Proving a theorem in Galois Theory in a strange manner. Is the following proof valid?












1












$begingroup$


Theorem: Let $L:K$ be a finite extension inside $mathbb{C}$, such that the fixed field of $G = Gal(L:K)$ is $K$. Then $L:K$ is normal.



Proof: Let $m$ be any irreducible polynomial over $K$ with a zero $x$ in $L$.
Since the extension is finite, so is the order of $G$. Consider now $G(x) =$ {$g(x) : g in G$}.





We show that any $g' in G$ permutes the elements in $G(x)$.



Write $G(x)=$ {$x_1, ..., x_n$}. Let $g' in G$ and without loss of generality put $g'(x) = g_1(x) = x_1$. There exist $g_2, ..., g_n in G$ such that $g_i(x) = x_i$. So that we have {$g_1, ..., g_n$}$subseteq G$ with $G(x) =$ {$g_1(x), ..., g_n(x)$}. Define an operation on $G(x)$ by



$$x_i cdot x_j = g_i(x) cdot g_j(x) = g_ig_j(x)$$



$G(x)$ forms a group under such operation:



Closure: $x_i cdot x_j = g_ig_j(x) in G(x)$



Identity: $x in G(x)$, thus $g_r(x) = x$ for some $r$. Therefore for any $x_i in G(x)$, we have $x_i cdot x_r = g_ig_r(x) = g_i(x) = x_i$. Similarly $x_r cdot x_i = x_i$ for any $x_i in G(x)$.



Inverses: for all $x_i in G(x)$, we have $g_i^{-1}(x) = g_j(x) in G(x)$. So that $x_i cdot x_j = g_ig_j(x) = x$. Similarly $x_j cdot x_i = x$.



Associativity: $(x_a cdot x_b) cdot x_c = g_ag_b(x) cdot g_c(x) = g_ag_bg_c(x) = g_a(x) cdot g_bg_c(x) = x_a cdot (x_b cdot x_c)$.



By standard Group Theory $g' = g_1$ permutes $G(x)$.





Now let $p(t) = (t-x_1)...(t-x_n)$. Since any element $g in G$ permutes {$x_1, ..., x_n$}, we have $g(p(t)) = p(t)$ for all $g in G$, and thus $p(t) in G_0[t]$ where $G_0$ is the fixed field of $G$. But such field is $K$, therefore $p(t) in K[t]$. Now $m$ divides $p$ in $K[t]$, so that $p = qm$. All the zeroes of $m$ are then in $G(x)$, but $G(x) subseteq L$, thus $m$ splits in $L$.





Is the proof above correct?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @DonAntonio. Please notice that $x_i cdot x_j$ does not mean $x_i$ multiplied by $x_j$. It is instead defined to mean $g_ig_j(x)$.
    $endgroup$
    – Leo
    Dec 23 '18 at 17:19












  • $begingroup$
    Ah, I completely oversaw that piece of info. Thanks.
    $endgroup$
    – DonAntonio
    Dec 23 '18 at 18:09
















1












$begingroup$


Theorem: Let $L:K$ be a finite extension inside $mathbb{C}$, such that the fixed field of $G = Gal(L:K)$ is $K$. Then $L:K$ is normal.



Proof: Let $m$ be any irreducible polynomial over $K$ with a zero $x$ in $L$.
Since the extension is finite, so is the order of $G$. Consider now $G(x) =$ {$g(x) : g in G$}.





We show that any $g' in G$ permutes the elements in $G(x)$.



