Doubt in proof of “if $F$ is a real closed field then $F(sqrt{-1})$ is algebraically closed”.
$begingroup$
I am studying properties of real closed fields from Lectures in Abstract Algebra, Vol 3 by Nathan Jacobson. He proves the following theorem :
Theorem: Let $F$ be an ordered field such that positive members of $F$ have square root in $F$ and every polynomial of odd degree in $F[x] $ has a root in $F$. Then $-1$ has no square roots in $F$ and $F(sqrt{-1})$ is algebraically closed.
The key idea of the proof is by Gauss where it is shown that quadratic polynomials in $K[x] $ where $K=F(sqrt{-1})$ have roots in $K$ so that there is no extension $L$ of $K$ of degree $2$.
Jacobson next shows that if $f(x) in F[x] $ is of positive degree then $f$ has a root in $K$ (this is sufficient to prove that $K$ is algebraically closed). To do so he considers the polynomial $g(x) =(x^2+1)f(x)$ and its splitting field $E$ over $F$. Also it can be assumed that $Esupseteq K$. Further argument is based on studying the Galois group of $E$ over $F$ and it is deduced that $E$ of degree $2$ over $F$.
My doubt (which may be trivial) is over choice of polynomial $g(x) $. Why can't we instead study the splitting field of the polynomial $f(x)in F[x] $ itself? Is it only to justify the assumption $Esupseteq K$ or something else? Can we instead work without $g(x) $ and study the splitting field of polynomial $f(x) $ as a polynomial in $K[x] $?
abstract-algebra field-theory
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am studying properties of real closed fields from Lectures in Abstract Algebra, Vol 3 by Nathan Jacobson. He proves the following theorem :
Theorem: Let $F$ be an ordered field such that positive members of $F$ have square root in $F$ and every polynomial of odd degree in $F[x] $ has a root in $F$. Then $-1$ has no square roots in $F$ and $F(sqrt{-1})$ is algebraically closed.
The key idea of the proof is by Gauss where it is shown that quadratic polynomials in $K[x] $ where $K=F(sqrt{-1})$ have roots in $K$ so that there is no extension $L$ of $K$ of degree $2$.
Jacobson next shows that if $f(x) in F[x] $ is of positive degree then $f$ has a root in $K$ (this is sufficient to prove that $K$ is algebraically closed). To do so he considers the polynomial $g(x) =(x^2+1)f(x)$ and its splitting field $E$ over $F$. Also it can be assumed that $Esupseteq K$. Further argument is based on studying the Galois group of $E$ over $F$ and it is deduced that $E$ of degree $2$ over $F$.
My doubt (which may be trivial) is over choice of polynomial $g(x) $. Why can't we instead study the splitting field of the polynomial $f(x)in F[x] $ itself? Is it only to justify the assumption $Esupseteq K$ or something else? Can we instead work without $g(x) $ and study the splitting field of polynomial $f(x) $ as a polynomial in $K[x] $?
abstract-algebra field-theory
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am studying properties of real closed fields from Lectures in Abstract Algebra, Vol 3 by Nathan Jacobson. He proves the following theorem :
Theorem: Let $F$ be an ordered field such that positive members of $F$ have square root in $F$ and every polynomial of odd degree in $F[x] $ has a root in $F$. Then $-1$ has no square roots in $F$ and $F(sqrt{-1})$ is algebraically closed.
The key idea of the proof is by Gauss where it is shown that quadratic polynomials in $K[x] $ where $K=F(sqrt{-1})$ have roots in $K$ so that there is no extension $L$ of $K$ of degree $2$.
Jacobson next shows that if $f(x) in F[x] $ is of positive degree then $f$ has a root in $K$ (this is sufficient to prove that $K$ is algebraically closed). To do so he considers the polynomial $g(x) =(x^2+1)f(x)$ and its splitting field $E$ over $F$. Also it can be assumed that $Esupseteq K$. Further argument is based on studying the Galois group of $E$ over $F$ and it is deduced that $E$ of degree $2$ over $F$.
