0
$\begingroup$

If $E/K$ is a field extension we use the notation $\def\Aut{\operatorname{Aut}}\Aut(E/K)$ for the set of field automorphisms of $E$ that are the identity over $K$. It's immediate that the set $\Aut(E/K)$ is a group with the composition operation. If $H$ is a subgroup of $\Aut(E/K)$, we define $E^H=\{x \in E : \sigma (x) = x\,$ for all $\sigma \in H \}$. It can be easily verified that $E^H$ is an intermediate field of $E/K$ and we call it the field fixed by $H$.

It's known that if $E/K$ is a Galois extension with galois group $G$ then $E^G=K$. I'm interested in the converse of this claim. That is:

Let $E/K$ be an algebraic field extension and $G=\Aut(E/K)$. Is it true that $E^G=K$ implies $E/K$ Galois? What if $E/K$ is separable? What if $K$ is $\mathbb{Q}$? What if $E/K$ is finite?

I have been thinking for a while but I didn't find a counterexample nor a proof. I've tried examples with $K=\mathbb{Q}$ and $K=\mathbb{F}_2$. The problem is I've found $K \subsetneq E^G$ every time that $E/K$ was not Galois.

Thanks!

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean by "What if $E/K$ is $\mathbb{Q}$"? $\endgroup$ – SMG Dec 16 '14 at 2:31
  • $\begingroup$ A typo... Edited :) $\endgroup$ – Pipicito Dec 16 '14 at 2:34
1
$\begingroup$

I am pretty sure Galois includes separability as a criteria. I will assume you mean by Galois "normal and separable". This is an equivalent condition to your question:

If $E/K$ is not galois, then there is some element $a \in E, a \notin K$ such that one of its conjugate roots over $K$ is not in $E$. Then let $x_i = g_i(a)$ where $g_i()$ are the automorphisms in $G$. The polynomial with coefficients the elementary polynomials in $x_i$ has roots in $E$ and coefficients in the fixed field of $G$. If this fixed field were K, then all the conjugate roots of a would be contained in E. This is a contradiction.

I am new to writing proofs in latex, so if you don't understand or want to make some edits, please feel free to ask me/edit it yourself.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Why is it that some $\alpha \in E\setminus K$ must have one of its conjugate roots not in $E$? Doesn't this just violate normality and not separability? What it $E/K$ is a normal, but inseparable extension? $\endgroup$ – Mmhmm Aug 24 '15 at 10:58
  • $\begingroup$ I was wondering whether $K=\overline{\mathbb{F}_p}(t)$ and $E$ the normal closure of $\overline{\mathbb{F}_p}(t^{\frac{1}{p}})$ would work. $\endgroup$ – Mmhmm Aug 24 '15 at 11:05

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.