Write $G(x)=$ {$x_1, ..., x_n$}. Let $g' in G$ and without loss of generality put $g'(x) = g_1(x) = x_1$. There exist $g_2, ..., g_n in G$ such that $g_i(x) = x_i$. So that we have {$g_1, ..., g_n$}$subseteq G$ with $G(x) =$ {$g_1(x), ..., g_n(x)$}. Define an operation on $G(x)$ by



$$x_i cdot x_j = g_i(x) cdot g_j(x) = g_ig_j(x)$$



$G(x)$ forms a group under such operation:



Closure: $x_i cdot x_j = g_ig_j(x) in G(x)$



Identity: $x in G(x)$, thus $g_r(x) = x$ for some $r$. Therefore for any $x_i in G(x)$, we have $x_i cdot x_r = g_ig_r(x) = g_i(x) = x_i$. Similarly $x_r cdot x_i = x_i$ for any $x_i in G(x)$.



Inverses: for all $x_i in G(x)$, we have $g_i^{-1}(x) = g_j(x) in G(x)$. So that $x_i cdot x_j = g_ig_j(x) = x$. Similarly $x_j cdot x_i = x$.



Associativity: $(x_a cdot x_b) cdot x_c = g_ag_b(x) cdot g_c(x) = g_ag_bg_c(x) = g_a(x) cdot g_bg_c(x) = x_a cdot (x_b cdot x_c)$.



By standard Group Theory $g' = g_1$ permutes $G(x)$.





Now let $p(t) = (t-x_1)...(t-x_n)$. Since any element $g in G$ permutes {$x_1, ..., x_n$}, we have $g(p(t)) = p(t)$ for all $g in G$, and thus $p(t) in G_0[t]$ where $G_0$ is the fixed field of $G$. But such field is $K$, therefore $p(t) in K[t]$. Now $m$ divides $p$ in $K[t]$, so that $p = qm$. All the zeroes of $m$ are then in $G(x)$, but $G(x) subseteq L$, thus $m$ splits in $L$.





Is the proof above correct?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @DonAntonio. Please notice that $x_i cdot x_j$ does not mean $x_i$ multiplied by $x_j$. It is instead defined to mean $g_ig_j(x)$.
    $endgroup$
    – Leo
    Dec 23 '18 at 17:19












  • $begingroup$
    Ah, I completely oversaw that piece of info. Thanks.
    $endgroup$
    – DonAntonio
    Dec 23 '18 at 18:09














1












1








1





$begingroup$


Theorem: Let $L:K$ be a finite extension inside $mathbb{C}$, such that the fixed field of $G = Gal(L:K)$ is $K$. Then $L:K$ is normal.



Proof: Let $m$ be any irreducible polynomial over $K$ with a zero $x$ in $L$.
Since the extension is finite, so is the order of $G$. Consider now $G(x) =$ {$g(x) : g in G$}.





We show that any $g' in G$ permutes the elements in $G(x)$.



Write $G(x)=$ {$x_1, ..., x_n$}. Let $g' in G$ and without loss of generality put $g'(x) = g_1(x) = x_1$. There exist $g_2, ..., g_n in G$ such that $g_i(x) = x_i$. So that we have {$g_1, ..., g_n$}$subseteq G$ with $G(x) =$ {$g_1(x), ..., g_n(x)$}. Define an operation on $G(x)$ by



$$x_i cdot x_j = g_i(x) cdot g_j(x) = g_ig_j(x)$$



$G(x)$ forms a group under such operation:



Closure: $x_i cdot x_j = g_ig_j(x) in G(x)$



Identity: $x in G(x)$, thus $g_r(x) = x$ for some $r$. Therefore for any $x_i in G(x)$, we have $x_i cdot x_r = g_ig_r(x) = g_i(x) = x_i$. Similarly $x_r cdot x_i = x_i$ for any $x_i in G(x)$.



Inverses: for all $x_i in G(x)$, we have $g_i^{-1}(x) = g_j(x) in G(x)$. So that $x_i cdot x_j = g_ig_j(x) = x$. Similarly $x_j cdot x_i = x$.



Associativity: $(x_a cdot x_b) cdot x_c = g_ag_b(x) cdot g_c(x) = g_ag_bg_c(x) = g_a(x) cdot g_bg_c(x) = x_a cdot (x_b cdot x_c)$.



By standard Group Theory $g' = g_1$ permutes $G(x)$.





