0
$\begingroup$

All fields are in $\mathbb{C}$

Let $f$ be a polynomial with coefficients in the field $F$.
Let $F_1$ be a Galois extension of $F$ such that its Galois group $G(F_1/F)$ is cyclic and has prime order.

Let $K$ be the splitting field of $f$ over $F$ and $K_1$ be the splitting field of $f$ over $F_1$.

We are given that $G(K/F)$ is simple and non-abelian.

Question: Is $G(K/F) \cong G(K_1/F_1)$?

Comments: We know that $[F_1:F] = p$ for some prime $p$ and this should be the key to the proof but I can't see where to use it. And we know that $K/F$ and $K_1/F_1$ are Galois extensions because they are splitting fields over the lower fields. This question arises from the proof of proposition (9.8) of Algebra by Artin 1991 reproduced below:

Prop 9.8 from section 9 of Algebra, Artin 1991

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ What if $F = \Bbb R$, $f(x) = x^2 + 1$, and $F_1 = \Bbb C$? Then $G(F_1/F) = \Bbb Z/(2)$, $K = \Bbb C$, and $K_1 = \Bbb C$, so $G(K/F) = \Bbb Z/(2)$ but $G(K_1/F_1) = 1$. $\endgroup$ – Stahl Mar 31 '15 at 18:51
  • $\begingroup$ Very good point... I wonder if I misstated something. I'll add the full proof to my question. $\endgroup$ – Mark Mar 31 '15 at 19:04
  • $\begingroup$ You forgot to include the hypothesis that $G$ is a simple nonabelian group. $\endgroup$ – Stahl Mar 31 '15 at 19:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In the first paragraph, he's assuming the result to be true in the case when $[F_1 : F]$ is prime: to show that it's true in this case, you need the hypothesis. The first part of the proof isn't showing that the result holds in the $[F_1 : F]$ prime case, only that the general case can be reduced to this one. $\endgroup$ – Stahl Mar 31 '15 at 19:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ah! In other words I jumped ship too soon. The proof is given in the very next paragraph! Thanks $\endgroup$ – Mark Mar 31 '15 at 19:16
0
$\begingroup$

The answer appears in the next paragraph after the underlined sentence in my picture. I misunderstood the format of the overall proof. I didn't see where cyclic-ness was ever used though.

$\endgroup$

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.