Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I recently asked a question about the transcendence degree of $\mathbb{C}$ over $\mathbb{Q}$. In a nice answer which I hope to understand better, two facts were given:

1: If $F$ is any infinite field and $K/F$ is an algebraic extension, then $\# K = \#F$.

2: For any infinite field $F$ and purely transcendental extension $F(X)$, we have $\# F(X) = \max (\#F, \# X)$.

For the first one, since $K$ is algebraic over $F$, then there is a surjection from $F[X]\to K$ mapping a polynomial $p(x)$ to one of its roots. Since $F$ is infinite, $\# F[X]=\# F$ so $\# F\geq\# K$. Since $K\supset F$, $\# K\geq \# F$, and equality follows. Is this correct?

I don't understand how the 2nd fact is true. Could some please explain it? Thank you.

share|improve this question
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 0 down vote accepted

The extension $F(X)$ is isomorphic to the field of fractions of the polynomial ring $F[X]$.

What is the cardinality of $F[X]$? Since for every $f\in F[X]$ there exists a finite $X_0\subseteq X$ such that $f\in F[X_0]$, and $\#F[X_0]=\#F$, we have $$\begin{align*} \#F[X] &= \#\bigcup_{\substack{X_0\subseteq X\\ \#X_0\lt\infty}}F[X_0]\\ &\leq \sum_{\substack{X_0\subseteq X\\ \#X_0\lt\infty}}\#F[X_0]\\ &= \sum_{\substack{X_0\subseteq X\\ \#X_0\lt\infty}}\#F\\ &= \#\{X_0\subseteq X\mid \#X_0\lt\infty\}\#F\\ &=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} \#X\#F &\text{if }\ \#X=\infty\\ 2^{\#X}\#F &\text{if }\ \#X\lt\infty \end{array}\right.\\ &= \max\{\#X,\#F\}. \end{align*}$$ On the other hand, $F\subseteq F[X]$ and $X\subseteq F[X]$, so $\max\{\#X,\#F\}\leq\#F[X]$. This gives equality.

The field of fractions can be viewed as a quotient of $F[X]\times(F[X]-\{0\})$ modulo the equivalence relation $(f,g)\sim (h,k)\Longleftrightarrow fk=gh$, and since $F[X]$ is infinite, this means that the cardinality is at most that of $F[X]$; since it contains a subring isomorphic to $F[X]$, we conclude that $\#F(X)=\#F[X]$, giving equality.

(A proof that the cardinality of the set of all finite subsets of an infinite set $X$ is equal to that of $X$ can be found here )


On rereading your argument for the first part, it is incomplete, I think.

If your $X$ represents a set of indeterminates, then you need to explain why it cannot have cardinality larger than $F$; if it represents a single indeterminate, then it is false that an algebraic extension must be a surjective image of the polynomial ring in one variable (for example, the algebraic closure of $\mathbb{Q}$ is certainly algebraic over $\mathbb{Q}$, but it is not simple, so it is not the surjective image of $\mathbb{Q}[x]$).

So you need to explain why $\#X\leq\#F$.

A better argument would be to note that there is a map from $K$ to $F[x]$ (single indeterminate) that sends every element of $K$ to its monic irreducible polynomial over $F$. This map is not one-to-one, but each element $f$ of $F[x]$ has at most $\deg(f)$ preimages. As this is finite, it follows that each fiber of the map $K\to F[x]$ is finite. Therefore, $$\begin{align*} \#K &\leq \sum_{f\in F[x]}\deg{f}\\ &\leq \sum_{f\in F[x]} \aleph_0\\ & = \#F[x]\aleph_0\\ &=\#F[x]\\ &=\#F \end{align*}$$ (since $F$ is infinite). Then noting $F\subseteq K$ gives the other inequality.

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you, this is a nice comprehensive answer. Also, for peace of mind, was my rough explanation of the first fact correct? –  jain Jan 28 '12 at 23:33
    
@jain: not quite: if your $X$ has more than one element, why can't it have more elements than $F$ has? –  Arturo Magidin Jan 28 '12 at 23:35
    
@Arturo: On my system, your use of \! causes the sum sign to overlap the summands. Perhaps you should consider using \substack (see AMS short-math-guide) instead? –  Zhen Lin Jan 29 '12 at 0:14
    
Thanks for clarifying my mistakes. –  jain Jan 29 '12 at 0:23
add comment

Theorem I: If $F$ is an infinite ring then $F[x]$ has the same cardinality as $F$.

Proof: Since every polynomial in $F[x]$ is uniquely determined by its coefficients we have that $F[x]\simeq\{\langle x_0,\ldots,x_n\rangle\mid n\in\mathbb N, x_i\in F\}$, that is all the finite sequences of elements in $F$.

Since $|F|$ is infinite, we have that $|F|=|F\times F|=|\underbrace{F\times\cdots\times F}_{n\text{ times}}|=\ldots$, therefore the cardinality of $F[x]$ is the countable union of all those finite sequences therefore $|F[x]|=|\bigcup F^n|=\aleph_0\times|F|=\max\{\aleph_0,|F|\}=|F|$.

(Of course this requires quite some axiom of choice, but we're alright with that.)


Note that every algebraic number has a minimal polynomial, therefore there are at most $|F|$ many algebraic elements over $F$. Therefore every algebraic extension cannot have added more than $|F|$ new elements, thus if $K$ is algebraic over $F$ then $|K|=|F|$.

By induction (and a bit more) we have that for a countable number of variables $x_0,x_1,\ldots$ the polynomial ring in those variables has the same cardinality as $F$.

Once we add "enough" we are bound to create transcendental elements, simply because there can only be so many polynomials over $F$. Transcendental extensions correspond to the field of fractions of $F[X]$ for some set of variables $X$ (which can be infinite, of course).

The field of fraction has cardinality of $|F[X]\times F[X]|=|F[X]|$. Every polynomial in $F[X]$ is a finite sequence from $X$ and a finite sequence from $F$. As we did in Theorem I we have that the finite sequences from both $X$ and $F$ have the cardinalities of $X$ and $F$ respectively, therefore $|F[X]|=|F|\cdot|X|=\max\{|F|,|X|\}$.

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you, I appreciate it. –  jain Jan 29 '12 at 0:24
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.