MHB Splitting field does not seem to exist... :O

  • Thread starter Thread starter caffeinemachine
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Field Splitting
caffeinemachine
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
799
Reaction score
15
(Herstein Pg 222) DEFINITION: If $f(x) \in F[x]$, a finite extension $E$ of $F$ is said to be a splitting field over $F$ for $f(x)$ if over $E$(that is, in $E[x]$), but not over any proper sub-field of $E$, $f(x)$ can be factored as a product of linear factors.

Now here's my question. Take $p(x)=x^2-4 \in F[x]$, $F$ is the field of Complex Numbers. What is the splitting over $F$ for $p(x)$??

I would be tempted to say that $F$ itself is the splitting field over $F$ for $p(x)$. But then $\mathbb{R}$, the field of real numbers, would be a proper sub-field of $F$ in which $p(x)$ can be factored as a product of linear factors, viz, p(x)=(x-2)(x+2).

What have I missed?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Re: splitting field soes not seem to exist.. :O

there is a slight omission in the definition. recall that E is a splitting field over F.

that means that the proper subfields referenced in the definition, are to be understood as "sub-fields over F", that is, extensions K, F ≤ K < E.

since x2-4 splits in C, the splitting field of x2-4 over C, is C itself.
of course we can find smaller fields in which this polynomial splits. but since C already contains these smaller fields, we really aren't "extending anything".

for emphasis, the definition of a splitting field for a polynomial p(x) in F[x], depends on F.

for example, the splitting field of x2+1 over Q is Q(i), the gaussian rationals. the splitting field of x2+1 over R, is C, the complex numbers. these are *not* the same fields.

in other words, we are talking about a unique (up to isomorphism) extension of F, not a unique (up to isomorphism) field.
 
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 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K