My doubt (which may be trivial) is over choice of polynomial $g(x) $. Why can't we instead study the splitting field of the polynomial $f(x)in F[x] $ itself? Is it only to justify the assumption $Esupseteq K$ or something else? Can we instead work without $g(x) $ and study the splitting field of polynomial $f(x) $ as a polynomial in $K[x] $?
abstract-algebra field-theory
$endgroup$
I am studying properties of real closed fields from Lectures in Abstract Algebra, Vol 3 by Nathan Jacobson. He proves the following theorem :
Theorem: Let $F$ be an ordered field such that positive members of $F$ have square root in $F$ and every polynomial of odd degree in $F[x] $ has a root in $F$. Then $-1$ has no square roots in $F$ and $F(sqrt{-1})$ is algebraically closed.
The key idea of the proof is by Gauss where it is shown that quadratic polynomials in $K[x] $ where $K=F(sqrt{-1})$ have roots in $K$ so that there is no extension $L$ of $K$ of degree $2$.
Jacobson next shows that if $f(x) in F[x] $ is of positive degree then $f$ has a root in $K$ (this is sufficient to prove that $K$ is algebraically closed). To do so he considers the polynomial $g(x) =(x^2+1)f(x)$ and its splitting field $E$ over $F$. Also it can be assumed that $Esupseteq K$. Further argument is based on studying the Galois group of $E$ over $F$ and it is deduced that $E$ of degree $2$ over $F$.
My doubt (which may be trivial) is over choice of polynomial $g(x) $. Why can't we instead study the splitting field of the polynomial $f(x)in F[x] $ itself? Is it only to justify the assumption $Esupseteq K$ or something else? Can we instead work without $g(x) $ and study the splitting field of polynomial $f(x) $ as a polynomial in $K[x] $?
abstract-algebra field-theory
abstract-algebra field-theory
edited Dec 17 '18 at 6:06
Paramanand Singh
asked Dec 17 '18 at 5:52
Paramanand SinghParamanand Singh
50.3k556163
50.3k556163
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I am almost positive that your hunch is correct. The extra factor $x^2+1$ is there simply to make sure that we can think of the splitting field as an extension of $K$.
A convenient way of including $sqrt{-1}$.
My copy of Jacobson's Basic Algebra I is in my office (IIRC published after Lectures in Abstract Algebra), so I cannot check whether he later edited the proof.
An alternative way of organizing the proof, based on exact same ideas, would be to take an irreducible polynomial $g(x)in K[x]$. Then consider the polynomial $f(x)=g(x)overline{g}(x)in F[x]$, where $zmapstooverline{z}$ is the obvious $F$-automorphism of $K$. Then proceed along the same route:
- Let $L$ be the splitting field of $f$ over $F$.
- Because $f$ is separable $L/F$ is Galois. Let $G$ be the Galois group, and let $Ple G$ be a Sylow $2$-subgroup.
- Let $M$ be the fixed field of $P$. Because $M/F$ is simple and $[M:F]$ is odd, we can conclude that we must have $M=F$ and, consequently $G=P$.
- Let $P_m={1}unlhd P_{m-1}unlhdcdotsunlhd P_2unlhd P_1unlhd P_0=P$ be the decomposition series. By basic properties of $p$-groups $[P_{i-1}:P_i]=2$ for all $i$.
- The fixed field of $P_1$ is a quadratic extension of $F$, and the quadratic formula shows that it is isomorphic to $K$. So we can identify it with $K$.
- The earlier lemma showed that $K$ has no quadratic extensions so $P_2$ cannot exist, implying that $Lsimeq_F K$.
The way the above outline reintroduces $K$ as the fixed field of $P_1$ is not very elegant. We should justify that this reintroduction doesn't meddle with the polynomial we started with! Proving that $[L:F]=2$ is one way, and there are probably alternative ways of making the desired conclusions, and I may have missed the simplest way. But having that extra factor $(x^2+1)$ takes care of such issues.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks Jyrki for prompting me to study this interesting topic! I feel relieved to know that my hunch is correct. +1 and accept.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
Dec 23 '18 at 12:23
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%2f3043579%2fdoubt-in-proof-of-if-f-is-a-real-closed-field-then-f-sqrt-1-is-algebrai%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
$begingroup$
I am almost positive that your hunch is correct. The extra factor $x^2+1$ is there simply to make sure that we can think of the splitting field as an extension of $K$.
A convenient way of including $sqrt{-1}$.
My copy of Jacobson's Basic Algebra I is in my office (IIRC published after Lectures in Abstract Algebra), so I cannot check whether he later edited the proof.