Now let $p(t) = (t-x_1)...(t-x_n)$. Since any element $g in G$ permutes {$x_1, ..., x_n$}, we have $g(p(t)) = p(t)$ for all $g in G$, and thus $p(t) in G_0[t]$ where $G_0$ is the fixed field of $G$. But such field is $K$, therefore $p(t) in K[t]$. Now $m$ divides $p$ in $K[t]$, so that $p = qm$. All the zeroes of $m$ are then in $G(x)$, but $G(x) subseteq L$, thus $m$ splits in $L$.





Is the proof above correct?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Theorem: Let $L:K$ be a finite extension inside $mathbb{C}$, such that the fixed field of $G = Gal(L:K)$ is $K$. Then $L:K$ is normal.



Proof: Let $m$ be any irreducible polynomial over $K$ with a zero $x$ in $L$.
Since the extension is finite, so is the order of $G$. Consider now $G(x) =$ {$g(x) : g in G$}.





We show that any $g' in G$ permutes the elements in $G(x)$.



Write $G(x)=$ {$x_1, ..., x_n$}. Let $g' in G$ and without loss of generality put $g'(x) = g_1(x) = x_1$. There exist $g_2, ..., g_n in G$ such that $g_i(x) = x_i$. So that we have {$g_1, ..., g_n$}$subseteq G$ with $G(x) =$ {$g_1(x), ..., g_n(x)$}. Define an operation on $G(x)$ by



$$x_i cdot x_j = g_i(x) cdot g_j(x) = g_ig_j(x)$$



$G(x)$ forms a group under such operation:



Closure: $x_i cdot x_j = g_ig_j(x) in G(x)$



Identity: $x in G(x)$, thus $g_r(x) = x$ for some $r$. Therefore for any $x_i in G(x)$, we have $x_i cdot x_r = g_ig_r(x) = g_i(x) = x_i$. Similarly $x_r cdot x_i = x_i$ for any $x_i in G(x)$.



Inverses: for all $x_i in G(x)$, we have $g_i^{-1}(x) = g_j(x) in G(x)$. So that $x_i cdot x_j = g_ig_j(x) = x$. Similarly $x_j cdot x_i = x$.



Associativity: $(x_a cdot x_b) cdot x_c = g_ag_b(x) cdot g_c(x) = g_ag_bg_c(x) = g_a(x) cdot g_bg_c(x) = x_a cdot (x_b cdot x_c)$.



By standard Group Theory $g' = g_1$ permutes $G(x)$.





Now let $p(t) = (t-x_1)...(t-x_n)$. Since any element $g in G$ permutes {$x_1, ..., x_n$}, we have $g(p(t)) = p(t)$ for all $g in G$, and thus $p(t) in G_0[t]$ where $G_0$ is the fixed field of $G$. But such field is $K$, therefore $p(t) in K[t]$. Now $m$ divides $p$ in $K[t]$, so that $p = qm$. All the zeroes of $m$ are then in $G(x)$, but $G(x) subseteq L$, thus $m$ splits in $L$.





Is the proof above correct?







abstract-algebra group-theory proof-verification field-theory galois-theory






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 23 '18 at 17:20







Leo

















asked Dec 23 '18 at 16:48









LeoLeo

783517




783517








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @DonAntonio. Please notice that $x_i cdot x_j$ does not mean $x_i$ multiplied by $x_j$. It is instead defined to mean $g_ig_j(x)$.
    $endgroup$
    – Leo
    Dec 23 '18 at 17:19












  • $begingroup$
    Ah, I completely oversaw that piece of info. Thanks.
    $endgroup$
    – DonAntonio
    Dec 23 '18 at 18:09














  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @DonAntonio. Please notice that $x_i cdot x_j$ does not mean $x_i$ multiplied by $x_j$. It is instead defined to mean $g_ig_j(x)$.
    $endgroup$
    – Leo
    Dec 23 '18 at 17:19












