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
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that the field of polynomials with rational coefficients, denoted as Q[π], is not a subset of the field of rational functions in π, Q(π). It is established that Q[π] consists of polynomials in π, while Q(π) includes rational functions of the form f(π)/g(π), where g(π) ≠ 0. The transcendence of π implies that it cannot be a root of any polynomial with rational coefficients, confirming that Q[π] is not a field and thus Q[π] ⊂neqq Q(π).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of field theory and polynomial rings.
  • Familiarity with transcendental numbers and their properties.
  • Knowledge of ring homomorphisms and isomorphisms.
  • Basic concepts of rational functions and their representations.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of transcendental numbers and their implications in field theory.
  • Learn about ring homomorphisms and isomorphisms in more depth.
  • Explore the concept of irreducible polynomials and their role in field extensions.
  • Investigate the differences between polynomial rings and rational function fields.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, particularly those specializing in algebra, field theory, and number theory, as well as students seeking to understand the relationship between polynomial and rational function fields.

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
957
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
984