8
$\begingroup$

Let $K$ and $L$ be two fields, does the existence of two field morphisms $f\colon K\rightarrow L,\ g\colon L\rightarrow K$ imply that, as abstract fields, $K\cong L$ (not necessarily via $f$ or $g$)?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ One can rephrase the question as 'does $F\le K\le L$ and $F\cong L$ implies $K\cong L$?' $\endgroup$ – Berci Jun 10 '15 at 9:37
  • $\begingroup$ What if we choose $f\equiv g\equiv 0$? $\endgroup$ – gebruiker Jun 10 '15 at 9:40
  • $\begingroup$ $0$ is not a field homomorphism unless the codomain is the trivial field with $0=1$. $\endgroup$ – Berci Jun 10 '15 at 9:41
  • $\begingroup$ @Berci Which isn't a field anyways. $\endgroup$ – Hayden Jun 10 '15 at 10:05
  • $\begingroup$ @Hayden: Well, that's only a matter of taste / definition.. similar to the question whether $0$ is natural or not. $\endgroup$ – Berci Jun 10 '15 at 10:59
5
$\begingroup$

I think I found a counterexample:

Let $F:=\overline{\Bbb Q(x_1,x_2,\dots)}$, i.e. the algebraic closure of the extension of $\Bbb Q$ by infinitely many independent transcendent elements.

Let $K:=F(x_0)$ a simple transcendent extension. This field is not algebraically closed.

Finally, let $L:=\overline K$, its algebraic closure.

Unless I am mistaken, $L=\overline{F(x_0)}=\overline{\Bbb Q(x_0,x_1,x_2,\dots)}\cong F$.

Thus we gain field morphisms $K\to L$ and $L\cong F\to K$, though $L\not\cong K$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This is a very nice example, thank you! $\endgroup$ – user148212 Jun 10 '15 at 13:48

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.