  • $begingroup$
    Ah, I completely oversaw that piece of info. Thanks.
    $endgroup$
    – DonAntonio
    Dec 23 '18 at 18:09








2




2




$begingroup$
@DonAntonio. Please notice that $x_i cdot x_j$ does not mean $x_i$ multiplied by $x_j$. It is instead defined to mean $g_ig_j(x)$.
$endgroup$
– Leo
Dec 23 '18 at 17:19






$begingroup$
@DonAntonio. Please notice that $x_i cdot x_j$ does not mean $x_i$ multiplied by $x_j$. It is instead defined to mean $g_ig_j(x)$.
$endgroup$
– Leo
Dec 23 '18 at 17:19














$begingroup$
Ah, I completely oversaw that piece of info. Thanks.
$endgroup$
– DonAntonio
Dec 23 '18 at 18:09




$begingroup$
Ah, I completely oversaw that piece of info. Thanks.
$endgroup$
– DonAntonio
Dec 23 '18 at 18:09










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

It's not generally true that the selected subset of $G$, ${g_1,ldots,g_n}$ forms a group. You're trying to argue that a transitive group action induces a group structure on a set, which is not true in general. For example, how does $S_n$ acting on ${1,ldots,n}$ induce a group structure on ${1,ldots,n}$?



Thus your proofs of existence of identity and inverses fail in general, because it's not clear (indeed, it isn't true generally) that $g_ig_j$ will equal the element of $G$ that you've selected that sends $x$ to $g_ig_j(x)$. Thus $x_r cdot x_i = (g_rg_i)xne g_ix=x_i$ generally for identity. There is a similar problem in your proof of the existence of inverses. We have $g_i^{-1}x=x_j$ for some $j$. That gets you $x_icdot x_j = g_i(g_j x) = g_i(g_i^{-1}x)=x=x_r$. However $x_jx_i = g_jg_i x$, and all you know is that $g_ig_jx=x$, not that $g_jg_ix=x$.



That said, it should be clear that any element of $G$ permutes the elements of $G(x)$ without all of what you wrote, since for any $gxin G(x)$ and $g'in G$, $g'(gx)=(g'g)xin G(x)$. The rest looks correct to me.



Edit



While what you want to do doesn't work in general, there is a special case in which it does. If $G$ acts transitively and freely on a set $X$, then you can put a group structure on $X$ making it isomorphic to $G$ by choosing a special element $xin X$ in essentially the way you are trying to do here. See here for more info.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    You might be right, though I would like you to elaborate a bit since I´m not completely following. To be clear, I´m not claiming that $g_ig_j in $ {$g_1, ..., g_n$}. I´m merely claiming that $g_ig_j(x) in G(x)$, which follows from the fact that $g_ig_j = g_k in G$ and $g_k(x) in G(x)$.
    $endgroup$
    – Leo
    Dec 23 '18 at 17:34






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Leo Oh indeed, sorry, then in that case, closure follows by definition, you'll have problems with other axioms though, like identity. You just asserted that $x_rcdot x_i = x_i$, but $x_rcdot x_i=(g_rg_i)x ne g_ig_r x=g_ix$ necessarily.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Dec 23 '18 at 17:36










  • $begingroup$
    Ah, you would be correct there. Just out of curiosity, could I fix the proof by allowing $g_r = id$ where $id$ is the identity automorphism in $G$?
    $endgroup$
    – Leo
    Dec 23 '18 at 17:39








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Leo no, a similar problem arises with trying to define inverses. I've now edited to fix my answer. Since $S_n$ arises as a Galois group, it might be interesting to think about why $S_n$ doesn't induce a group structure on ${1,ldots,n}$ as I mention in my first paragraph.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Dec 23 '18 at 17:41








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Because $g$ acts injectively on the whole field, so the cardinality of $gG(x)$ is the same as the cardinality of $G(x)$. Since $gG(x)subseteq G(x)$ and $G(x)$ is finite, this implies that they are equal.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Dec 23 '18 at 18:33











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
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3050480%2fproving-a-theorem-in-galois-theory-in-a-strange-manner-is-the-following-proof-v%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









2












$begingroup$

It's not generally true that the selected subset of $G$, ${g_1,ldots,g_n}$ forms a group. You're trying to argue that a transitive group action induces a group structure on a set, which is not true in general. For example, how does $S_n$ acting on ${1,ldots,n}$ induce a group structure on ${1,ldots,n}$?



