Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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

Let $F\subset K$ be an algebraic extension of fields. By taking the separable closure $K_s$, we obtain a tower $F\subset K_s \subset K$ such that $F\subset K_s$ is separable and $K_s\subset K$ is purely inseparable.

Wikipedia, following Isaacs, Algebra, a graduate course p.301, says:

On the other hand, an arbitrary algebraic extension $F\subset K$ may not possess an intermediate extension $E$ that is purely inseparable over $F$ and over which $K$ is separable.

The question is: why? And more explicitly, had I not seen this this soon, I would surely have conjectured that the perfect closure, $K_p$, which satisfies $F\subset K_p$ purely inseparable, also satisfied $K_p\subset K$ separable... But why doesn't it?

share|cite|improve this question
I admit I am not sure what you're getting at with your use of the word "why." Does that mean that you won't accept a counterexample as an answer? Is it signaling that you're looking for some kind of intuition about such a counterexample? – Qiaochu Yuan May 2 '11 at 16:44
@Qiaochu: Both. A counterexample would be great, but I'm also looking for intuition. I don't understand what is the impediment for the situation to be symmetrical. – Bruno Stonek May 2 '11 at 23:48

The intuition I can provide is that in an algebraic extension $F\subset K$ of characteristic $p$ , the field $K$ will be a separable extension of its purely inseparable extension $K_p$ over $F$ whenever $trdeg_{\mathbb F_p} F\leq 1$. This is why my counterexamples on MathOverflow here and here have $F=\mathbb F_p(u,v)$ , a purely transcendental extension of $\mathbb F_p$ of degree two.

I can't prove my intuition but it implies that Zev's example won't work (he didn't say it did, so he made no mistake), and here is a proof that indeed it doesn't.

The key point is that is that if $\mathbb F_q$ is a finite field of characteristic $p$, the Frobenius map $\mathbb F_q \to \mathbb F_q: x\mapsto x^p$ is surjective and this implies that for $f(T)\in \mathbb F_q [T]$ we have $ (f(T))^{1/p}\in \mathbb F_q [T^{1/p}]$, because of the freshman's dream $(a+bT+\ldots)^{1/p}=a^{1/p}+b^{1/p}T^{1/p}+\ldots $ !
This implies that

$$(\mathbb F_q(T))^{p^{-\infty}}=\mathbb F_q(T,T^{p^{-1}},T^{p^{-2}},\ldots)$$

And now the rest is easy. If $F= \mathbb F_p(T)$ and $K=(\mathbb F_{p^2}(T))^{p^{-\infty}}=\mathbb F_{p^2}(T,T^{p^{-1}},T^{p^{-2}},\ldots \quad )$ we have $K_p=\mathbb F_p(T,T^{p^{-1}},T^{p^{-2}},\ldots \quad )$ and $K$ is a separable extension of the perfect closure $K_p$ of $F$ in $K$ . Indeed $K$ is just the simple separable extension $K=K_p(g)$ of $K_p$, where $g \in \mathbb F_{p^2}$ is any element such that $\mathbb F_{p^2}=\mathbb F_{p}(g)$. [ The element $g$ is of course separable over the (perfect !) field $\mathbb F_p$, so it is a fortiori separable over $K_p$].

Edit What I called my intuition above has now been proved by ulrich on MathOverflow here. He proves that if $trdeg_{\mathbb F_p} F\leq 1$, any algebraic extension $F\subset K$ has the property that $K$ is separable over its purely inseparable extension $K_p$ over $F$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you for some great insight ! – Bruno Stonek Jul 9 '11 at 1:39

This is Prop 3.23 in Karpilovsky's Field Theory: $K/K_p$ is separable if and only if $K=K_pK_s$.

The proof requires these facts:

  1. Given fields $A\subseteq B\subseteq C$, then $A/C$ is separable (resp. purely inseparable) iff $A/B$ and $B/C$ separable (resp. purely inseparable).

  2. Given $A/B$, then $A/A_s$ is purely inseparable.

  3. If $A/C$ is separable and $B/C$ is any extension for which $A$ and $B$ are contained in some common field, then $AB/B$ is separable.

If $K/K_p$ is separable, then $K/K_pK_s$ is separable (clear because $K_pK_s\supseteq K_p$) and $K/K_pK_s$ is purely inseparable (combine facts 1 and 2). Conversely if $K=K_pK_s$, then by fact 3, because $K_s/K$ is separable, then $K=K_pK_s/K_p$ is separable.

share|cite|improve this answer
Why doesn't this always happen? – Bruno Stonek May 1 '11 at 23:46
@Bruno: That is an excellent question - I can't think of any examples off the top of my head. – Zev Chonoles May 1 '11 at 23:54
All I can think of is just trying to pick the crappiest fields possible - maybe $F=\mathbb{F}_p(T)$ and $$K=\mathbb{F}_{p^2}(T)^{p^{-\infty}}=\{\alpha\in\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p^2}(T)}\‌​mid \alpha^{p^n}\in \mathbb{F}_{p^2}(T)\text{ for some }n\}$$ but I'm not sure if this works. – Zev Chonoles May 2 '11 at 0:04
Not crappy enough: see my answer. – Georges Elencwajg Jun 26 '11 at 17:54
up vote 1 down vote accepted

Counterexamples and intuition have been provided at MO.

share|cite|improve this answer
I had forgotten to bring the answer here! Better late than never... – Bruno Stonek Jun 26 '11 at 15:41

Hint: let $g(X)$ be irreducible and separable; let $f(X)=g(X^p)$; adjoin one root of f to your field; study the extension.

share|cite|improve this answer
Would you care to elaborate? – Bruno Stonek May 9 '11 at 17:53
This answer is incorrect. Indeed, consider the simplest possible example: let $F=\mathbb{F}_p(T)$, let $g(X)=X-T$, which is obviously irreducible and separable in $F[X]$; then $f(X)=X^p-T$, so $K=F(\alpha)=\mathbb{F}_p(\sqrt[p]{T})$ for any single root $\alpha$ of $f$ (of course, they are all the same). We have that $K/F$ is purely inseparable, hence $K=K_p$, so that obviously $K/K_p$ is separable. – Zev Chonoles May 12 '11 at 4:41

Assume $K=F(x)$ and let $f\in F[X]$ be the minimal polynomial of $x$ over $F$. One then knows that $f(X)=g(X^{p^m})$ for some $m\in\mathbb{N}$ and a separable polynomial $g\in F[X]$. Thus $K_s =F(x^{p^m})$.

If there exists an intermediate field $L$ such that $L/F$ is purely inseparable and $K/L$ is separable, then $[K:L]=[K_s:F]$ since $L$ and $K_s$ are linearly disjoint over $F$.

Consequently the minimal polynomial $h\in L[X]$ of $x$ over $L$ has the same degree as $g$.

Now $f=hh_1$ in $L[X]$. Since $x$ is a simple root of $h$ put a $p^m$-fold root of $f$ one concludes $f=h^{p^m}h_2$. Comparing degrees yields $h^{p^m}=g(X^{p^m})$. This shows that a necessary condition for $L$ to exist is that the coefficients of $g$ are $p^m$-th powers in $K$.

I guess this is sufficient too - have no time to think about it now. And I guess that what I just wrote down is what mephisto meant ...

By the way: if $K/F$ is normal, then $L$ exists: it is the fixed field of $\mathrm{Aut (K/F)}$.

share|cite|improve this answer
The bounty expires in 2 days. Would you please expand your answer? – Bruno Stonek May 14 '11 at 2:54

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.