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