MHB Splitting Fields - Example 3 - D&F Section 13.4, pages 537 - 538

Click For Summary
In Example 3 of Section 13.4 from Dummit and Foote's Field Theory, the degree of the extension \( K \) over \( \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt[3]{2}) \) is determined to be exactly 2 because \( \sqrt{-3} \) is not in \( \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt[3]{2}) \). This indicates that the extension degree must be greater than 1. Additionally, since \( \sqrt{-3} \) satisfies the polynomial \( x^2 + 3 \), its minimal polynomial has a degree of at most 2. Consequently, the only possibility is that the degree of the extension is exactly 2, confirming that \( \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt[3]{2}) \) is not the splitting field. The discussion clarifies the reasoning behind the degree of the extension in this context.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Dummit and Foote, Chapter 13 - Field Theory.

I am currently studying Section 13.4 : Splitting Fields and Algebraic Closures ... ...

I need some help with an aspect of Example 3 of Section 13.4 ... ...

Example 3 reads as follows:
View attachment 6603
View attachment 6604
In the above text by Dummit and Foote, we read the following:

" ... ... Since $$\sqrt{ -3 }$$ satisfies the equation $$x^2 + 3 = 0$$ the degree of this extension over $$\mathbb{Q} ( \sqrt [3] {2} )$$ is at most $$2$$, hence must be $$2$$ since we observed above that $$\mathbb{Q} ( \sqrt [3] {2} ) $$ is not the splitting field ... ... "I do not understand why the degree of the extension $$K$$ over $$\mathbb{Q} ( \sqrt [3] {2} )$$ must be exactly $$2$$ ... ... why does $$\mathbb{Q} ( \sqrt [3] {2} )$$ not being the splitting field ensure this ... ... ?

Can someone please give a simple and complete explanation ...

Hope someone can help ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It could have been worded differently, but here is the point. Since $\sqrt{-3}\notin Q(\sqrt[3]{2}) := L$, then $[K:Q(\sqrt[3]{2})] = [L(\sqrt{-3}):L] > 1$. On the other hand, since $\sqrt{-3}$ is a root of $x^2 + 3$, its minimal polynomial has degree $\le 2$ and thus $[L(\sqrt{-3}):L] \le 2$. This forces $[L(\sqrt{-3}): L] = 2$, i.e., $[K:Q(\sqrt[3]{2})] = 2$.
 
Euge said:
It could have been worded differently, but here is the point. Since $\sqrt{-3}\notin Q(\sqrt[3]{2}) := L$, then $[K:Q(\sqrt[3]{2})] = [L(\sqrt{-3}):L] > 1$. On the other hand, since $\sqrt{-3}$ is a root of $x^2 + 3$, its minimal polynomial has degree $\le 2$ and thus $[L(\sqrt{-3}):L] \le 2$. This forces $[L(\sqrt{-3}): L] = 2$, i.e., $[K:Q(\sqrt[3]{2})] = 2$.
Thanks Euge ...

just now reflecting on what you have said ...

Peter
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K