MHB The extension is Galois iff H_i is a normal subgroup of H_{i-1}

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

Let $E/F$ be a finite Galois extension and let the chain of extensions $F =
K_0 \leq K_1 \leq \dots \leq K_n = E$.

Let $G = Gal(E/F)$ and, for $i = 0, 1, \dots , n$, let $H_i$ be the subgroup of $G$, that corresponds to $K_i$ through the Galois mapping.

I want to show that, for any $i \in \{1, \dots, n\}$ it holds that the extension $K_i/K_{i−1}$ is Galois iff $H_i \triangleleft H_{i−1}$.
In my notes there is the following proposition:

$E/F$ is finite Galois
View attachment 6156
where $G=\text{Gal}(E/F)$

$K/F$ is normal (and so Galois) iff $H\triangleleft G$ (normal subgroup).
In this case we have the following:
View attachment 6157
right? (Wondering)

Can we just apply the above proposition for each $K_i/K_{i-1}$ ? (Wondering)
 

Attachments

  • diag (2).PNG
    diag (2).PNG
    1.7 KB · Views: 95
  • diagg.png
    diagg.png
    1.9 KB · Views: 99
Physics news on Phys.org
mathmari said:
Can we just apply the above proposition for each $K_i/K_{i-1}$ ? (Wondering)
Or can we not just apply this proposition and we have to do something else? (Wondering)
 
##\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