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 posted the following question, to which this question is a follow-up. Regardless, my question here will be self-contained.

Let $F$ be a finite field, and let $u,v$ be algebraic over $F$. Consider the fields $F(u,v),F(u)$ and $F(v)$. Must it be the case that there exist $a,b \in F$ for which $F(u,v) = F(au+bv)$?

If this question is more difficult than I suspect, I would still be interested in a specific solution for $F = \mathbb{F}_{2}$, so that $a,b \in \{0,1\}$.

Thanks!

share|improve this question
2  
You are really asking: "Must it be the the case that there exist $a,b\in F$ such that $F(u,v)=F(au+bv)$?", right? Your phrasing is somewhat ambiguous. –  Arturo Magidin May 13 '12 at 23:10
    
Yes. Edited accordingly. –  Isaac Solomon May 13 '12 at 23:41
    
Similar questions have come up on MathOverflow, e.g., mathoverflow.net/questions/26832/… and mathoverflow.net/questions/30144/…. Brawley, J. V., Carlitz, L. Irreducibles and the composed product for polynomials over a finite field, MR0893074 (89g:11118) looks like it might have an answer to the particular question raised here. –  Gerry Myerson May 14 '12 at 0:43
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

A partial result in this direction. I need to make an extra assumption.

My claim (thanks to KCd for the reformulation): If $F=F(u)\cap F(v)$, then $F(u,v)=F(u+v)$.

Let $|F|=q=p^n$. Then $|F(u)|=q^a$ and $|F(v)|=q^b$. The claim is interesting only, when $u,v\notin F$, so we assume that $a>1$ and $b>1$. We also have $q^{\gcd(a,b)}=|F(u)\cap F(v)|=q$, so $\gcd(a,b)=1$. Here we used the fact that inside any finite field the size of a subfield determines the subfield uniquely, and also the fact that a field of $q^t$ elements contains a subfield of size $q^k$ for any divisor $k\mid t$.

Let $\tau:x\mapsto x^q$ be the Frobenius automorphism. We have that $|F(u+v)|=q^m$, where $m$ is the smallest positive integer such $\tau^m(u+v)=u+v$. This equation implies that $$ u^{q^m}-u=v-v^{q^m}\in F(u)\cap F(v)=F.\tag{1} $$ I shall view $F(u,v)$ as a module over the polynomial ring $F[\tau]$ with $\tau$ acting as the Frobenius. Then $F$ consists precisely of the fixed points of $\tau$, so equation $(1)$ tells that both $u$ and $v$ are annihilated by $(\tau-1)(\tau^m-1)$. The extra assumption $\gcd(a,b)=1$ tells us that at least one of $a,b$ is coprime to $p$. Without loss of generality we can assume that $p\nmid a$. As $|F(u)|=q^a$ we know that $u$ is also annihilated by $\tau^a-1$. As $\gcd(a,p)=1$, the polynomial $\tau^a-1$ has no repeated factors. Therefore $u$ is annihilated by $$\gcd(\tau^a-1,(\tau^m-1)(\tau-1))=\gcd(\tau^a-1,\tau^m-1)=\tau^{\gcd(a,m)}-1.$$ But $u$ is not annihilated by any polynomial of the form $\tau^\ell-1$, $0<\ell<a$, so we can conclude that $a=\gcd(a,m)$ and $a\mid m$. Therefore $u\in F_{q^m}=F(u+v)$. Consequently also $v=(u+v)-u\in F(u+v)$. Therefore $F(u,v)\subseteq F(u+v)$. The reverse inclusion is trivial and the claim follows.

share|improve this answer
    
Since $[F(u):F] = a$ and $[F(v):F] = b$, and the assumption that $F(u) \cap F(v) = F$ implies $a$ and $b$ are relatively prime, as you noted yourself, the conditions that $u \not\in F(v)$ and $v \not\in F(u)$ are not needed as explicit hypotheses. After you proved $u \in F(u+v)$ it follows that $F(u) \subset F(v)$, so $a|b$ and thus $a = 1$, so $u \in F$. Then obviously $F(u+v) = F(v) = F(u,v)$. –  KCd May 14 '12 at 9:19
1  
So a clean statement would be: if $F(u) \cap F(v) = F$ then $F(u,v) = F(u+v)$. That's obvious if $u$ or $v$ is in $F$, and your proof shows it is also true if neither $u$ nor $v$ is in $F$ too. –  KCd May 14 '12 at 9:25
    
Your "partial" result has quite reasonable hypotheses considering what is known about the analogous situation for Galois extensions in characteristic 0, as seen at mathoverflow.net/questions/26832/…. –  KCd May 14 '12 at 9:56
    
Thanks, @KCd. I worked on this overnight. If I find the time, I will look up the paper by Brawley & Carlitz suggested by Gerry Myerson. Can't say I would be surprised to learn that Carlitz and his coauthors have settled this question. –  Jyrki Lahtonen May 14 '12 at 10:09
    
@JyrkiLahtonen : I really appreciate you giving such a thorough answer! I don't have the time at the moment to look this over fully, but when I do (hopefully over the weekend) I might come back with some questions. Thanks again! –  Isaac Solomon May 15 '12 at 6:03
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.