MHB Show that the mapping is surjective

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

I am looking at the following exercise:
Let $C$ be an algebraic closure of $F$, let $f\in F[x]$ be irreducible and let $a,b\in C$ be roots of $f$.

Applying the theorem:
"If $E$ is an algebraic extension of $F$, $C$ is an algebraic closure of $F$, and $i$ is an embedding (that is, a monomorphism) of $F$ into $C$, then $i$ can be extended to an embedding of $E$ into $C$. "

show that there is a $F$-monomorphism $\tau :C\hookrightarrow C$, that maps $a$ to $b$ and how then that $\tau$ is onto, so it is an automorphism of $C$. I have done the following:

We have that $C$ is an algebraic closure of $F$ and $a$ and $b$ are elements of $C$, so $C$ is also an algebraic closure of $F[a]$ and $F$.
Then we have the algebraic extensions $C\leq F[a]$ and $C\leq F$.
Since $F[a]$ and $F$ are subfields of $C$, there are the field monomorphisms $\tau_{a}: F[a]\rightarrow C$ and $\tau_{b}: F\rightarrow C$.
We have that $f\in F[X]$ is irreducible, then there is a field that contains $F$, in which $f(X)$ has a root.
This field is $K=F[X]/\langle f(X)\rangle$.
We have that $K=F[a]$ and $K=F$.
So, we have that $F[X]/\langle f(X)\rangle=F[a]$ and $F[X]/\langle f(X)\rangle=F$.
Therefore, we have the field monomorpshims $\tau_{a}: F[X]/\langle f(X)\rangle\rightarrow C$ with $\tau_{a}(g(X))=a$ and $\tau_{b}: F[X]/\langle f(X)\rangle\rightarrow C$ with $\tau_{b}(g(X))=b$.
Applying the above theorem with $E:=C$ and $F:=F[X]/\langle f(X)\rangle$, we have the monomorphism $\tau : C\rightarrow C$ with $\tau \circ \tau_{a}=\tau_{b}$.
So, $\tau ( \tau_{a}(g(X)))=\tau_{b}(g(X)) \Rightarrow \tau ( a)=b$.

Is this correct? (Wondering) From $\tau:C\rightarrow C$ we have that $\tau (C)\subseteq C$.
We have that $F\leq C\Rightarrow \tau (F)\subseteq \tau (C)$.
Since $\tau$ is a $F$-monomoprhism, do we have that $\tau (F)=F$ ? (Wondering)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
We have that $\tau :C\rightarrow C$ maps $a$ to $b$. Since $F\subseteq C$ and $a,b\notin F$, we have that $\tau (f)=f, \forall f\in F$, or not? (Wondering)
So, $\tau (F)=F$.
Is this correct? (Wondering)
 
Do we have that $\tau (C)$ is algebraically closed? If so, why? (Wondering)
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
410
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
840
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K