Splitting Fields
Definition
Let with . An extension is called a splitting field over of , if
- splits in , namely with ; and
Let be a subset. We say is a splitting field over of , if all splits in and is generated over by the roots.
Example. Take irreducible with and . Let , then as a polynomial in splits. Because for any , we have and . Remark that splitting field is not unique, as and are not same as sets.
Theorem
Let be a field and let with . Then there exists a splitting field of such that .
\begin{proof}
By induction on . When , we proved it here. If spilts in , then . Otherwise, there exists with , which is an irreducible factor of and . Consider , then note that . Consider , then is a root of and so with . It follows that . By induction hypothesis, there exists a splitting field of over and . Assume that are roots of and , then is a splitting field of and .
\end{proof}
Remark. In general, . For example:
- Consider where . Note that is a splitting field of and when is a prime. Claim that is irreducible when is prime. Note that is irreducible by Eisenstein criterion.
- Let . Then is a splitting field over and by .
Corollary
Let be a subset, then there exists a splitting field over of .
\begin{proof}
If is finite, then simple take composite of splitting fields of . If , use Zorn’s lemma.
\end{proof}
Definition
A splitting field of non-const elements in is called an algebraic closure of , denote as .
Example. . Indeed, if , then .
Lemma
Suppose is an isomorphism of fields. Let be a subset of monic poly with . Let . Let and be splitting fields of and , respectively. Then extends to an isomorphism .
Remark. Even , its extension is non-trivial. Still the example of and .
\begin{proof}
We only consider the case . Indeed, we can suppose and do induction on the degree of . Suppose the lemma is true if . Now suppose , WLOG is irreducible (otherwise use induction hypothesis).
Assume that and . Also assume that and . Choose any . By ^zvyjyw, there exists a chain of isomorphism
Denote the composition as . Note that and satisfy . Then by induction hypothesis, there exists extending , thus extending .
\end{proof}
Corollary
Any two splitting fields of over are -isomorphism. Moreover, any two algebra closures over are -isomorphism.
Normal Extension
Definition
Let be an algebraic extension. We say is normal if any irreducible such that has one root in actually spilts in . Equivalently, for any , spilts in .
Theorem
Suppose . TFAE:
- is normal;
- is a splitting field over of some .
\begin{proof}
i)→ii) If with , then is a splitting field of .
ii)→i) Let , and let . It follows that with and . We aim to show . Consider any with , we have . Note that is a splitting field of over . It follows that is a splitting field of over and is a splitting field of over . By ^28f933, extends to an isomorphism . Note that , then is also an homomorphism of -vector space, namely . Therefore, . Furthermore, yields .
Alternating proof. See 抽象代数 I, page 116.
\end{proof}
Remark. Note that it is possible as fields but . For example, .
Separable Extensions
Definition
- Let irreducible. We call it is separable if inside and are distinct.
- We say is separable over , if is separable.
- We say is a separable extension, if for any , is separable over .
Examples.
- is separable.
- is separable. In fact, if is algebraic and , then is separable.
- is not separable, as has only one root with multiplicity .
Remark. Consider , then
- and are separable yields that is separable, see here;
- and are normal does NOT yield that is normal, see here and .
Lemma
Assume that is a field extension, and is algebraic over . Define and . Then TFAE:
- is separable over ;
- ;
- .
\begin{proof}
Easy. See page 121 of 抽象代数 I.
\end{proof}
Corollary
If is algebraic and , then is separable.
Remark. In above example, and so is not separable.
Theorem of Primitive Element
theorem of primitive element
If is a finite separable extension, then there exists such that .
\begin{proof}
If , we only need to take . By induction, it remains to show the case of . We claim that we can find some such that . If it is true, then with . Also, it is equivalent to has degree .
By method of indeterminate, suppose and . Let . Then and so . Similarly . If and have only one common root , then and we finish the proof.
The roots of are , and so the roots of are . The roots of are . If , then . We only need to choose
and then we finish the proof.
\end{proof}