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

If F is a field of characteristic 0 with subfields K, L such that F is the compositum of K and L and [ L : LK ] is prime, must be K and L be linearly disjoint over LK?

In other words, must [ KL : K ] = [ L : LK ] if [ L : LK ] is prime?

Here K, L are fields of characteristic 0 (definitely not p), but I don't assume [ K : KL ] is finite (or normal or anything). I think it doesn't have to be true if that index [ L : LK ] is not prime and the field extension KLK is not normal. I am hoping it is true when the index [ L : LK ] is prime.

The motivation is to show either every non-identity p-subgroup of PGL(2, K) is reducible or every non-identity p-subgroup of PGL(2, K) is irreducible.

share|cite|improve this question
A pair of fields $L,K$ are said to be linearly disjoint over $E$ if $L\otimes_{E}K$ is a field. Is this what you are interested in? If so, what is E? – jspecter Jun 8 '11 at 16:51
E = L ∩ K, sorry. – Jack Schmidt Jun 8 '11 at 16:53
I think though, that is the only possible value for E. – Jack Schmidt Jun 8 '11 at 16:54
up vote 4 down vote accepted

The answer is no. Let $L = \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt[3]{5})$ and $K = \mathbb{Q}(\zeta_3\sqrt[3]{5}).$ Then $[LK:L] = 2 \neq 3 = [L: K\cap L]$ and $L\otimes_{\mathbb{Q}} K$ is not a field.

Edit in responce to the comment: For any fields $L$ and $K,$ if $L/L\cap K$ is finite, Galois, then so too is $KL/K$ and $[LK : K]$ divides $[L:L\cap K].$

Consequently, if $[L:L\cap K]$ is prime then $L\neq K$ and $[LK : K] = [L:L\cap K].$

Linear disjointness follows, assume momentarily that $K/L\cap K$ is finite and set $E = L\cap K.$ Then $$\mathrm{dim}_{E}(L\otimes_{\mathbb{E}} K) = [L:E][K:E] = [LK : K][K:E] = dim_{E}(LK).$$ Hence, the natural ring epimorphism from $L\otimes_{\mathbb{E}} K$ to $LK$ is an isomorphism of $E$-vector spaces and hence a ring isomorphism. It follows $L\otimes_{\mathbb{E}} K$ is a field.

For the case where $K/E$ is infinite,

Let $\mathcal{K} :=\{K'\}$ be the collection of fields which are finite extensions of $E$ and contained in $K.$ Then

$L\otimes_{\mathbb{E}} K \cong L\otimes_{\mathbb{E}} (\displaystyle\lim_{\rightarrow}K') \cong \displaystyle\lim_{\rightarrow}(L\otimes_{\mathbb{E}} K') \cong \displaystyle\lim_{\rightarrow} LK' \cong LK.$

where colimits are taken over $\mathcal{K}.$ It follows $L\otimes_{\mathbb{E}} K$ is a field and $K$ and $L$ are linearly disjoint.

share|cite|improve this answer
Crud. This doesn't answer my hidden question though. I do have that L∩K ≤ L is Galois. Probably should have mentioned that. If it is easy to adjust to this, could you please? Otherwise, I'll ask as another question. – Jack Schmidt Jun 8 '11 at 17:02
If both L and K are Galois over the intersection, then it is not difficult to show that they are linearly disjoint (irrespective of whether the extension degree is a prime or not). I need to think about it more, if only one is Galois. – Jyrki Lahtonen Jun 8 '11 at 17:31
@Jyrki: thanks! If K is finite dimensional over K∩L, then they are linearly disjoint, I believe. I just have no references for the infinite dimensional case. – Jack Schmidt Jun 8 '11 at 17:34
@Jack: Sorry, I meant to write: if both $K$ and $L$ are finite and Galois over $K\cap L$, then they are linearly disjoint. Don't know if the proof works for infinite extensions :-( – Jyrki Lahtonen Jun 8 '11 at 17:48
@jspecter: Thanks! Do you have a reference for the first sentence of your edit? (KL/L is Galois). I only know it for K/E finite. – Jack Schmidt Jun 8 '11 at 18:18

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.