Show that the degree $[K:F]$ is a prime number.
Let $K$ be a finite and normal extension of $F$ and suppose that the extension $K/F$ has no proper intermediate extension. Show that the degree $[K:F]$ is a prime number.
Do we consider the Galois group $text{Gal}(K/F)$ and that $[K:F]=|text{Gal}(K/F)|$ ?
Since the extension $K/F$ has no proper intermediate extension do we get that the Galois group has no proper subgroup? And that would mean that there is no $n$ such that $nmid |text{Gal}(K/F)|$ with $nneq 1$ an $nneq |text{Gal}(K/F)|$ ?
abstract-algebra extension-field
asked Nov 24 at 21:47
Mary Star
2,98782266
|
show 3 more comments
Let $K$ be a finite and normal extension of $F$ and suppose that the extension $K/F$ has no proper intermediate extension. Show that the degree $[K:F]$ is a prime number.
Do we consider the Galois group $text{Gal}(K/F)$ and that $[K:F]=|text{Gal}(K/F)|$ ?
Since the extension $K/F$ has no proper intermediate extension do we get that the Galois group has no proper subgroup? And that would mean that there is no $n$ such that $nmid |text{Gal}(K/F)|$ with $nneq 1$ an $nneq |text{Gal}(K/F)|$ ?
abstract-algebra extension-field
asked Nov 24 at 21:47
Mary Star
2,98782266
2
Yes ${}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}$
– DonAntonio
Nov 24 at 22:16
Can we consider the Gaois group because the extension is normal? @DonAntonio
– Mary Star
Nov 24 at 22:17
2
Yes, but I notice now that you didn't say anything about separable... But assuming you meant also separable, then yes: the extension is Galois and we can use directly the Galois group.
– DonAntonio
Nov 24 at 22:24
At the exercise statement it is not mentioned that it is separable. Can we just assume that? Or do we have to take cases? If the extension is not separable does the stamenet also hold? @DonAntonio
– Mary Star
Nov 24 at 22:47
1
@MaryStar Are you normally dealing with characteristic zero?
– Display Name
Nov 24 at 23:45
|
show 3 more comments
Let $K$ be a finite and normal extension of $F$ and suppose that the extension $K/F$ has no proper intermediate extension. Show that the degree $[K:F]$ is a prime number.
Do we consider the Galois group $text{Gal}(K/F)$ and that $[K:F]=|text{Gal}(K/F)|$ ?
Since the extension $K/F$ has no proper intermediate extension do we get that the Galois group has no proper subgroup? And that would mean that there is no $n$ such that $nmid |text{Gal}(K/F)|$ with $nneq 1$ an $nneq |text{Gal}(K/F)|$ ?
abstract-algebra extension-field
asked Nov 24 at 21:47
Mary Star
2,98782266
Let $K$ be a finite and normal extension of $F$ and suppose that the extension $K/F$ has no proper intermediate extension. Show that the degree $[K:F]$ is a prime number.
Do we consider the Galois group $text{Gal}(K/F)$ and that $[K:F]=|text{Gal}(K/F)|$ ?
Since the extension $K/F$ has no proper intermediate extension do we get that the Galois group has no proper subgroup? And that would mean that there is no $n$ such that $nmid |text{Gal}(K/F)|$ with $nneq 1$ an $nneq |text{Gal}(K/F)|$ ?
abstract-algebra extension-field
abstract-algebra extension-field
asked Nov 24 at 21:47
Mary Star
2,98782266
asked Nov 24 at 21:47
Mary Star
2,98782266
asked Nov 24 at 21:47
Mary Star
2,98782266
asked Nov 24 at 21:47
Mary Star
2,98782266
asked Nov 24 at 21:47
Mary Star
2,98782266
2,98782266
2
Yes ${}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}$
– DonAntonio
Nov 24 at 22:16
Can we consider the Gaois group because the extension is normal? @DonAntonio
– Mary Star
Nov 24 at 22:17
2
Yes, but I notice now that you didn't say anything about separable... But assuming you meant also separable, then yes: the extension is Galois and we can use directly the Galois group.
