This is the problem I'm trying to solve:

Let $K$ be a sub-field of $\mathbb{C}$ such that $K \nsubseteq \mathbb{R}$. Show that $|K:K\cap\mathbb{R}|=2$ if and only if $\overline{k} \in K$ whenever $k \in K$.

Some examples:

  1. If $K=\mathbb{Q}(\omega)$, where $\omega = e^{2\pi i/3}$, then $\overline{\omega} = \omega^2$ and $|K:\mathbb{Q}|=2$, and this works fine because $K\cap\mathbb{R}=\mathbb{Q}$.

  2. If $K=\mathbb{Q}(\xi)$, where $\xi = e^{2\pi i/5}$, then $\overline{\xi} = \xi^4$ and $\overline{\xi}^2 = \xi^3$ and $|K:\mathbb{Q}|=4$, but this works fine still because $K\cap\mathbb{R}=\mathbb{Q}(\xi+\xi^4) = \mathbb{Q}(\xi^2+\xi^3)$ has degree $2$ over $\mathbb{Q}$. It is easy to see that $\mathbb{Q}(\xi+\xi^4) = \mathbb{Q}(\xi^2+\xi^3)$, because the minimal polinomial of $\xi$ over $\mathbb{Q}$ is $t^4+t^3+t^2+t+1 \in \mathbb{Q}[t]$, so that $\xi^4+\xi^3+\xi^2+\xi+1=0$, yielding $\xi+\xi^4=-1-(\xi^2+\xi^3)$.

  3. If $K = \mathbb{Q}(\omega\sqrt[3]{2})$, with $\omega$ as above, then $K$ is not closed under taking conjugates. I know that $|K:\mathbb{Q}|=3$, which is prime, so I suppose that it has to be $K\cap \mathbb{R}=\mathbb{Q}$ and so another confirmation of the result.

I've tried many other examples but failed to see an argument for the general case. This is an exercise in a book on Galois Theory, in the chapter in which the Galois correspondence was introduced, so I suppose I'm expected to use that correspondence, the automorphisms...

Thanks in advance.

  • $\begingroup$ Is your field galois over $\mathbb{Q}$? $\endgroup$ – Matt B Apr 1 '16 at 20:43
  • $\begingroup$ If so, then consider the subfield of $K$ fixed by complex conjugation and show this equals $K \cap \mathbb{R}$. $\endgroup$ – Matt B Apr 1 '16 at 20:44
  • $\begingroup$ You don't need $K$ to be Galois over $\Bbb{Q}$. A subfield of $\Bbb{C}$ that is stable under complex conjugation will be Galois over $K\cap \Bbb{R}$ regardless. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Apr 1 '16 at 21:26

If $K$ is stable under complex conjugation, then complex conjugation generates a group $G$ of two automorphisms of $K$. Obviously the fixed field of $G$ is then $K^G=K\cap \Bbb{R}$. It follows from Artin's lemma that $[K:K^G]\le2$. See for example Noam Elkies' write-up for that piece of theory. Because $K^G$ is a proper subfield of $K$ it then follows that $[K:K^G]=2$. If you don't fancy using Artin's lemma here, you can avoid it in this special case as follows.

Let $w\in K\setminus K^G$ be a fixed non-real element. Then $u=w-\overline{w}\in K$ is purely imaginary. The claim follows, if we can show that $K=K^G\oplus u K^G$ as a vector space over $K^G$. To that end let $z\in K$ be arbitrary. Then $z_1=(z+\overline{z})/2\in K^G$, and $z_2=z-z_1$ is pure imaginary. Therefore $z_2/u$ is a real number, and thus an element of $K^G$. Hence we can write $$ z=z_1+\frac{z_2}uu $$ as a sum of elements from $K^G$ and $uK^G$ respectively. The sum $K^G+uK^G$ is obviously direct.

Switching to extended hints for the other direction. Let $z\in K$ be such that $\overline{z}\notin K$. If we denote $F:=K\cap\Bbb{R}$, then clearly $z\notin F$. What can you say about the minimal polynomial $m(x)$ of $z$ over $F$?

  • Show that $z$ and $\overline{z}$ are both zeros of $m(x)$.
  • Show that if $m(x)$ is of degree two only, then the other zero of $m(x)$ is also in $K$.
  • Why does this imply that $[K:F]>2$?
  • What happens if $z$ has no minimal polynomial over $F$?
  • $\begingroup$ In some sense in the first part I am replacing Galois theory with representation theory of $G$. Complex conjugation has the obvious two eigenvalues, and the field is thus a direct sum of the isotypical subrepresentations (=the eigenspaces). Furthermore, the presence of field operations implies that the two eigenspaces have the same dimension. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Apr 1 '16 at 21:58
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks a lot. It really helped me solving the problem, although in the direction you presented the extended hints, I could only prove the first and the second point under the assumption that $[K:F]=2$. I know that in general, the sum of all roots, the sum of all products of two roots,..., the product of all roots must belong to $F$, but does it follow, foe any degree of the polynomial, that if $z$ is a root then so is $\overline{z}$, or you were making the same assumption? $\endgroup$ – amrsa Apr 2 '16 at 9:31

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.