MHB The extension is Galois iff E is a splitting field of a separable polynomial of F[x]

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

Let $E/F$ be a finite extension.
I want to show that this extension is Galois if and only if $E$ is a splitting field of a separable polynomial of $F[x]$. I have done the folllowing:

$\Rightarrow$ :
We suppose that $E/F$ is Galois. So, we have that the extension is normal and separable.
Since the extension is normal we have that $E$ is a splitting field of a polynomial $f\in F[x]$.
Let $p(x)$ be an irreducible factor of $f(x)$.
Let $a$ be a root of $p(x)$ then $a$ is also a root of $f(x)$, so $a\in E$.
We have that $p(x)=\lambda \text{Irr}(a,F), \lambda\in F$.
Since the extension $E/F$ is separable we have that for each element $e\in E$ the $\text{Irr}(e,F)$ is separable, so it has only simple roots.
So, $\text{Irr}(a,F)$ has only simple roots, so also $p(x)$, so $p(x)$ is separable.
We have that a polynomial is separable if each irreducible factor is separable. So, $f(x)$ is separable.
So, $E$ is a splitting field of a separable polynomial $f(x)$.

Is this direction correct? (Wondering) $\Leftarrow$ :
We suppose that $E$ is a splitting field of a separable polynomial of $F[x]$, say $f(x)$.
From that we conclude that the extension $E/F$ is normal. So, each irreducible polynomial of $F[x]$ that has a root in $E$, has all the roots in $E$.
Let $a\in E$ be a root of $f(x)$.
$\text{Irr}(a,F)$ is an irreducible factor of $f(x)$. Since $f(x)$ is separable, we have that $\text{Irr}(a,F)$ is also separable.
To show that the extension $E/F$ is separable we have to show that for each $e\in E$ the $\text{Irr}(e,F)$ is separable, right?
From what I have shown so far, we have that this holds only for those elements of $E$ that are a root of $f(x)$, or not? (Wondering)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
mathmari said:
Let $a\in E$ be a root of $f(x)$.
$\text{Irr}(a,F)$ is an irreducible factor of $f(x)$. Since $f(x)$ is separable, we have that $\text{Irr}(a,F)$ is also separable.
To show that the extension $E/F$ is separable we have to show that for each $e\in E$ the $\text{Irr}(e,F)$ is separable, right?
From what I have shown so far, we have that this holds only for those elements of $E$ that are a root of $f(x)$, or not? (Wondering)

I changed this part... Let $a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_n\in E$ be all the roots of $f(X)$. Then $E=F(a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_n)=F(a_1)(a_2)(a_3)\ldots(a_n)$.
We have that when $a$ is separable $/F$, then the extension $F(a)$ is separable $/F$.
Let $a_i\in \{a_1, a_2, \ldots , a_n\}$ with $1\leq i \leq n$.
We will show that the extension $F(a_1, a_2, \ldots , a_n)$ is separable $/F$ by induction on $i$.

Base case: For $i=1$ we have that $m(a_1, F)$ is an irreducible factor of $f(X)$. Since $f(X)$ is separable, we have that $m(a_1, F)$ is separable. So, $a_1$ is separable $/F$. Then the extension $F(a_1)$ is separable $/F$.
Inductive Hypothesis: We suppose that it holds for $i=k$, i.e., the extsnion $F(a_1, \ldots , a_k)$ is separable $/F$.
Inductive step: We will show that it holds for $i=k+1$, i.e., that the extension $F(a_1, \ldots , a_{k+1})$ is separable $/F$. We have that $F(a_1, \ldots , a_{k+1})=F(a_1, \ldots , a_k)(a_{k+1})$. We have the extensions $$F\leq F(a_1, \ldots , a_k)\leq F(a_1, \ldots , a_k)(a_{k+1})$$
We have that $m(a_{k+1}, F(a_1, \ldots , a_k))$ is an irreducible factor of $f(X)\in F[X]\leq F(a_1, \ldots , a_k)[X]$. Since $f(X)$ is separable, we have that $m(a_{k+1}, F(a_1, \ldots , a_k))$is also separable. So, $a_{k+1}$ is separable $/F(a_1, \ldots , a_k)$. Then the extension $F(a_1, \ldots , a_k)(a_{k+1})$is separable $/F(a_1, \ldots , a_k)$.
From the inductive hypothesis we have that the extension $F(a_1, \ldots , a_k)$ is separable $/F$.
Therefore, the extension $F(a_1, \ldots , a_k)( a_{k+1})$ is separable $/F$.

So, the extension $E/F=F(a_1, a_2, \ldots , a_n)/F$ is separable.
Therefore, the extension $E/F$ is Galois. Is it correct now? Could I improve something? (Wondering)

Is the induction correct? (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 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K