– DonAntonio
Nov 24 at 22:24
At the exercise statement it is not mentioned that it is separable. Can we just assume that? Or do we have to take cases? If the extension is not separable does the stamenet also hold? @DonAntonio
– Mary Star
Nov 24 at 22:47
1
@MaryStar Are you normally dealing with characteristic zero?
– Display Name
Nov 24 at 23:45
|
show 3 more comments
2
Yes ${}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}$
– DonAntonio
Nov 24 at 22:16
Can we consider the Gaois group because the extension is normal? @DonAntonio
– Mary Star
Nov 24 at 22:17
2
Yes, but I notice now that you didn't say anything about separable... But assuming you meant also separable, then yes: the extension is Galois and we can use directly the Galois group.
– DonAntonio
Nov 24 at 22:24
At the exercise statement it is not mentioned that it is separable. Can we just assume that? Or do we have to take cases? If the extension is not separable does the stamenet also hold? @DonAntonio
– Mary Star
Nov 24 at 22:47
1
@MaryStar Are you normally dealing with characteristic zero?
– Display Name
Nov 24 at 23:45
2
2
Yes ${}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}$
– DonAntonio
Nov 24 at 22:16
Yes ${}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}$
– DonAntonio
Nov 24 at 22:16
Can we consider the Gaois group because the extension is normal? @DonAntonio
– Mary Star
Nov 24 at 22:17
Can we consider the Gaois group because the extension is normal? @DonAntonio
– Mary Star
Nov 24 at 22:17
2
2
Yes, but I notice now that you didn't say anything about separable... But assuming you meant also separable, then yes: the extension is Galois and we can use directly the Galois group.
– DonAntonio
Nov 24 at 22:24
Yes, but I notice now that you didn't say anything about separable... But assuming you meant also separable, then yes: the extension is Galois and we can use directly the Galois group.
– DonAntonio
Nov 24 at 22:24
At the exercise statement it is not mentioned that it is separable. Can we just assume that? Or do we have to take cases? If the extension is not separable does the stamenet also hold? @DonAntonio
– Mary Star
Nov 24 at 22:47
At the exercise statement it is not mentioned that it is separable. Can we just assume that? Or do we have to take cases? If the extension is not separable does the stamenet also hold? @DonAntonio
– Mary Star
Nov 24 at 22:47
1
1
@MaryStar Are you normally dealing with characteristic zero?
– Display Name
Nov 24 at 23:45
@MaryStar Are you normally dealing with characteristic zero?
– Display Name
Nov 24 at 23:45
|
show 3 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
As the commenters pointed out, the possibility of inseparability adds a few extra twists.
If the extension $K/F$ is also assumed to be separable, then it is Galois. Furthermore, lack of intermediate fields is then equivalent to the Galois group not having non-trivial subgroups. That is easily seen to be equivalent to the Galois group being cyclic of prime order proving the claim in that case.
If the extension $K/F$ is not known to be separable, then we can proceed as follows.
Let $alphain Ksetminus F$ be arbitrary. Because there are no intermediate fields, you can deduce that $K=F(alpha)$. Let $m(x)in F[x]$ be the minimal polynomial of $alpha$ over $F$. If $m(x)$ is separable, then so is $K/F$ and we are back in the first case. Therefore we can deduce that $m(x)$ has multiple zeros, and the usual argument then shows that we must be in positive characteristic, say $p$, and that
$m'(x)=0$ implying that
$$
m(x)=x^{np}+a_{n-1}x^{(n-1)p}+cdots+a_1x^p+a_0.
$$
In other words $m(x)=f(x^p)$ for the polynomial $f(x)=x^n+sum_{i=0}^{n-1}a_ix^iin F[x]$.
