Tell me more ×
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.

Is $\mathbf{Q}(\sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3}) = \mathbf{Q}(\sqrt{2}+\sqrt{3})$ ?

$$\mathbf{Q}(\sqrt{2},\sqrt{3})=\{a+b\sqrt{2}+c\sqrt{3}+d\sqrt{6} \mid a,b,c,d\in\mathbf{Q}\}$$

$$\mathbf{Q}(\sqrt{2}+\sqrt{3}) = \lbrace a+b(\sqrt{2}+\sqrt{3}) \mid a,b \in \mathbf{Q} \rbrace $$

So if an element is in $\mathbf Q(\sqrt{2},\sqrt{3})$, then it is in $\mathbf{Q}(\sqrt{2}+\sqrt{3})$, because $\sqrt{6} = \sqrt{2}\sqrt{3}$.

How to conclude from there?

share|improve this question
5  
$\mathbf{Q}(\sqrt{2}+\sqrt{3}) \not= \{a+b(\sqrt{2}+\sqrt{3})\ | a,b \in \mathbf{Q} \}$ because $\sqrt{2}+\sqrt{3}$ does not have degree 2 over $\mathbf{Q}$. – lhf Dec 22 '11 at 14:28
Hi lhf, then what is it? ? ? ? – Tashi Dec 22 '11 at 14:30
2  
$\alpha=\sqrt{2}+\sqrt{3}$ has degree 4 over $\mathbf{Q}$ and so a basis is $1,\alpha,\alpha^2,\alpha^3$. – lhf Dec 22 '11 at 14:35
3  
@Tashi: This may just be an issue of notation, since your argument in the question seems to suggest that you thougt that $\{a+b(\sqrt{2}+\sqrt{3})\ | a,b \in \mathbf{Q} \}$ also includes $\sqrt2\sqrt3$. (It doesn't.) – joriki Dec 22 '11 at 14:39

3 Answers

up vote 37 down vote accepted

$\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2} + \sqrt{3}) \subseteq \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3})$ is clear.

Now note that $$(\sqrt{2} + \sqrt{3})^{-1} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2} + \sqrt{3}} = \frac{\sqrt{2} - \sqrt{3}}{2 - 3} = \sqrt{3} - \sqrt{2}$$ hence $\sqrt{3} - \sqrt{2} \in \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2} + \sqrt{3})$ and hence $\sqrt{2} + \sqrt{3} + \sqrt{3} - \sqrt{2} = 2 \sqrt{3} \in \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2} + \sqrt{3})$ and hence $\sqrt{3} \in \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2} + \sqrt{3})$. Note that by a similar argument you get $\sqrt{2} \in \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2} + \sqrt{3})$ and hence $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3}) \subseteq \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2} + \sqrt{3}) $.

share|improve this answer
2  
Thank you, I can understand this answer! – Tashi Dec 22 '11 at 14:46
@Tashi You're welcome : ) – Matt N. Dec 22 '11 at 14:50
3  
@Tashi With only slightly more effort, you can understand my answer too (which I have elaborated). That will enable you to understand not only this special case, but much more general cases - many of which arise frequently in practice. – Gone Dec 22 '11 at 15:06

HINT $\ $ If a field F has two F-linear independent combinations of $\rm\ \sqrt{a},\ \sqrt{b}\ $ then you can solve for $\rm\ \sqrt{a},\ \sqrt{b}\ $ in F. For example, the Primitive Element Theorem works that way, obtaining two such independent combinations by Pigeonholing the infinite set $\rm\ F(\sqrt{a} + r\ \sqrt{b}),\ r \in F,\ |F| = \infty,$ into the finitely many fields between F and $\rm\ F(\sqrt{a}, \sqrt{b}),$ e.g. see PlanetMath's proof.

In this case it's simpler to notice $\rm\ E = \mathbb Q(\sqrt{a} + \sqrt{b})\ $ contains the independent $\rm\ \sqrt{a} - \sqrt{b}\ $ since

$$\rm \sqrt{a}\ -\ \sqrt{b}\ =\ \dfrac{a-b}{\sqrt{a}+\sqrt{b}}\ \in\ E = \mathbb Q(\sqrt{a}+\sqrt{b}) $$

To be explicit, notice that $\rm\ u = \sqrt{a}+\sqrt{b},\ v = \sqrt{a}-\sqrt{b}\in E\ $ so solving the linear system for the roots yields $\rm\ \sqrt{a}\ =\ (u+v)/2,\ \ \sqrt{b}\ =\ (v-u)/2\:,\ $ both of which are clearly $\rm\:\in E\:,\:$ since $\rm\:u,\:v\in E\:$ and $\rm\:2\ne 0\:$ in $\rm\:E\:,\:$ so $\rm\:1/2\:\in E\:.\:$ This works over any field where $\rm\:2\ne 0\:,\:$ i.e. where the determinant (here $2$) of the linear system is invertible, i.e. where the linear combinations $\rm\:u,v\:$ of the square-roots are linearly independent over the base field.

share|improve this answer
Thank you very much. – Tashi Dec 22 '11 at 14:46
@Matt My answer is excerpted from one of my old sci.math posts. [1] was a link to PlanetMath's proof of the Primitive Element Theorem. But PlanetMath seems to have problems currently (or the link has rotted) – Gone Dec 22 '11 at 15:18
Thanks Bill! Now that my comment is obsolete, I'll delete it. – Matt N. Dec 22 '11 at 15:19
I can't seem to access PlanetMath either. Some alternative references: Theorem 3.6 of this handout of Keith Conrad's and Theorem 5.1 of Milne's notes. Oddly enough, they both use Tashi's question as a first example. – Dylan Moreland Dec 22 '11 at 15:22
@BillDubuque In your last sentence, did you mean to write: "...where the determinant of the linear system is non-zero..."? (rather than "invertible") – Matt N. May 21 '12 at 10:25
show 1 more comment

If it's allowed to use the Galois theory, it can be proved as following. Since the subgroup of the Galois group of the field extension $\mathbb{Q} (\sqrt2,\sqrt 3)$ over $\mathbb{Q}$ which the subfield $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt 2+\sqrt 3)$ is trivial, therefor we know the result by the Galois theory. I admit it is not too trivial since one has to verify something as said above.

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.