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.

So I want to prove that if I have $L/K/F$ then given that the transcendence degrees are finite, then $$tr_F(L)=tr_K(L)+tr_F(K)$$

$\bf{Definition:}$ We say that a set $X=\{x_i\}_{i\in I}$ is algebraically independent over $F$ if $f\in F[\{t_i\}_{i\in I}]$ such that $f((x_i)_{i\in I})=0$ implies that $f=0$.

Now I basically started like this: Let $B_1=\{x_1,...,x_m\}$ be a transcendence basis for $L$ over $K$, and $B_2=\{y_1,...,y_n\}$ a transcendence basis for $K$ over $F$. Let $B_3=\{x_1,...,y_n\}$.

We shall prove that $B_3$ is a transcendental basis for $L$ over $F$. Say $f(t_1,...,t_{m+n})$ is a polynomial with coefficients in $F$, such that $f(x_1,...,y_n)=0$. Then define:$$h(t_1,...,t_m)=f(t_1,...,t_m,y_1,...,y_n)$$Then $h$ is a polynomial with coefficients in $K$ since $B_2\subset K$, and $h(x_1,...,x_m)=0$. This means that $h=0$ by the algebraic independence of $B_1$. Then, we can let $$g(t_{m+1},...,t_{m+n})=f(x_1,....,x_m,t_{m+1},...,t_{m+n})$$However, I cannot use the fact that $g$ will be zero because $g$ might have coefficients in $F$. Any hints?


share|improve this question
I think you mean "because $g$ might have coefficients in $K$". :) –  m_l Apr 20 '12 at 9:22

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

The usual trick is as follows: You write, with some abuse of notation, $ f(s_1,\ldots,s_m,t_1,\ldots,t_n) = \sum_{i \in \mathbb{N_0}^m } f_i(t_1,\ldots,t_n) s^i \in F[t_1,\ldots,t_n][s_1,\ldots,s_m]$.

Similar to your argument regarding $h$, you can conclude that $f_i(y_1,\ldots,y_n) = 0$ for all $i \in \mathbb{N_0}^m$. But the $f_i$ are polynomials with coefficients in $F$.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.