Thus your proofs of existence of identity and inverses fail in general, because it's not clear (indeed, it isn't true generally) that $g_ig_j$ will equal the element of $G$ that you've selected that sends $x$ to $g_ig_j(x)$. Thus $x_r cdot x_i = (g_rg_i)xne g_ix=x_i$ generally for identity. There is a similar problem in your proof of the existence of inverses. We have $g_i^{-1}x=x_j$ for some $j$. That gets you $x_icdot x_j = g_i(g_j x) = g_i(g_i^{-1}x)=x=x_r$. However $x_jx_i = g_jg_i x$, and all you know is that $g_ig_jx=x$, not that $g_jg_ix=x$.



That said, it should be clear that any element of $G$ permutes the elements of $G(x)$ without all of what you wrote, since for any $gxin G(x)$ and $g'in G$, $g'(gx)=(g'g)xin G(x)$. The rest looks correct to me.



Edit



While what you want to do doesn't work in general, there is a special case in which it does. If $G$ acts transitively and freely on a set $X$, then you can put a group structure on $X$ making it isomorphic to $G$ by choosing a special element $xin X$ in essentially the way you are trying to do here. See here for more info.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    You might be right, though I would like you to elaborate a bit since I´m not completely following. To be clear, I´m not claiming that $g_ig_j in $ {$g_1, ..., g_n$}. I´m merely claiming that $g_ig_j(x) in G(x)$, which follows from the fact that $g_ig_j = g_k in G$ and $g_k(x) in G(x)$.
    $endgroup$
    – Leo
    Dec 23 '18 at 17:34






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Leo Oh indeed, sorry, then in that case, closure follows by definition, you'll have problems with other axioms though, like identity. You just asserted that $x_rcdot x_i = x_i$, but $x_rcdot x_i=(g_rg_i)x ne g_ig_r x=g_ix$ necessarily.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Dec 23 '18 at 17:36










  • $begingroup$
    Ah, you would be correct there. Just out of curiosity, could I fix the proof by allowing $g_r = id$ where $id$ is the identity automorphism in $G$?
    $endgroup$
    – Leo
    Dec 23 '18 at 17:39








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Leo no, a similar problem arises with trying to define inverses. I've now edited to fix my answer. Since $S_n$ arises as a Galois group, it might be interesting to think about why $S_n$ doesn't induce a group structure on ${1,ldots,n}$ as I mention in my first paragraph.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Dec 23 '18 at 17:41








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Because $g$ acts injectively on the whole field, so the cardinality of $gG(x)$ is the same as the cardinality of $G(x)$. Since $gG(x)subseteq G(x)$ and $G(x)$ is finite, this implies that they are equal.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Dec 23 '18 at 18:33
















2












$begingroup$

It's not generally true that the selected subset of $G$, ${g_1,ldots,g_n}$ forms a group. You're trying to argue that a transitive group action induces a group structure on a set, which is not true in general. For example, how does $S_n$ acting on ${1,ldots,n}$ induce a group structure on ${1,ldots,n}$?



Thus your proofs of existence of identity and inverses fail in general, because it's not clear (indeed, it isn't true generally) that $g_ig_j$ will equal the element of $G$ that you've selected that sends $x$ to $g_ig_j(x)$. Thus $x_r cdot x_i = (g_rg_i)xne g_ix=x_i$ generally for identity. There is a similar problem in your proof of the existence of inverses. We have $g_i^{-1}x=x_j$ for some $j$. That gets you $x_icdot x_j = g_i(g_j x) = g_i(g_i^{-1}x)=x=x_r$. However $x_jx_i = g_jg_i x$, and all you know is that $g_ig_jx=x$, not that $g_jg_ix=x$.