An alternative way of organizing the proof, based on exact same ideas, would be to take an irreducible polynomial $g(x)in K[x]$. Then consider the polynomial $f(x)=g(x)overline{g}(x)in F[x]$, where $zmapstooverline{z}$ is the obvious $F$-automorphism of $K$. Then proceed along the same route:
- Let $L$ be the splitting field of $f$ over $F$.
- Because $f$ is separable $L/F$ is Galois. Let $G$ be the Galois group, and let $Ple G$ be a Sylow $2$-subgroup.
- Let $M$ be the fixed field of $P$. Because $M/F$ is simple and $[M:F]$ is odd, we can conclude that we must have $M=F$ and, consequently $G=P$.
- Let $P_m={1}unlhd P_{m-1}unlhdcdotsunlhd P_2unlhd P_1unlhd P_0=P$ be the decomposition series. By basic properties of $p$-groups $[P_{i-1}:P_i]=2$ for all $i$.
- The fixed field of $P_1$ is a quadratic extension of $F$, and the quadratic formula shows that it is isomorphic to $K$. So we can identify it with $K$.
- The earlier lemma showed that $K$ has no quadratic extensions so $P_2$ cannot exist, implying that $Lsimeq_F K$.
The way the above outline reintroduces $K$ as the fixed field of $P_1$ is not very elegant. We should justify that this reintroduction doesn't meddle with the polynomial we started with! Proving that $[L:F]=2$ is one way, and there are probably alternative ways of making the desired conclusions, and I may have missed the simplest way. But having that extra factor $(x^2+1)$ takes care of such issues.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks Jyrki for prompting me to study this interesting topic! I feel relieved to know that my hunch is correct. +1 and accept.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
Dec 23 '18 at 12:23
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am almost positive that your hunch is correct. The extra factor $x^2+1$ is there simply to make sure that we can think of the splitting field as an extension of $K$.
A convenient way of including $sqrt{-1}$.
My copy of Jacobson's Basic Algebra I is in my office (IIRC published after Lectures in Abstract Algebra), so I cannot check whether he later edited the proof.
An alternative way of organizing the proof, based on exact same ideas, would be to take an irreducible polynomial $g(x)in K[x]$. Then consider the polynomial $f(x)=g(x)overline{g}(x)in F[x]$, where $zmapstooverline{z}$ is the obvious $F$-automorphism of $K$. Then proceed along the same route:
- Let $L$ be the splitting field of $f$ over $F$.
- Because $f$ is separable $L/F$ is Galois. Let $G$ be the Galois group, and let $Ple G$ be a Sylow $2$-subgroup.
- Let $M$ be the fixed field of $P$. Because $M/F$ is simple and $[M:F]$ is odd, we can conclude that we must have $M=F$ and, consequently $G=P$.
- Let $P_m={1}unlhd P_{m-1}unlhdcdotsunlhd P_2unlhd P_1unlhd P_0=P$ be the decomposition series. By basic properties of $p$-groups $[P_{i-1}:P_i]=2$ for all $i$.
- The fixed field of $P_1$ is a quadratic extension of $F$, and the quadratic formula shows that it is isomorphic to $K$. So we can identify it with $K$.
- The earlier lemma showed that $K$ has no quadratic extensions so $P_2$ cannot exist, implying that $Lsimeq_F K$.
The way the above outline reintroduces $K$ as the fixed field of $P_1$ is not very elegant. We should justify that this reintroduction doesn't meddle with the polynomial we started with! Proving that $[L:F]=2$ is one way, and there are probably alternative ways of making the desired conclusions, and I may have missed the simplest way. But having that extra factor $(x^2+1)$ takes care of such issues.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks Jyrki for prompting me to study this interesting topic! I feel relieved to know that my hunch is correct. +1 and accept.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
Dec 23 '18 at 12:23
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am almost positive that your hunch is correct. The extra factor $x^2+1$ is there simply to make sure that we can think of the splitting field as an extension of $K$.
A convenient way of including $sqrt{-1}$.
My copy of Jacobson's Basic Algebra I is in my office (IIRC published after Lectures in Abstract Algebra), so I cannot check whether he later edited the proof.
