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}

Example. See here and here.

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}