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.

This is from Algebraic Number Theory by Neukirch

Let $A$ be an integral domain which is integrally closed, K its field of fractions, $L|K$ a finite field extension, and $B$ the integral closure of $A$ in $L$.

Furthermore, the fact that $A$ is integrally closed has the effect that an element $\beta \in L$ is integral over $A$ if and only if its minimal polynomial $p(x)$ takes its coefficients in $A$. In fact, let $\beta$ be a zero of the monic polynomial $g(x) \in A[x]$.Then $p(x)$ divides $g(x)$ in $K[x]$, so that all zeroes $\beta_1, ..., \beta_n$ of $p(x)$ are integral over A, hence the same holds for all the coefficients, in other words $p(x) \in A[x]$.

Now my question is are $\beta_1, ..., \beta_n$ all the roots of $p(x)$ in $L$ or $\bar K$, the algebraic closure of $K$? I think this arguement will only work when we consider all the roots of $p(x)$ in $\bar K$.

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Sorry I misread your question earlier. Yes all the $\beta_i$ have to be in an algebraic closure $\bar{K}$. This is because $L$ may not be a normal extension of $K$. For an example take $K = \Bbb{Q}$ and $L = \Bbb{Q}(\sqrt[3]{2})$. Then the element $\beta = \sqrt[3]{2}$ has minimal polynomial $x^3 - 2$ but the other two roots are $\zeta_3\sqrt[3]{2}$ and $\zeta_3^2\sqrt[3]{2}$ which don't lie in $L$.

So let us recollect the proof of Neukirch. One direction is already clear so we prove that if $\beta \in L$ is integral over $A$ then its minimal polynomial $p(t) \in A[t]$. Now by assumption because $\beta$ is integral over $A$ we can write down the integral dependence relation given by some $g(t) \in A[t]$ which $\beta$ satisfies. Then $p(t) | g(t)$ and thus every root of $p$ is a root of $g$. Thus every root of $\beta_i$ of $p$ lying in some algebraic closure $\overline{K}$ is integral over $A$.

By Vieta's formulas the coefficients of $p(t)$ are linear combinations of products of the roots. Since the product and sum of two integral elements is integral, we conclude that $p(t)$ actually has coefficients in $A$.

share|improve this answer

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.