That said, it should be clear that any element of $G$ permutes the elements of $G(x)$ without all of what you wrote, since for any $gxin G(x)$ and $g'in G$, $g'(gx)=(g'g)xin G(x)$. The rest looks correct to me.



Edit



While what you want to do doesn't work in general, there is a special case in which it does. If $G$ acts transitively and freely on a set $X$, then you can put a group structure on $X$ making it isomorphic to $G$ by choosing a special element $xin X$ in essentially the way you are trying to do here. See here for more info.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    You might be right, though I would like you to elaborate a bit since I´m not completely following. To be clear, I´m not claiming that $g_ig_j in $ {$g_1, ..., g_n$}. I´m merely claiming that $g_ig_j(x) in G(x)$, which follows from the fact that $g_ig_j = g_k in G$ and $g_k(x) in G(x)$.
    $endgroup$
    – Leo
    Dec 23 '18 at 17:34






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Leo Oh indeed, sorry, then in that case, closure follows by definition, you'll have problems with other axioms though, like identity. You just asserted that $x_rcdot x_i = x_i$, but $x_rcdot x_i=(g_rg_i)x ne g_ig_r x=g_ix$ necessarily.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Dec 23 '18 at 17:36










  • $begingroup$
    Ah, you would be correct there. Just out of curiosity, could I fix the proof by allowing $g_r = id$ where $id$ is the identity automorphism in $G$?
    $endgroup$
    – Leo
    Dec 23 '18 at 17:39








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Leo no, a similar problem arises with trying to define inverses. I've now edited to fix my answer. Since $S_n$ arises as a Galois group, it might be interesting to think about why $S_n$ doesn't induce a group structure on ${1,ldots,n}$ as I mention in my first paragraph.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Dec 23 '18 at 17:41








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Because $g$ acts injectively on the whole field, so the cardinality of $gG(x)$ is the same as the cardinality of $G(x)$. Since $gG(x)subseteq G(x)$ and $G(x)$ is finite, this implies that they are equal.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Dec 23 '18 at 18:33














2












2








2





$begingroup$

It's not generally true that the selected subset of $G$, ${g_1,ldots,g_n}$ forms a group. You're trying to argue that a transitive group action induces a group structure on a set, which is not true in general. For example, how does $S_n$ acting on ${1,ldots,n}$ induce a group structure on ${1,ldots,n}$?



Thus your proofs of existence of identity and inverses fail in general, because it's not clear (indeed, it isn't true generally) that $g_ig_j$ will equal the element of $G$ that you've selected that sends $x$ to $g_ig_j(x)$. Thus $x_r cdot x_i = (g_rg_i)xne g_ix=x_i$ generally for identity. There is a similar problem in your proof of the existence of inverses. We have $g_i^{-1}x=x_j$ for some $j$. That gets you $x_icdot x_j = g_i(g_j x) = g_i(g_i^{-1}x)=x=x_r$. However $x_jx_i = g_jg_i x$, and all you know is that $g_ig_jx=x$, not that $g_jg_ix=x$.



That said, it should be clear that any element of $G$ permutes the elements of $G(x)$ without all of what you wrote, since for any $gxin G(x)$ and $g'in G$, $g'(gx)=(g'g)xin G(x)$. The rest looks correct to me.



Edit



While what you want to do doesn't work in general, there is a special case in which it does. If $G$ acts transitively and freely on a set $X$, then you can put a group structure on $X$ making it isomorphic to $G$ by choosing a special element $xin X$ in essentially the way you are trying to do here. See here for more info.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



It's not generally true that the selected subset of $G$, ${g_1,ldots,g_n}$ forms a group. You're trying to argue that a transitive group action induces a group structure on a set, which is not true in general. For example, how does $S_n$ acting on ${1,ldots,n}$ induce a group structure on ${1,ldots,n}$?



