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 an exercise in some textbooks.

Let $E$ be an algebraic extension of $F$. Suppose $R$ is ring that contains $F$ and is contained in $E$. Prove that $R$ is a field.

The trouble is really with the inverse of $r$, where $r\in R$. How to prove that $r^{-1}\in R$, in apparent lack of a characterization of $R$.

It occurred to me to use the smallest field containing $R$ ($R$ is easily shown to be an integral domain), that's the field of quotients, and proving that it's $R$ itself, but I don't really know how to proceed.

A not-too-weak, not-too-strong hint will be much appreciated.

share|improve this question
3  
Consider the case where $E/F$ is finite and think about $R$ an $F$ vector space and multiplication by $r$ as an endomorphism of $R$. Show that this map is surjective. Hint: Think about dimension. –  jspecter Jun 9 '11 at 17:35
    
F extends E but R contains F and is contained in E? Are you sure it's not a typo? –  Gadi A Jun 9 '11 at 17:36
    
You mean: Let $E$ be an algebraic extension of $F$. –  lhf Jun 9 '11 at 17:47
    
@lhf, Gadi: thanks. Corrected. –  Weltschmerz Jun 9 '11 at 17:49
1  
Yes. But you only care about one element of $R$ at a time and any such element is contained in a finite extension of $F.$ Replace $E$ by this extension and $R$ by the intersection of $R$ and $E$ –  jspecter Jun 11 '11 at 4:46

2 Answers 2

up vote 10 down vote accepted

Well, you know that $R$ is contained in an algebraic extension of $F$, so you should use it somehow. It directly implies that there is a polynomial (of minimal degree, say) with coefficients in $F$ which annihilates $x$. Can you manufacture an inverse for $r$ using this polynomial?

share|improve this answer

HINT $\ $ Read off an inverse of $\rm\:r \ne 0\:$ from a minimal polynomial $\rm\:f(x)\in F[x]\:$ of $\rm\:r\:$ over $\rm\:F\:.$

Note: this is a special case of using the Euclidean algorithm to compute inverses via the Bezout identity, viz. $\rm\: (x,f(x)) = 1\ \Rightarrow\ a(x)\ x + b(x)\ f(x) = 1\ $ so $\rm\: a(r)\ r = 1\ $ by evaluating at $\rm\:x = r\:.\:$ This is a generalization of rationalizing denominators in low-degree extensions, i.e. one may compute an inverse of $\rm\:r\:$ by "rationalizing" (to $\rm\:F\:$) the denominator of $\rm\:1/r\:$ (which can also be done using norms, resultants, etc).

share|improve this answer
    
@Bill: I don't really get that. Could you please point me to where the tool you mention is explained? Thank you. –  Weltschmerz Jun 10 '11 at 19:05
    
@Wel I'm happy to elaborate if you tell me which part you'd like explained further. –  Bill Dubuque Jun 10 '11 at 20:31
    
@Bill: I understand that the problem is writing $r^{-1}$ in terms of an expression involving powers of $r$ and elements of $F$. I don't know about the identity you mention and the notation therein, or about rationalizing to F the denominator of $1/r$. A small example would be enough, I'll try to work on the general case. Thanks. –  Weltschmerz Jun 10 '11 at 21:16
    
@Wel To elaborate on those points requires giving the complete solution hinted in the first sentence. Since you said you desired only a hint, is it ok to do such? –  Bill Dubuque Jun 10 '11 at 21:26
    
@Bill: alright, I'll keep thinking about it. If I don't solve it I shall bother you again :) Thanks. –  Weltschmerz Jun 10 '11 at 21:29

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.