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.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'm suppossed to use an example to show the following statement. If F over K is galois but not algebraic and L is an intermediate field between K and F, then F over L is not galois. Any help at all would be greatly appreciated.

share|cite|improve this question
The most common definition of "Galois extension" requires that the extension be algebraic. What definition are you using? – Brad Mar 28 '11 at 0:22
@ Brad I think that F must have char 0 – user8771 Mar 28 '11 at 0:32
@user8771, a Galois extension may well be infinite but it still needs to be algebraic under the common definition. Also, if F is an extension of K and L is an intermediate field, then "K over L" doesn't make sense. – Alon Amit Mar 28 '11 at 0:34
Ok, that still leaves the question of what "Galois but not algebraic" means. Whatever the definition, the question seems odd - F/L is not Galois for all L except L=K? – Alon Amit Mar 28 '11 at 0:40
@All Hungerford's Algebra book defines a Galois extension as an extension $F/K$ such that the fixed field of $\text{Aut}_K F$ is $K$, without requiring it to be algebraic, although he explicitly notes that it is commonly required to be algebraic. – Adrián Barquero Mar 28 '11 at 0:43

If you use the definition of Galois extension that I quoted in the comments then you can look at the field extension $K(x) / K$ where $K$ is an infinite field. In this case this field extension is Galois but not algebraic over $K$. So my suggestion is for you to look at exercises $6$ and $9$ in section $2$, chapter $5$ of Thomas Hungerford's algebra book.

In exercise $6$ you are guided in a series of steps to prove some important facts about this field extension and about the automorphism group. And exercise $9$ guides you to prove that this extension is Galois.

share|cite|improve this answer
@ 256..looks helpful – user8771 Mar 28 '11 at 1:01
@user8771 Yes it does =) – Adrián Barquero Mar 28 '11 at 1:11
@ Adrian,those exercises are helpful..but I will need to still produce a concrete example for the problem. I'll try to post one when I get through those exercises. – user8771 Mar 28 '11 at 1:12
@ pete thanks. I kept thinking it was a transcendental extension. – user8771 Mar 28 '11 at 23:22

First let me say that I am interpreting your question according to the definition of Galois for transcendental extensions given by Adrian Barquero (this is not my preferred definition: see below). Second, interpreting it that way it seems that you have a quantifier error: you ask for a Galois transcendental extension $F/K$ such that for every subextension $L$ of $F/K$, $F/L$ is not Galois. But this can't be: take for instance $L = F$ or more generally let $G$ be any finite subgroup of $\operatorname{Aut}(F/K)$ and let $L$ be the fixed field $F^G$. Then $F/F^G$ is a finite Galois extension. If $F/K$ is transcendental and Galois then $\operatorname{Aut}(F/K)$ must be infinite and thus there are infinitely many examples like this.

I will assume you meant to ask: find some Galois transcendental extension $F/K$ and *some subextension $L$ such that $F/L$ is not Galois.

For this: $K = \mathbb{Q}$ and $F = \mathbb{Q}(t)$. Then the only elements of $F$ fixed by every element of $\operatorname{Aut}(K/\mathbb{Q}) = \operatorname{Aut}(K) = PGL_2(\mathbb{Q})$ acting by linear fractional transformations are the elements of $\mathbb{Q}$. So $F/K$ is Galois according to the definition Adrian provides above.

However, consider the intermediate field $L = \mathbb{Q}(t^3)$. Then $F/L$ is not Galois because $\mathbb{Q}$ does not contain a primitive $3$rd root of unity.

You can create similar examples with ground field $K = \mathbb{C}$ by choosing a finite subgroup $G$ of $PGL_2(\mathbb{C}) = \operatorname{Aut}(\mathbb{C}(t)/\mathbb{C})$ which contains a non-normal subgroup $H$. Then take $F = \mathbb{C}(t)^H$ and $L = \mathbb{C}(t)$. For instance, you can take $G$ to the be icosahedral group $A_5$, which is nonabelian simple, so has plenty of non-normal subgroups.

Note that in this rough note I attempt to study transcendental Galois extensions. The property of an extension $F/K$ that $F^{\operatorname{Aut}(F/K)} = K$ I call weakly Galois. My definition of a Galois extension is precisely that the examples you seek do not occur: namely for every intermediate extension $L$, also $F^{\operatorname{Aut}(F/L)} = L$. So in my terminology, for any infinite field $K$, the rational function field $K(t)$ is weakly Galois but not Galois.

In fact I have made a conjecture that a transcendental extension $F/K$ is Galois iff $F$ is algebraically closed of characteristic $0$. One implication is easy; the other one has been an open question on MathOverflow for more than a year.

share|cite|improve this answer
I just looked at the relevant exercises in Hungerford's book, and it turns out that the first example I give above appears in one of his exercises. (FWIW, I only came by my copy of the book recently and never saw those exercises before. This leads me to believe that this is "the most natural example", in some sense.) – Pete L. Clark Mar 28 '11 at 9:56

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.