb{Q}[\pi]$ is a field or on the implications of the isomorphism discussed. The discussion remains unresolved in terms of definitive conclusions.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the discussion relies on the assumption of the transcendence of $\pi$ and the properties of polynomial degrees, which are not universally agreed upon. There are also unresolved questions regarding the implications of the isomorphism and the nature of the fields involved.

mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

We have the following theorem:
Let $F$ be a field and $p(x)\in F[x]$ irreducible. Then there is a field $K$, of which $F$ is a subfield with the following properties:
  1. $\exists u\in K$ with $p(u)=0$, i.e., $p$ has a root in $K$.
  2. $K=F$


I want to show that $\mathbb{Q}[\pi]\subsetneqq \mathbb{Q}(\pi)$.

The elements of $\mathbb{Q}(\pi)$ are of the form $\frac{f(\pi)}{g(\pi)}$, where $f(\pi), g(\pi)\in \mathbb{Q}[\pi]$ and $g(\pi)\neq 0$.
The elements of $\mathbb{Q}[\pi]$ are the polynomials of $\pi$ with coefficients in $\mathbb{Q}$.
So, we have that $\mathbb{Q}[\pi]\subseteq \mathbb{Q}(\pi)$ for $g(\pi)=1$, right?

We have that $\pi$ is not a root of a polynomial with rational coefficients, right?
How could we prove this? (Wondering)

That means that the first property of the above theorem is not satisfied. Do we conclude from that that $\mathbb{Q}[\pi]$ is not a field, and so $\mathbb{Q}[\pi]\subsetneqq \mathbb{Q}(\pi)$ ? (Wondering)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mathmari said:
Hey! :o

We have the following theorem:
Let $F$ be a field and $p(x)\in F[x]$ irreducible. Then there is a field $K$, of which $F$ is a subfield with the following properties:
  1. $\exists u\in K$ with $p(u)=0$, i.e., $p$ has a root in $K$.
  2. $K=F$


I want to show that $\mathbb{Q}[\pi]\subsetneqq \mathbb{Q}(\pi)$.

The elements of $\mathbb{Q}(\pi)$ are of the form $\frac{f(\pi)}{g(\pi)}$, where $f(\pi), g(\pi)\in \mathbb{Q}[\pi]$ and $g(\pi)\neq 0$.
The elements of $\mathbb{Q}[\pi]$ are the polynomials of $\pi$ with coefficients in $\mathbb{Q}$.
So, we have that $\mathbb{Q}[\pi]\subseteq \mathbb{Q}(\pi)$ for $g(\pi)=1$, right?

We have that $\pi$ is not a root of a polynomial with rational coefficients, right?
How could we prove this? (Wondering)

That means that the first property of the above theorem is not satisfied. Do we conclude from that that $\mathbb{Q}[\pi]$ is not a field, and so $\mathbb{Q}[\pi]\subsetneqq \mathbb{Q}(\pi)$ ? (Wondering)


Let $F=\mathbf Q$. Let $f:F[x]\to F[\pi]$ be the map which is identity on $F$ and sends $x$ to $\pi$. Using the transcendence of $\pi$ show that $f$ is a ring isomorphism. Then note that $F[x]\subsetneq F(x)$. This is because $x$ is not invertible in $F[x]$.
 
caffeinemachine said:
Let $F=\mathbf Q$. Let $f:F[x]\to F[\pi]$ be the map which is identity on $F$ and sends $x$ to $\pi$. Using the transcendence of $\pi$ show that $f$ is a ring isomorphism. Then note that $F[x]\subsetneq F(x)$. This is because $x$ is not invertible in $F[x]$.

$$f(a(x)+b(x))=f((a+b)(x))=(a+b)(\pi)=a(\pi)+b(\pi)=f(a(x))+f(b(x)) \\ f(a(x)\cdot b(x))=f((a\cdot b)(x))=(a\cdot b)(\pi)=a(\pi)\cdot b(\pi)=f(a(x))\cdot f(b(x))$$
So, $f$ is a ring homomorphism.

For all $c(\pi)=\sum_{i=0}^nq_i\pi^i \in F[\pi]$ we have that $c(\pi)=\sum_{i=0}^nq_i\pi^i =\sum_{i=0}^nf(q_i)f(x)^i =f(\sum_{i=0}^nq_ix^i)=:f(b(x))$.
So, $f$ is surjective.

