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

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
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
Back
Top