Here obviously $f(alpha^p)=m(alpha)=0$. Therefore the minimal polynomial of $alpha^p$ is a factor of $f(x)$. But $f(x)$ is necessarily irreducible for if $f(x)=g(x)h(x)$ non-trivially then $m(x)=g(x^p)h(x^p)$ in violation of irreducibility of $m(x)$. So $f(x)$ must be the minimal polynomial of $alpha^p$.
Because $deg f(x)<deg m(x)=[K:F]$ we can deduce that $F(alpha^p)$ is a proper subfield of $K$.
The lack of intermediate fields means that $F(alpha^p)=F$. In other words, $alpha^p$ is an element of $F$. But this implies that the minimal polynomial of $alpha^p$ over $F$ is the linear polynomial $f(x)=x-alpha^p$. Therefore
$$m(x)=f(x^p)=x^p-alpha^p.$$
Hence $[K:F]=deg m(x)=p$. QED.
answered Nov 25 at 8:35
Jyrki Lahtonen
107k12166365
For the sake of completeness: in this thread we discuss the need for the normality assumption. As explained there, without normality there are field extensions of non-prime degree such that there are no intermediate fields.
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Nov 25 at 9:14
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3012127%2fshow-that-the-degree-kf-is-a-prime-number%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
As the commenters pointed out, the possibility of inseparability adds a few extra twists.
If the extension $K/F$ is also assumed to be separable, then it is Galois. Furthermore, lack of intermediate fields is then equivalent to the Galois group not having non-trivial subgroups. That is easily seen to be equivalent to the Galois group being cyclic of prime order proving the claim in that case.
If the extension $K/F$ is not known to be separable, then we can proceed as follows.
Let $alphain Ksetminus F$ be arbitrary. Because there are no intermediate fields, you can deduce that $K=F(alpha)$. Let $m(x)in F[x]$ be the minimal polynomial of $alpha$ over $F$. If $m(x)$ is separable, then so is $K/F$ and we are back in the first case. Therefore we can deduce that $m(x)$ has multiple zeros, and the usual argument then shows that we must be in positive characteristic, say $p$, and that
$m'(x)=0$ implying that
$$
m(x)=x^{np}+a_{n-1}x^{(n-1)p}+cdots+a_1x^p+a_0.
$$
In other words $m(x)=f(x^p)$ for the polynomial $f(x)=x^n+sum_{i=0}^{n-1}a_ix^iin F[x]$.
Here obviously $f(alpha^p)=m(alpha)=0$. Therefore the minimal polynomial of $alpha^p$ is a factor of $f(x)$. But $f(x)$ is necessarily irreducible for if $f(x)=g(x)h(x)$ non-trivially then $m(x)=g(x^p)h(x^p)$ in violation of irreducibility of $m(x)$. So $f(x)$ must be the minimal polynomial of $alpha^p$.
Because $deg f(x)<deg m(x)=[K:F]$ we can deduce that $F(alpha^p)$ is a proper subfield of $K$.
The lack of intermediate fields means that $F(alpha^p)=F$. In other words, $alpha^p$ is an element of $F$. But this implies that the minimal polynomial of $alpha^p$ over $F$ is the linear polynomial $f(x)=x-alpha^p$. Therefore
$$m(x)=f(x^p)=x^p-alpha^p.$$
Hence $[K:F]=deg m(x)=p$. QED.
answered Nov 25 at 8:35
Jyrki Lahtonen
107k12166365
For the sake of completeness: in this thread we discuss the need for the normality assumption. As explained there, without normality there are field extensions of non-prime degree such that there are no intermediate fields.
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Nov 25 at 9:14
add a comment |
As the commenters pointed out, the possibility of inseparability adds a few extra twists.
If the extension $K/F$ is also assumed to be separable, then it is Galois. Furthermore, lack of intermediate fields is then equivalent to the Galois group not having non-trivial subgroups. That is easily seen to be equivalent to the Galois group being cyclic of prime order proving the claim in that case.
If the extension $K/F$ is not known to be separable, then we can proceed as follows.