If $f(a(x))=f(b(x))$ then we have that $a(\pi)=b(\pi)\Rightarrow (a-b)(\pi)=0$. SInce $\pi$ is transcedent we conclude that $a-b\equiv 0\Rightarrow a(x)=b(x)$.
So, $f$ is injective.

Therefore, $f$ is a ring isomorphism.

Is this correct? (Wondering)

How do we show that $x$ is not invertible in $F[x]$ ? (Wondering)
 
mathmari said:
$$f(a(x)+b(x))=f((a+b)(x))=(a+b)(\pi)=a(\pi)+b(\pi)=f(a(x))+f(b(x)) \\ f(a(x)\cdot b(x))=f((a\cdot b)(x))=(a\cdot b)(\pi)=a(\pi)\cdot b(\pi)=f(a(x))\cdot f(b(x))$$
So, $f$ is a ring homomorphism.

For all $c(\pi)=\sum_{i=0}^nq_i\pi^i \in F[\pi]$ we have that $c(\pi)=\sum_{i=0}^nq_i\pi^i =\sum_{i=0}^nf(q_i)f(x)^i =f(\sum_{i=0}^nq_ix^i)=:f(b(x))$.
So, $f$ is surjective.

If $f(a(x))=f(b(x))$ then we have that $a(\pi)=b(\pi)\Rightarrow (a-b)(\pi)=0$. SInce $\pi$ is transcedent we conclude that $a-b\equiv 0\Rightarrow a(x)=b(x)$.
So, $f$ is injective.

Therefore, $f$ is a ring isomorphism.

Is this correct? (Wondering)

How do we show that $x$ is not invertible in $F[x]$ ? (Wondering)
That's correct. To see $x$ is not invertible in $F[x]$, assume on the contrary that it is. Then we can find a polynomial $p(x)\in F[x]$ such that $xp(x)=1$. Now compare the degrees on both the sides.
 
caffeinemachine said:
To see $x$ is not invertible in $F[x]$, assume on the contrary that it is. Then we can find a polynomial $p(x)\in F[x]$ such that $xp(x)=1$. Now compare the degrees on both the sides.

We assume that $x$ is invertible in $F[x]$, so there is a polynomial $p(x)\in F[x]$ such that $xp(x)=1$.
We have that $\deg (xp(x))=\deg (1) \Rightarrow \deg (x)+\deg (p(x))=\deg (1) \Rightarrow 1+\deg (p(x))=0$, a contradiction, since $\deg (p(x))\geq 0$.
Is this correct? (Wondering)

Why did we need to show that $f$ is a ring isomorphism? (Wondering)
 
mathmari said:
We assume that $x$ is invertible in $F[x]$, so there is a polynomial $p(x)\in F[x]$ such that $xp(x)=1$.
We have that $\deg (xp(x))=\deg (1) \Rightarrow \deg (x)+\deg (p(x))=\deg (1) \Rightarrow 1+\deg (p(x))=0$, a contradiction, since $\deg (p(x))\geq 0$.
Is this correct? (Wondering)

Why did we need to show that $f$ is a ring isomorphism? (Wondering)
If $f:R\to S$ is a ring isomorphism between two rings, then an element $r\in R$ is invertible in $R$ iff $f(r)$ is invertible in $S$. Since $x$ is not invertible in $F[x]$, as you have just shown, we have $\pi$ is not invertible in $\mathbf Q[\pi]$. Is it clear now?
 
caffeinemachine said:
If $f:R\to S$ is a ring isomorphism between two rings, then an element $r\in R$ is invertible in $R$ iff $f(r)$ is invertible in $S$.

When an element $r\in R$ is invertible in $R$ then $\exists r^{-1} : rr^{-1}=1$.
Then $f(rr^{-1})=f(1) \Leftrightarrow f(r)f(r^{-1})=f(1) \Leftrightarrow f(r)(f(r))^{-1}=f(1)=$, since $f$ is an homomorphism.
Therefore, $f(r)$ is invertible in $S$.

Is this correct? (Wondering)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mathmari said:
When an element $r\in R$ is invertible in $R$ then $\exists r^{-1} : rr^{-1}=1$.
Then $f(rr^{-1})=f(1) \Leftrightarrow f(r)f(r^{-1})=f(1) \Leftrightarrow f(r)(f(r))^{-1}=f(1)=$, since $f$ is an homomorphism.
Therefore, $f(r)$ is invertible in $S$.

Is this correct? (Wondering)
Yes this is fine.
 
caffeinemachine said:
Yes this is fine.

Thank you very much! (Sun)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
1K
Replies
48
Views
5K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K