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 $p_1,\ldots,p_n\in\mathbb{N}$ be different prime numbers, it can be shown that $[\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{p_1},\ldots,\sqrt{p_n}):\mathbb{Q}]=2^n$ and in any case it is clearly finite since $[\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{p_1},\ldots,\sqrt{p_n}):\mathbb{Q}]\leq2^n$.

Since $char(\mathbb{Q})=0$ then $\mathbb{Q}$ is perfect hence every field extension is separable, in particular $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{p_{1}},\sqrt{p_{2}},\ldots,\sqrt{p_{n}})/\mathbb{Q}$ is separable.

Since $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{p_{1}},\sqrt{p_{2}},\ldots,\sqrt{p_{n}})/\mathbb{Q}$ is a finite and separable field extension, by the primitive element theorem, it holds that there exist $\alpha\in\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{p_{1}},\sqrt{p_{2}},\ldots,\sqrt{p_{n}})$ s.t $\mathbb{Q}(\alpha)=\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{p_{1}},\sqrt{p_{2}},\ldots,\sqrt{p_{n}})$.

I wish to find such element $\alpha$ (i.e. a primitive element, that we know exist).

I know how to do this in the case $n=2$, I tried to generalize and prove this claim by induction, in the induction step I need to prove:

  1. $\sqrt{p_{1}}+\cdots+\sqrt{p_{n-1}}\in\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{p_{1}}+\sqrt{p_{2}}+\sqrt{p_{n}})$

  2. $\sqrt{p_{n}}\in\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{p_{1}}+\sqrt{p_{2}}+\sqrt{p_{n}})$

What I tried to do is to look at :

$$ \begin{align} & (\sqrt{p_{1}}+\sqrt{p_{2}}+\sqrt{p_{n}})(\sqrt{p_{1}}+\sqrt{p_{2}}-\sqrt{p_{n}}) \\ & =((\sqrt{p_{1}}+\sqrt{p_{2}}+\sqrt{p_{n-1}})+\sqrt{p_{n}})((\sqrt{p_{1}}+\sqrt{p_{2}}+\sqrt{p_{n-1}})-\sqrt{p_{n}}) \\ & =(\sqrt{p_{1}}+\cdots+\sqrt{p_{n-1}})^{2}-p_{n} \end{align} $$

If $n=2$ then this product is in $\mathbb{Q}$ hence in $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{p_{1}}+\sqrt{p_{2}})$ hence $\sqrt{p_{1}}-\sqrt{p_{2}}\in\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{p_{1}}+\sqrt{p_{2}})$ so adding we get $\sqrt{p_1}\in\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{p_1}+\sqrt{p_2})$ hence $\sqrt{p_2}\in\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{p_1}+\sqrt{p_2})$ and we have proven $(2)$

So the reason I fail here is that I can't manage to show $$\sqrt{p_{1}}+\sqrt{p_{2}}-\sqrt{p_{n}}\in\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{p_{1}}+\sqrt{p_{2}}+\sqrt{p_{n}}).$$

Can someone please help me find a primitive element, or help complete the proof I am trying to do here ? help is very much appriciated!

share|improve this question
    
It seems easier to just guess the answer and show that it has $2^n$ Galois conjugates. [I haven't worked out the details—this is just something I've seen used on this site for similar questions.] –  Dylan Moreland Jul 9 '12 at 21:31
    
@DylanMoreland - what do you mean by "something with $2^n$ Galois conjugates" ? –  Belgi Jul 9 '12 at 21:32
    
This question has been answered here before, or something very similar:math.stackexchange.com/questions/93453 –  Geoff Robinson Jul 9 '12 at 21:36
    
@GeoffRobinson - I tried reading the solution suggested in the link you gave and I could not understand them. I am hoping for a more elementary solution –  Belgi Jul 9 '12 at 21:44
    
OK. I think you need some Galois theory, at least implicitly, as also sugested by Dylan Moreland. –  Geoff Robinson Jul 9 '12 at 21:54
show 1 more comment

1 Answer

up vote 5 down vote accepted

I believe this is the solution Dylan was hinting at. To show that $\alpha=\sum \sqrt{p_i}$ generates $E=\mathbb Q(\{\sqrt{p_i}\})$ it suffices to show that $\alpha$ is not fixed by any automorphism of $E$. Notice that any automorphism of $E$ maps $\sqrt{p_i}$ to $\pm \sqrt{p_i}$. So it suffices to demonstrate that

$$\sum \sqrt{p_i} \neq \sum s_i\sqrt{p_i}$$

for any choice of $s_i$ such that at least one $s_i$ is $-1$. But this is immediate because by cancelling the positive $s_i$ we would have

$$\sum \sqrt{p_j}=-\sum \sqrt{p_j}.$$

It follows that $\alpha$ is not fixed by any automorphism of $E$ and so $E=\mathbb Q(\alpha)$.

This is pretty much the same argument as Geoffs, but maybe it's a little bit clearer.

share|improve this answer
    
Can you please explian why it suffices to show that $\alpha$ is not fixed by any automorphism of $E$ ? I am tring to justify it to myself and I say that if there was an automorphism of $E$ that would of fixed $\alpha$ than there is a proper subgroup of the Galois group of $E$ that fixed $\alpha$. this subgroup corresponds to a proper subfield of $E$ (but I don't know if/why it is $\mathbb{Q}(\alpha)$ and I think that what I do need is the other direction of what I am writing here...) thanks for the help! –  Belgi Jul 9 '12 at 22:13
    
@Belgi If $\mathbf Q(\alpha)\subsetneq E$, then there is a nontrivial automorphism of $E$ fixing $Q(\alpha)$. It's a simple fact, no need to bring the full strength of Galois theorem here. –  tomasz Jul 9 '12 at 22:20
    
OK, I understand. Can we also use Galois theory to give a simple argument about why the degree of the extension is $2^n$ ? In the spirit of this answer I wanted to show that every such map ($p_i$ maps to plus or minus itself) is an automorphism, but it seems that we can't prove that this map is even $1-1$ without knowing that $\sqrt{p_i}$'s are independent over $\mathbb{Q}$ –  Belgi Jul 9 '12 at 22:48
    
@Belgi I don't think so. You really have to show that the primes are independent, I think Bill Dubuque's argument is as good as it gets. –  JSchlather Jul 10 '12 at 2:25
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.