Let $alphain Ksetminus F$ be arbitrary. Because there are no intermediate fields, you can deduce that $K=F(alpha)$. Let $m(x)in F[x]$ be the minimal polynomial of $alpha$ over $F$. If $m(x)$ is separable, then so is $K/F$ and we are back in the first case. Therefore we can deduce that $m(x)$ has multiple zeros, and the usual argument then shows that we must be in positive characteristic, say $p$, and that
$m'(x)=0$ implying that
$$
m(x)=x^{np}+a_{n-1}x^{(n-1)p}+cdots+a_1x^p+a_0.
$$
In other words $m(x)=f(x^p)$ for the polynomial $f(x)=x^n+sum_{i=0}^{n-1}a_ix^iin F[x]$.
Here obviously $f(alpha^p)=m(alpha)=0$. Therefore the minimal polynomial of $alpha^p$ is a factor of $f(x)$. But $f(x)$ is necessarily irreducible for if $f(x)=g(x)h(x)$ non-trivially then $m(x)=g(x^p)h(x^p)$ in violation of irreducibility of $m(x)$. So $f(x)$ must be the minimal polynomial of $alpha^p$.
Because $deg f(x)<deg m(x)=[K:F]$ we can deduce that $F(alpha^p)$ is a proper subfield of $K$.
The lack of intermediate fields means that $F(alpha^p)=F$. In other words, $alpha^p$ is an element of $F$. But this implies that the minimal polynomial of $alpha^p$ over $F$ is the linear polynomial $f(x)=x-alpha^p$. Therefore
$$m(x)=f(x^p)=x^p-alpha^p.$$
Hence $[K:F]=deg m(x)=p$. QED.
answered Nov 25 at 8:35
Jyrki Lahtonen
107k12166365
For the sake of completeness: in this thread we discuss the need for the normality assumption. As explained there, without normality there are field extensions of non-prime degree such that there are no intermediate fields.
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Nov 25 at 9:14
add a comment |
As the commenters pointed out, the possibility of inseparability adds a few extra twists.
If the extension $K/F$ is also assumed to be separable, then it is Galois. Furthermore, lack of intermediate fields is then equivalent to the Galois group not having non-trivial subgroups. That is easily seen to be equivalent to the Galois group being cyclic of prime order proving the claim in that case.
If the extension $K/F$ is not known to be separable, then we can proceed as follows.
Let $alphain Ksetminus F$ be arbitrary. Because there are no intermediate fields, you can deduce that $K=F(alpha)$. Let $m(x)in F[x]$ be the minimal polynomial of $alpha$ over $F$. If $m(x)$ is separable, then so is $K/F$ and we are back in the first case. Therefore we can deduce that $m(x)$ has multiple zeros, and the usual argument then shows that we must be in positive characteristic, say $p$, and that
$m'(x)=0$ implying that
$$
m(x)=x^{np}+a_{n-1}x^{(n-1)p}+cdots+a_1x^p+a_0.
$$
In other words $m(x)=f(x^p)$ for the polynomial $f(x)=x^n+sum_{i=0}^{n-1}a_ix^iin F[x]$.
Here obviously $f(alpha^p)=m(alpha)=0$. Therefore the minimal polynomial of $alpha^p$ is a factor of $f(x)$. But $f(x)$ is necessarily irreducible for if $f(x)=g(x)h(x)$ non-trivially then $m(x)=g(x^p)h(x^p)$ in violation of irreducibility of $m(x)$. So $f(x)$ must be the minimal polynomial of $alpha^p$.
Because $deg f(x)<deg m(x)=[K:F]$ we can deduce that $F(alpha^p)$ is a proper subfield of $K$.
The lack of intermediate fields means that $F(alpha^p)=F$. In other words, $alpha^p$ is an element of $F$. But this implies that the minimal polynomial of $alpha^p$ over $F$ is the linear polynomial $f(x)=x-alpha^p$. Therefore
$$m(x)=f(x^p)=x^p-alpha^p.$$
Hence $[K:F]=deg m(x)=p$. QED.
answered Nov 25 at 8:35
Jyrki Lahtonen
107k12166365
As the commenters pointed out, the possibility of inseparability adds a few extra twists.
