MHB The splitting field of f over F is also the splitting field of f also over E

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Field Splitting
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving that if K is the splitting field of a polynomial f over a field F, then K is also the splitting field of f over a larger field E, given that F is a subset of E. The user presents a breakdown of the polynomial f in terms of its roots and coefficients, demonstrating that since f remains in E[x], K must also be the splitting field over E. They conclude that K is equal to E[a_1, ..., a_n], where a_i are the roots of f, confirming that K serves as the splitting field over both F and E. The user seeks validation and potential improvements to their proof.
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

Let $F\subseteq E\subseteq K$ be consecutive field extensions and $f\in F[x]$ be non-constant.
I want to show that if $K$ is the splitting field of $f$ over $F$, then $K$ is the splitting field of $f$ also over $E$.

Since $K$ is the splitting field of $f$ over $F$, we have that $f(x) = c\prod (x-a_i)^{m_i}$, where $m_i$ are non-negative integers and $(x-a_i)\in K[x]$.
Since $F\subseteq E$ we have that $f\in E[x]$. Therefore, $K$ must be also the splitting field of $f$ also over $E$.

Is this correct? (Wondering)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I changed something... Since $K$ is the splitting field of $f$ over $F$, we have that $f(x) = c(x-a_1)\cdots (x-a_n)$, where $c\in F, a_1, \dots a_n\in K$ and $K=F[a_1, \dots , a_n]$.

Since $F\subseteq E$ we have that $f(x) = c\prod (x-a_i)^{m_i}\in E[x]$ and $F[a_1, \dots , a_n]\subseteq E[a_1, \dots , a_n] \Rightarrow K\subseteq E[a_1, \dots , a_n]$.

Since $E\subseteq K$ and $a_i\in K$ we have that $E[a_1, \dots , a_n]\subseteq K$.

Therefore, $K=E[a_1, \dots , a_n]$.

So, $K$ is the splitting field of $f$ also over $E$.
Is this correct? Could I improve something? (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 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K