-1
$\begingroup$

Q.If $\Sigma$ is the splitting field for $f$ over $K$ and $K\subseteq L \subseteq \Sigma$, show that $\Sigma$ is the splitting field for $f$ over $L$.

I give up, I have tried for 2 hours and no I don't get even how to solve this. I have seen he exact same question(not mine) in a past post but it did not provide any insight, what is more, it had flawed arguments as you can see.

So, let me start with the definition I have

(Splitting fields for $f$ over field $K$) A subfield $\Sigma$ of $\mathbb{C}$ is a splitting field for the nonzero polynomial $f$ over the subfield $K$ of $\mathbb{C}$ if

1.$K \subseteq \Sigma$

2.$f$ splits over $\Sigma$

3.If $K \subseteq \Sigma' \subseteq \Sigma$ and if $f$ splits over $\Sigma'$ then $\Sigma = \Sigma'$

Now, I know that $\Sigma$ is a splitting field of some $f$ over $K$. That is one information.

Also, $k \subseteq L \subseteq \Sigma$. Information two.

But with this scarce information, how can I draw the conclusion that $\Sigma$ is a splitting field for $f$ over $L$?

I first thought conditions $3$ in the definition is the trick. It seems like $L= \Sigma'$. But I quickly discarded this because it's "IF $f$ splits over $\Sigma"$ then $\Sigma = \Sigma'$" which does not help me in actually proving it splits over $\Sigma'$ or, in our case $L$.

So I tried to go by definition. Namely, show that

1.$L \subseteq \Sigma$

2.$f$ splits over $\Sigma$

3.If $L \subseteq \Sigma' \subseteq \Sigma$ and if $f$ splits over $\Sigma'$ then $\Sigma = \Sigma'$

Well, conditions $1$ and $2$ are satisfied. So all good up to there. But again, conditions $3$ is a pain.

I have tried to argue as follows but am very NOT confident with it.

Suppose that $\Sigma'$ such that $L \subseteq \Sigma' \subseteq \Sigma$ exists. And, if $f$ does not split over $\Sigma'$, we are done.(...Right?)

If $f$ does split over $\Sigma'$, then $\Sigma'= \Sigma$ because $\Sigma$ is the smallest field extension of $K$ such that $f$ splits and $K \subseteq L \subseteq \Sigma' \subseteq \Sigma$. If $\Sigma ' \neq \Sigma$ then $\Sigma'$ would be the smallest field extension of $K$ that $f$ splits and thus a contradiction.

Thus all $3$ conditions have been satisfied and hence shown.

I need more practice with this area of abstract math, but can someone look at this problem and point me in the right direction at least if I am wrong up there? Please help

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

So $\;\Sigma/K\;$ is the splitting field of $\;f(x)\in K[x]\;$ , and this means in simple words that

(1) $\;\Sigma\;$ contains all the roots of $\;f\;$ , or what is the same : $\;f\;$ splits as a product of linear factors in

$\;\Sigma[x]\;$, and

(2) $\;\Sigma\;$ is the minimal (w.r.t set inclusion) field extension of $\;K\;$ that fulfills (1).

Now, if $\;K\subset L\subset \Sigma\;$ , then clearly also $\;f(x)\in L[x]\;$ and all the roots of this polynomial are in

$\;\Sigma\;$ . If there was a field $\;L\le M\lneqq\Sigma\;$ containing all the roots of $\;f\;$ , then this field would also be

an extension of $\;K\;$ since $\;K\subset L\subset M\;$ and we'd get a contradiction to the minimality of $\;\Sigma\;$ as

the minimal field extension of $\;K\;$ where $\;f\;$ splits in linear factors.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for helping out. One question, what does $\;L\le M\rlap{\;\,/}<\Sigma\;$ mean in field theory? I know it means subgroup in groups but is that supposed to mean "a subfield of"? And, so assuming such an $M$ exists for $f(x) \in L[x]$ leads to a contradiction, and thus $\Sigma$ must be the splitting field over $L$ for $f(x)$... yes? $\endgroup$ – John Trail Feb 29 '16 at 20:25
  • $\begingroup$ @JohnTrail Sorry, that was a typo. I already fixed. It should have been $\;L\le M\lneqq\Sigma\;$, meaning: proper subfield. $\endgroup$ – DonAntonio Feb 29 '16 at 20:53

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.