If I take $f(x)$ is an irreducible cubic over $\mathbb{Q}$ with a root $\alpha$ in a splitting field and given that $\mathbb{Q}(\alpha)$ is a radical extension is it true that $\mathbb{Q}(\alpha) = \mathbb{Q}(b^{1/3})$ for some $b \in \mathbb{Q}$?

We have that $\alpha^q \in \mathbb{Q}$ for some $q$. I.e. $\alpha$ satisfies an equation $g(x) = x^q - b$ with $\alpha^q = b$. As $f$ is the minimal polynomial of $\alpha$ we must have $f$ divides $g$.

Now if it's the case that $q = 3$ then we'd have $f=g$ but that's clearly not the case in general. I'm not quite sure where I am going wrong here - or perhaps the original statement is false.

Another slight point of confusion is that it seems that $g$ is irreducible for any $b$ because it's splitting field is $\mathbb{Q}(\omega, b^{1/q})$ where $\omega$ is a primitive qth root of unity - that extension is Galois and acts transitively on the roots of $g$? But if that were the case then again we'd have $f=g$?

Thanks for any help clearing up this confusion!

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Precisely what is a radical extension? Isn’t the field of seventh roots of unity a radical extension? It has a subfield cubic over $\Bbb Q$ that definitely is not gotten by adjoining the third root of something. If you’d like me to expand this in an answer, just give the word. $\endgroup$ – Lubin May 28 '15 at 2:37

The original statement is true.

We have that if $f$ is an irreducible cubic, and then $\mathbb{Q}(\alpha): \mathbb{Q}$ is radical. Then there exist, from the definition, $\beta_1, \ldots, \beta_n$ with $$ \mathbb{Q}(\alpha) = \mathbb{Q}(\beta_1, \ldots , \beta_n), $$ and for each $i$ we may assume there is some prime $p_i$ such that $$ \beta_i^{p_i} \in \mathbb{Q}(\beta_1, \ldots, \beta_{i-1}). $$ Then by the Tower Law applied repeatedly to $[\mathbb{Q}(\beta_1,\ldots, \beta_n):\mathbb{Q}]$ we get $$ [\mathbb{Q}(\beta_1,\ldots, \beta_n):\mathbb{Q}]$ = \prod_{i=1}^n[\mathbb{Q}(\beta_1,\ldots, \beta_i):\mathbb{Q}(\beta_1,\ldots, \beta_{i-1})] = \prod_{i=1}^n p_i. $$ But then as $[\mathbb{Q}(\beta_1,\ldots, \beta_n):\mathbb{Q}] = [\mathbb{Q}(\alpha):\mathbb{Q}] = 3$, we see that, by prime factorisation, there is only one element $\beta$ with $\beta^3 \in \mathbb{Q}$ and $$ \mathbb{Q}(\alpha) = \mathbb{Q}(\beta). $$ But the important point is that this does not imply that $\alpha = \beta$, but instead that there are rational numbers $q_0, q_1, q_2$ with $$ \alpha = q_0 + q_1 \beta + q_2 \beta^2. $$

EDIT: Because $\mathbb{Q}(\alpha)$ is a radical extension of degree 3, by the tower law analysis above we know that there is some $\beta$ which generates $\mathbb{Q}(\alpha)$.

Then the minimal polynomial of $\beta$ divides $x^3 - \beta^3$. But since $[\mathbb{Q}(\alpha):\mathbb{Q}] = 3$, then $[\mathbb{Q}(\alpha):\mathbb{Q}] = 3$, so the minimal polynomial of $\beta$ must be of degree 3 and so equals $x^3 -\beta^3$.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your answer - so by the tower law any subfield of $\mathbb{Q}(\alpha)$ must be a divisor of 3 but then why is $\mathbb{Q}(\beta)$ a degree 3 extension? $\endgroup$ – Wooster May 27 '15 at 14:25
  • $\begingroup$ Since $\beta$ is not in $\mathbb{Q}$, but $\beta^3$ is. So $x^3 - \beta^3$ is the minimal polynomial of $\beta$ over the rationals. $\endgroup$ – CameronJWhitehead May 27 '15 at 14:35
  • $\begingroup$ I'll edit my answer, maybe the use of the tower law isn't clear $\endgroup$ – CameronJWhitehead May 27 '15 at 14:35
  • $\begingroup$ Okay yes that is clear - how do we know that $f(x) = x^3 - \beta^3$ is irreducible? I think this is causing some of the confusion in my original post as well $\endgroup$ – Wooster May 27 '15 at 14:56
  • $\begingroup$ We know that $x^3 - \beta^3$ is irreducible because we chose $\beta$ so that $\mathbb{Q}(\alpha) = \mathbb{Q}(\beta)$, then we must have $[\mathbb{Q}(\beta):\mathbb{Q}] = [\mathbb{Q}(\alpha):\mathbb{Q}] = 3$. Then this degree is the degree of the minimal polynomial of $\beta$ which clearly divides $x^3 - \beta^3$. $\endgroup$ – CameronJWhitehead May 27 '15 at 15:09

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.