Thus your proofs of existence of identity and inverses fail in general, because it's not clear (indeed, it isn't true generally) that $g_ig_j$ will equal the element of $G$ that you've selected that sends $x$ to $g_ig_j(x)$. Thus $x_r cdot x_i = (g_rg_i)xne g_ix=x_i$ generally for identity. There is a similar problem in your proof of the existence of inverses. We have $g_i^{-1}x=x_j$ for some $j$. That gets you $x_icdot x_j = g_i(g_j x) = g_i(g_i^{-1}x)=x=x_r$. However $x_jx_i = g_jg_i x$, and all you know is that $g_ig_jx=x$, not that $g_jg_ix=x$.



That said, it should be clear that any element of $G$ permutes the elements of $G(x)$ without all of what you wrote, since for any $gxin G(x)$ and $g'in G$, $g'(gx)=(g'g)xin G(x)$. The rest looks correct to me.



Edit



While what you want to do doesn't work in general, there is a special case in which it does. If $G$ acts transitively and freely on a set $X$, then you can put a group structure on $X$ making it isomorphic to $G$ by choosing a special element $xin X$ in essentially the way you are trying to do here. See here for more info.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Dec 23 '18 at 17:48

























answered Dec 23 '18 at 17:28









jgonjgon

15.1k32042




15.1k32042












  • $begingroup$
    You might be right, though I would like you to elaborate a bit since I´m not completely following. To be clear, I´m not claiming that $g_ig_j in $ {$g_1, ..., g_n$}. I´m merely claiming that $g_ig_j(x) in G(x)$, which follows from the fact that $g_ig_j = g_k in G$ and $g_k(x) in G(x)$.
    $endgroup$
    – Leo
    Dec 23 '18 at 17:34






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Leo Oh indeed, sorry, then in that case, closure follows by definition, you'll have problems with other axioms though, like identity. You just asserted that $x_rcdot x_i = x_i$, but $x_rcdot x_i=(g_rg_i)x ne g_ig_r x=g_ix$ necessarily.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Dec 23 '18 at 17:36










  • $begingroup$
    Ah, you would be correct there. Just out of curiosity, could I fix the proof by allowing $g_r = id$ where $id$ is the identity automorphism in $G$?
    $endgroup$
    – Leo
    Dec 23 '18 at 17:39








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Leo no, a similar problem arises with trying to define inverses. I've now edited to fix my answer. Since $S_n$ arises as a Galois group, it might be interesting to think about why $S_n$ doesn't induce a group structure on ${1,ldots,n}$ as I mention in my first paragraph.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Dec 23 '18 at 17:41








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Because $g$ acts injectively on the whole field, so the cardinality of $gG(x)$ is the same as the cardinality of $G(x)$. Since $gG(x)subseteq G(x)$ and $G(x)$ is finite, this implies that they are equal.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Dec 23 '18 at 18:33


















  • $begingroup$
    You might be right, though I would like you to elaborate a bit since I´m not completely following. To be clear, I´m not claiming that $g_ig_j in $ {$g_1, ..., g_n$}. I´m merely claiming that $g_ig_j(x) in G(x)$, which follows from the fact that $g_ig_j = g_k in G$ and $g_k(x) in G(x)$.
    $endgroup$
    – Leo
    Dec 23 '18 at 17:34






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Leo Oh indeed, sorry, then in that case, closure follows by definition, you'll have problems with other axioms though, like identity. You just asserted that $x_rcdot x_i = x_i$, but $x_rcdot x_i=(g_rg_i)x ne g_ig_r x=g_ix$ necessarily.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Dec 23 '18 at 17:36










  • $begingroup$
    Ah, you would be correct there. Just out of curiosity, could I fix the proof by allowing $g_r = id$ where $id$ is the identity automorphism in $G$?
    $endgroup$
    – Leo
    Dec 23 '18 at 17:39








