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 $K$ a field and $F=K(\alpha_i : i\in I)$ an algebraic extension of $K$.

Is it true that for all $z\in F$ there exists $i_1,\dots,i_k\in I$ such that $z\in K(\alpha_{i_1},\dots,\alpha_{i_n})$ ?

Moreover, does $F$ equals to $K[\alpha_i : i\in I]$ ?

These results are true if $I$ is finite, but I don't know if they remain so if $I$ is infinite, since the proof doesn't seem straightforwardly generalisable. I haven't been able to find a book with this result either.

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

By definition $F=K(\alpha_i : i\in I)$ is such that for all $z\in F$ there exist $i_1,\dots,i_k\in I$ such that $z\in K(\alpha_{i_1},\dots,\alpha_{i_n})$, so the answer to your first question is trivially yes. For such $i_1,\dots,i_k$ one has $K(\alpha_{i_1},\dots,\alpha_{i_n})=K[\alpha_{i_1},\dots,\alpha_{i_n}]$ so $F$ is also the smallest ring containg all these rings, which is by definition $K[\alpha_i : i\in I]$, so the answer to the second question is yes as well.

share|improve this answer
    
Hum, for me, $K(\alpha_i : i\in I)$ is defined to be the smallest extension of $K$ containing the $\alpha_i$, so my question for the first point would become "Why are these two definitions equivalent?" Thanks for the second one! –  Frank Apr 5 '12 at 10:41
1  
One cannot define $F=K(\alpha_i:i\in I)$ to be the smallest extension such that ..., unless there is some set in which all extensions are embedded, which is not the case. However one can retain the following informal description: an element $z$ is only in $F$ if it has to, that is if any extension containing the $\alpha_i$ contains $z$. This only happens if $z$ is a rational function in finitely many $\alpha_i$, in which case it is also a polynomial in them. Indeed the union of all $K(\alpha_{i_1},\dots,\alpha_{i_n})$ is a field that contains only such elements. –  Marc van Leeuwen Apr 5 '12 at 11:44
    
Yes, indeed. I should have added the hypothesis that eveything happens in a big field $L$. Then how does one show that the two definitions coincide ? I still don't see why should every element of $F=\cap \dots$ be a rational function in finitely many $\alpha_i$. –  Frank Apr 6 '12 at 22:22
1  
The union over all finite sets $\{\alpha_{i_1},\dots,\alpha_{i_n}\}$ of all fields $K[\alpha_{i_1},\dots,\alpha_{i_n}]$ is a field that contains precisely the elements that are polynomials in the $\alpha_i$ (which cannot be otherwise than in finitely many of them). (The main point to realise for this is that in spite of being a union, it is closed for field operations.) This particular field (containing all $\alpha_i$) therefore occurs in your intersection, which consequently cannot be bigger than it. It also clearly cannot be smaller. –  Marc van Leeuwen Apr 7 '12 at 9:31

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.