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 am studying field theory, and I just started the chapter on Galois theory.

Since a Galois extension is the splitting field of some polynomial $p(x)$ and this polynomial have exactly $n$ roots in the extension field I think that every automorphism of the extension permutes the roots of $p(x)$ [and for every permutation there exist an automorphism].

So I deduced that that size of the Galois group, that is the number of automorphisms from the extension to itself that fix the field we started with, is $n!$ for some natural $n$.

Am I right ?

share|improve this question
    
$n$, $n!$, or $n‽$...? –  user1729 May 10 '12 at 8:39
    
@user1729 - $n!$ –  Belgi May 10 '12 at 9:16

2 Answers 2

up vote 11 down vote accepted

No I don't think this is right. For example the extension $\Bbb{Q}(\sqrt{3},\sqrt{2})$ is a Galois extension of $\Bbb{Q}$ because it is the splitting field of $(x^2 - 3)(x^2-2)$. This polynomial has exactly 4 distinct roots in $\Bbb{Q}(\sqrt{3},\sqrt{2})$ and it can easily be shown that its Galois group is the Klein 4-group $V_4$. But $V_4$ has order 4 that is not equal to $4!=24$.

Now you are thinking that the Galois group has to be $S_4$. Let me tell you why this is not possible. Let us call $\sqrt{3}$ root #1, $\sqrt{2}$ root #2, $-\sqrt{3}$ root #3, $-\sqrt{2}$ root #4. Given a cycle in $S_4$ let that cycle act on the roots simply by permuting the numbers $1,2,3$ and $4$. For example, the cycle $(12)$ exchanges $\sqrt{3}$ and $\sqrt{2}$ and keeps the negative guys fixed. But then this cannot possibly be a valid element of the Galois group because:

Elements of the Galois group must send for example $\sqrt{2}$ to another root of the minimal polynomial of $\sqrt{2}$ over $\Bbb{Q}$. The minimal polynomial of $\sqrt{2}$ when viewed as an element of $\Bbb{Q}(\sqrt{2},\sqrt{3})$ is $x^2 -2$. Therefore the only possibility for where $\sqrt{2}$ can be sent to is $-\sqrt{2}$, because this is the only other root of this polynomial in any splitting field. So therefore the cycle $(12)$ above cannot be a valid element of the Galois group (if we view the Galois group as sitting inside of $S_4$).

It follows that the Galois group in this case can only be viewed as a proper subgroup of $S_4$ and hence cannot have order $4!=24$.

Edit: Since you seem to be having some trouble understanding the Galois group, let me explain a bit more here. Now I assume that you know what an $F$ - algebra is (otherwise how would you understand field extensions?)

The following is the start of how one describes the Galois group:

Let $A = F[x]$ where $F$ is a field. Let $\iota_A$ denote inclusion of $F$ into $A$. Then any $F$ - algebra homomorphism from $F[x]$ to some other $F$ - algebra $B$ (where the homomorphism in question for $B$ is just the inclusion map $\iota_B : F \to B$) is completely determined by specifying the image of $x$ in $B$. This is because if we have an $F$ - algebra homomorphism $\varphi$ from $F[x] \rightarrow B$, we must have that

$$\iota_B = \varphi \circ \iota_A.$$

In particular this means that $\varphi$ must be the identity on the coefficients of a polynomial in $F[x]$. This explains why $\varphi$ is completely determined by its action on $x$. Now we claim that we have a bijection of sets

$$\Big\{\operatorname{Hom}_{\text{$F$ -algebra}} \big(F[x],B\big)\Big\} \longleftrightarrow B $$

where the bijection is given by $f$ that maps $\varphi$ on the left to $\varphi(x)$ with inverse $g$ that maps an element in $b \in B$ to the homomorphism $\varphi_b$ which is evaluation at $b$. Viz. $\varphi_b$ is just the homomorphism that sends $x$ to $b$. You can check that $f$ and $g$ are mutual inverses.

Now a corollary of this is that we have a bijection

$$\Big\{\operatorname{Hom}_{\text{$F$ -algebra}} \big(F[x]/(f(x)),B\big)\Big\} \longleftrightarrow \Big\{b\in B : \varphi_b(f(x)) = 0 \Big\}. $$

I will leave you to work out the details of how this comes from the fact I stated before. Essentially it is due to the universal property of quotient rings that says given a unique ring homomorphism $\varphi$ from $F[x]$ to $B$ we have unique ring homomorphism from the quotient of $F[x]/(\ker \varphi)$to $B$ such that $\varphi$ factorises through the quotient. I can edit my post to explain this more if you wish.

This is the start of how one gets a description of the Galois group because giving a homomorphism from some field say $F(\alpha)$ to itself (which is automatically an automorphism by the Rank - Nullity Theorem) is by my description above equivalent equivalent to specifying a root of the minimal polynomial of $\alpha$ over $F$ in $B$. But then our $B$ here is exactly what we started with, that is $F(\alpha)$ so that $\alpha$ must be sent to another root of its minimal polynomial over $F$.

Does this help to explain more to you?

share|improve this answer
    
Oh right, I understand my mistake now. thanks! –  Belgi May 10 '12 at 8:33
1  
Of course there are also plenty of counterexamples with $p$ irreducible. For example cubics whose discriminant is a square in $\mathbb{Q}$. –  Alex B. May 10 '12 at 12:39

Benjamin Lim's answer is great. I thought I would add an answer with infinitely many counterexamples. Let $a\geq 1$ be a natural number, and let $K$ be the splitting field over $\mathbf{Q}$ of $$x^3-ax^2-(a+3)x-1.$$ The discriminant of this polynomial is $(a^2+3a+9)^2$, a square, and the polynomial is irreducible over $\mathbf{Q}$ since it is a cubic without rational roots (the only possibilities for rational roots are $\pm 1$, and neither works). Therefore $\operatorname{Gal}(K/\mathbf{Q})\cong \mathbf{Z}/3\mathbf{Z}$, instead of $S_3$, so the size of the Galois group is $3$, and not $3!=6$. These fields are called the "simplest cubic fields", and you can learn more about them in this article by Daniel Shanks.

share|improve this answer
    
You should comment on how one knows these fields $K$, as $a$ varies, really include infinitely many (non-isomorphic) fields. Different polynomials can have the same splitting field, e.g., for $a$ and $-a-3$ the splitting fields are the same (if roots of the $a$-polynomial are $r_1,r_2,r_3$ then roots of the $(-a-3)$-polynomial are $-r_1-1,-r_2-1,-r_3-1$). Obviously $-a-3$ isn't also a natural number, but that doesn't nullify the point I am making. –  KCd May 10 '12 at 15:15

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.