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Leo no, a similar problem arises with trying to define inverses. I've now edited to fix my answer. Since $S_n$ arises as a Galois group, it might be interesting to think about why $S_n$ doesn't induce a group structure on ${1,ldots,n}$ as I mention in my first paragraph.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Dec 23 '18 at 17:41








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Because $g$ acts injectively on the whole field, so the cardinality of $gG(x)$ is the same as the cardinality of $G(x)$. Since $gG(x)subseteq G(x)$ and $G(x)$ is finite, this implies that they are equal.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Dec 23 '18 at 18:33
















$begingroup$
You might be right, though I would like you to elaborate a bit since I´m not completely following. To be clear, I´m not claiming that $g_ig_j in $ {$g_1, ..., g_n$}. I´m merely claiming that $g_ig_j(x) in G(x)$, which follows from the fact that $g_ig_j = g_k in G$ and $g_k(x) in G(x)$.
$endgroup$
– Leo
Dec 23 '18 at 17:34




$begingroup$
You might be right, though I would like you to elaborate a bit since I´m not completely following. To be clear, I´m not claiming that $g_ig_j in $ {$g_1, ..., g_n$}. I´m merely claiming that $g_ig_j(x) in G(x)$, which follows from the fact that $g_ig_j = g_k in G$ and $g_k(x) in G(x)$.
$endgroup$
– Leo
Dec 23 '18 at 17:34




1




1




$begingroup$
@Leo Oh indeed, sorry, then in that case, closure follows by definition, you'll have problems with other axioms though, like identity. You just asserted that $x_rcdot x_i = x_i$, but $x_rcdot x_i=(g_rg_i)x ne g_ig_r x=g_ix$ necessarily.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Dec 23 '18 at 17:36




$begingroup$
@Leo Oh indeed, sorry, then in that case, closure follows by definition, you'll have problems with other axioms though, like identity. You just asserted that $x_rcdot x_i = x_i$, but $x_rcdot x_i=(g_rg_i)x ne g_ig_r x=g_ix$ necessarily.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Dec 23 '18 at 17:36












$begingroup$
Ah, you would be correct there. Just out of curiosity, could I fix the proof by allowing $g_r = id$ where $id$ is the identity automorphism in $G$?
$endgroup$
– Leo
Dec 23 '18 at 17:39






$begingroup$
Ah, you would be correct there. Just out of curiosity, could I fix the proof by allowing $g_r = id$ where $id$ is the identity automorphism in $G$?
$endgroup$
– Leo
Dec 23 '18 at 17:39






1




1




$begingroup$
@Leo no, a similar problem arises with trying to define inverses. I've now edited to fix my answer. Since $S_n$ arises as a Galois group, it might be interesting to think about why $S_n$ doesn't induce a group structure on ${1,ldots,n}$ as I mention in my first paragraph.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Dec 23 '18 at 17:41






$begingroup$
@Leo no, a similar problem arises with trying to define inverses. I've now edited to fix my answer. Since $S_n$ arises as a Galois group, it might be interesting to think about why $S_n$ doesn't induce a group structure on ${1,ldots,n}$ as I mention in my first paragraph.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Dec 23 '18 at 17:41






1




1




$begingroup$
Because $g$ acts injectively on the whole field, so the cardinality of $gG(x)$ is the same as the cardinality of $G(x)$. Since $gG(x)subseteq G(x)$ and $G(x)$ is finite, this implies that they are equal.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Dec 23 '18 at 18:33




$begingroup$
Because $g$ acts injectively on the whole field, so the cardinality of $gG(x)$ is the same as the cardinality of $G(x)$. Since $gG(x)subseteq G(x)$ and $G(x)$ is finite, this implies that they are equal.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Dec 23 '18 at 18:33


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3050480%2fproving-a-theorem-in-galois-theory-in-a-strange-manner-is-the-following-proof-v%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

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







Popular posts from this blog

Index of /

Tribalistas

Listed building