If the extension $K/F$ is also assumed to be separable, then it is Galois. Furthermore, lack of intermediate fields is then equivalent to the Galois group not having non-trivial subgroups. That is easily seen to be equivalent to the Galois group being cyclic of prime order proving the claim in that case.
If the extension $K/F$ is not known to be separable, then we can proceed as follows.
Let $alphain Ksetminus F$ be arbitrary. Because there are no intermediate fields, you can deduce that $K=F(alpha)$. Let $m(x)in F[x]$ be the minimal polynomial of $alpha$ over $F$. If $m(x)$ is separable, then so is $K/F$ and we are back in the first case. Therefore we can deduce that $m(x)$ has multiple zeros, and the usual argument then shows that we must be in positive characteristic, say $p$, and that
$m'(x)=0$ implying that
$$
m(x)=x^{np}+a_{n-1}x^{(n-1)p}+cdots+a_1x^p+a_0.
$$
In other words $m(x)=f(x^p)$ for the polynomial $f(x)=x^n+sum_{i=0}^{n-1}a_ix^iin F[x]$.
Here obviously $f(alpha^p)=m(alpha)=0$. Therefore the minimal polynomial of $alpha^p$ is a factor of $f(x)$. But $f(x)$ is necessarily irreducible for if $f(x)=g(x)h(x)$ non-trivially then $m(x)=g(x^p)h(x^p)$ in violation of irreducibility of $m(x)$. So $f(x)$ must be the minimal polynomial of $alpha^p$.
Because $deg f(x)<deg m(x)=[K:F]$ we can deduce that $F(alpha^p)$ is a proper subfield of $K$.
The lack of intermediate fields means that $F(alpha^p)=F$. In other words, $alpha^p$ is an element of $F$. But this implies that the minimal polynomial of $alpha^p$ over $F$ is the linear polynomial $f(x)=x-alpha^p$. Therefore
$$m(x)=f(x^p)=x^p-alpha^p.$$
Hence $[K:F]=deg m(x)=p$. QED.
answered Nov 25 at 8:35
Jyrki Lahtonen
107k12166365
answered Nov 25 at 8:35
Jyrki Lahtonen
107k12166365
answered Nov 25 at 8:35
Jyrki Lahtonen
107k12166365
answered Nov 25 at 8:35
Jyrki Lahtonen
107k12166365
107k12166365
For the sake of completeness: in this thread we discuss the need for the normality assumption. As explained there, without normality there are field extensions of non-prime degree such that there are no intermediate fields.
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Nov 25 at 9:14
add a comment |
For the sake of completeness: in this thread we discuss the need for the normality assumption. As explained there, without normality there are field extensions of non-prime degree such that there are no intermediate fields.
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Nov 25 at 9:14
For the sake of completeness: in this thread we discuss the need for the normality assumption. As explained there, without normality there are field extensions of non-prime degree such that there are no intermediate fields.
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Nov 25 at 9:14
For the sake of completeness: in this thread we discuss the need for the normality assumption. As explained there, without normality there are field extensions of non-prime degree such that there are no intermediate fields.
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Nov 25 at 9:14
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3012127%2fshow-that-the-degree-kf-is-a-prime-number%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
Yes ${}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}$
– DonAntonio
Nov 24 at 22:16
Can we consider the Gaois group because the extension is normal? @DonAntonio
– Mary Star
Nov 24 at 22:17
2
Yes, but I notice now that you didn't say anything about separable... But assuming you meant also separable, then yes: the extension is Galois and we can use directly the Galois group.
– DonAntonio
Nov 24 at 22:24
At the exercise statement it is not mentioned that it is separable. Can we just assume that? Or do we have to take cases? If the extension is not separable does the stamenet also hold? @DonAntonio
– Mary Star
Nov 24 at 22:47
1
@MaryStar Are you normally dealing with characteristic zero?
– Display Name
Nov 24 at 23:45