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.

Let $K$ be the splitting field of $f(x)\in\mathbb{Q}[x]$ over $\mathbb{Q}$, of degree $n$, and suppose that $\operatorname{Gal}(K/\mathbb{Q})=S_n$.

It is easy to show that his implies that $f$ is irreducible, since the Galois group acts transitively on the roots.

I would like to show now that

a) if $f(\alpha)=0,$ then $\operatorname{Aut}(\mathbb{Q}(\alpha))$ is trivial,

and

b) if $n\ge 4$, then $\alpha^n$ cannot be rational.

I think I see b), since if this were so $x^n-q$ would be a minimal polynomial for $\alpha$ over $\mathbb{Q}$ for some rational $q$, and it seems rather clear that there are only two possibilities for the Galois group in this case, a cyclic group or a group generated by an $n$-th root of $q$ and an $n$-th root of unity, neither of which can be isomorphic to $S_n$ when $n\ge 4$.

share|improve this question
3  
Your last sentence does nor make sense: the Galois group cannot be generated by elements of the field! –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Mar 9 '12 at 15:32

1 Answer 1

Hint for part a): Show first that $\alpha$ is the only zero of $f(x)$ in $\mathbb{Q}(\alpha)$.

Hint for part b): You may have the right idea, but you phrased it a bit funnily. If the minimal polynomial were of the form $x^n-q$, then that would also have to be $f(x)$ up to a scalar multiple. Hence you get the splitting field of $f(x)$ by adjoining to $\mathbb{Q}$ an $n$th root of $q$ and a primitive $n$th root of unity. This does, indeed, lead to a splitting field of a wrong degree (or to a Galois group of wrong order).

share|improve this answer
    
Well any automorphism has to act transitively on the roots, so we cannot have $\sigma(\alpha)=\alpha$. If $\alpha'$ were another zero of $f(x)$ in $\mathbb{Q}(\alpha)$, then since the automorphisms act transitively, $\mathbb{Q}(\alpha)$ would have to contain all of the roots and thus $\alpha$ would have to be a primitive root of the extension $K$. Is this argument correct so far? I am not entirely sure why this would be a contradiction, but it seems close. –  jerome d Mar 9 '12 at 15:45
3  
@jaywendt: It is false that "any automorphism has to act transitively on the roots". (This is the same error in thinking you committed in your previous question). If the roots are $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n$, then the action of an element $\sigma\in S_n$ is given naturally by $\alpha_i\mapsto \alpha_{\sigma(i)}$. There are plenty of elements of $S_n$ that don't act transitively on $\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$. The entire group acts transitively, but its elements don't have to. –  Arturo Magidin Mar 9 '12 at 16:57

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.