An alternative way of organizing the proof, based on exact same ideas, would be to take an irreducible polynomial $g(x)in K[x]$. Then consider the polynomial $f(x)=g(x)overline{g}(x)in F[x]$, where $zmapstooverline{z}$ is the obvious $F$-automorphism of $K$. Then proceed along the same route:
- Let $L$ be the splitting field of $f$ over $F$.
- Because $f$ is separable $L/F$ is Galois. Let $G$ be the Galois group, and let $Ple G$ be a Sylow $2$-subgroup.
- Let $M$ be the fixed field of $P$. Because $M/F$ is simple and $[M:F]$ is odd, we can conclude that we must have $M=F$ and, consequently $G=P$.
- Let $P_m={1}unlhd P_{m-1}unlhdcdotsunlhd P_2unlhd P_1unlhd P_0=P$ be the decomposition series. By basic properties of $p$-groups $[P_{i-1}:P_i]=2$ for all $i$.
- The fixed field of $P_1$ is a quadratic extension of $F$, and the quadratic formula shows that it is isomorphic to $K$. So we can identify it with $K$.
- The earlier lemma showed that $K$ has no quadratic extensions so $P_2$ cannot exist, implying that $Lsimeq_F K$.
The way the above outline reintroduces $K$ as the fixed field of $P_1$ is not very elegant. We should justify that this reintroduction doesn't meddle with the polynomial we started with! Proving that $[L:F]=2$ is one way, and there are probably alternative ways of making the desired conclusions, and I may have missed the simplest way. But having that extra factor $(x^2+1)$ takes care of such issues.
$endgroup$
I am almost positive that your hunch is correct. The extra factor $x^2+1$ is there simply to make sure that we can think of the splitting field as an extension of $K$.
A convenient way of including $sqrt{-1}$.
My copy of Jacobson's Basic Algebra I is in my office (IIRC published after Lectures in Abstract Algebra), so I cannot check whether he later edited the proof.
An alternative way of organizing the proof, based on exact same ideas, would be to take an irreducible polynomial $g(x)in K[x]$. Then consider the polynomial $f(x)=g(x)overline{g}(x)in F[x]$, where $zmapstooverline{z}$ is the obvious $F$-automorphism of $K$. Then proceed along the same route:
- Let $L$ be the splitting field of $f$ over $F$.
- Because $f$ is separable $L/F$ is Galois. Let $G$ be the Galois group, and let $Ple G$ be a Sylow $2$-subgroup.
- Let $M$ be the fixed field of $P$. Because $M/F$ is simple and $[M:F]$ is odd, we can conclude that we must have $M=F$ and, consequently $G=P$.
- Let $P_m={1}unlhd P_{m-1}unlhdcdotsunlhd P_2unlhd P_1unlhd P_0=P$ be the decomposition series. By basic properties of $p$-groups $[P_{i-1}:P_i]=2$ for all $i$.
- The fixed field of $P_1$ is a quadratic extension of $F$, and the quadratic formula shows that it is isomorphic to $K$. So we can identify it with $K$.
- The earlier lemma showed that $K$ has no quadratic extensions so $P_2$ cannot exist, implying that $Lsimeq_F K$.
The way the above outline reintroduces $K$ as the fixed field of $P_1$ is not very elegant. We should justify that this reintroduction doesn't meddle with the polynomial we started with! Proving that $[L:F]=2$ is one way, and there are probably alternative ways of making the desired conclusions, and I may have missed the simplest way. But having that extra factor $(x^2+1)$ takes care of such issues.
answered Dec 23 '18 at 11:50
Jyrki LahtonenJyrki Lahtonen
109k13169375
109k13169375
$begingroup$
Thanks Jyrki for prompting me to study this interesting topic! I feel relieved to know that my hunch is correct. +1 and accept.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
Dec 23 '18 at 12:23
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thanks Jyrki for prompting me to study this interesting topic! I feel relieved to know that my hunch is correct. +1 and accept.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
Dec 23 '18 at 12:23
$begingroup$
Thanks Jyrki for prompting me to study this interesting topic! I feel relieved to know that my hunch is correct. +1 and accept.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
Dec 23 '18 at 12:23
$begingroup$
Thanks Jyrki for prompting me to study this interesting topic! I feel relieved to know that my hunch is correct. +1 and accept.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
Dec 23 '18 at 12:23
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.
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%2f3043579%2fdoubt-in-proof-of-if-f-is-a-real-closed-field-then-f-sqrt-1-is-algebrai%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