8
$\begingroup$

Over a perfect field $k$ it is well known that an algebraic field extension $k \subseteq E$ is normal if and only if $\mathrm{Aut}_{E}(\bar{k})$ is a normal subgroup of $\mathrm{Aut}_{k}(\bar{k})$, as in the infinite Galois correspondence closed normal subgroups of $\mathrm{Aut}_k(\bar{k})$ correspond exactly to normal field extensions of $k$. Here $\bar{k}$ denotes an algebraic closure of $k$. Is the same true when $k$ is not perfect?

The closest I have gotten to providing an answer is the following: The group $\mathrm{Aut}_k(\bar{k})$ acts on the set of $k$-algebra homomorphisms $E \to \bar{k}$ by postcomposition. The stabiliser of the inclusion $E \subseteq \bar{k}$ is given by $\mathrm{Aut}_E(\bar{k})$; as by assumption $\mathrm{Aut}_E(\bar{k})$ is a normal subgroup of $\mathrm{Aut}_k(\bar{k})$ we see that it is the stabiliser of all $k$-algebra homomorphisms $E \to \bar{k}$, and therefore any conjugate of $E$ must lie within the purely inseparable closure of $E$, as this field coincides with the fixed field of $\mathrm{Aut}_E(\bar{k})$.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

The statement is wrong. I will first give a moral reason, and then a concrete counter example.

Moral reason: The extension $k \subseteq E$ can be divided into $k \subseteq E_s \subseteq E$, where $E_s$ is the separable closure of $k$ in $E$; it is then well known, that $E_s \subseteq E$ is purely inseparable. We thus have $\mathrm{Aut}_{E_s}(\overline{k}) = \mathrm{Aut}_E(\overline{k})$, so that $E_s \subseteq E$ is normal.
The group $\mathrm{Aut}_k(\overline{k})$ acts on the $k$-algebra homomorphisms $E_s \to \overline{k}$ by postcomposition; as $\mathrm{Aut}_{E_s}(\overline{k}) = \mathrm{Aut}_E(\overline{k})$ is normal in $\mathrm{Aut}_k(\overline{k})$ it is the stabiliser of all $k$-algebra homomorphisms $E_s \to \overline{k}$, i.e. the images of all homomorphisms $E_s \to \overline{k}$ is fixed by $\mathrm{Aut}_{E_s}(\overline{k})$, and thus by the (possibly infinite) Galois correspondence the images of these homomorphisms must coincide, so that $k \hookrightarrow E_s$ is normal.
Assume now that $E_s \subseteq E$ is generated by the $p$-th root of some element $\alpha \in E_s \setminus E$, then the minimal polynomial of $\alpha^{\frac{1}{p}}$ over $k$ is of the form $f(X^p)$ for some separable polynomial which splits in $E_s$. If $k \subseteq E$ were normal, then $E$ would contain all $p$-th roots of all conjugates of $\alpha$, but there is no reason for this to happen.

Counter example: For $p> 2$ consider the irreducible (by Eisenstein) polynomial $f(X) = X^{2p} + uvX^p + u$ over $\mathbb{F}_p(u,v)$, then by adjoining a root $\alpha$ of $f(X)$ to $\mathbb{F}_p(u,v)$, we obtain a degree $2p$ extension $\mathbb{F}_p(u,v) \subseteq E$ such that the separable closure of $\mathbb{F}_p(u,v)$ in $E$ is $\mathbb{F}_p(u,v)(\alpha^{\frac{1}{p}})$, a field obtained by adjoining the root $\alpha^{\frac{1}{p}}$ of the separable polynomial $X^2 + uvX + u$. As this polynomial has degree $2$, the extensions $E \subseteq E_s$ is normal, thus, by the above discussion, $\mathrm{Aut}_E(\overline{k})$ is normal in $\mathrm{Aut}_k(\overline{k})$.
The inseparable closure $E_i$ of $k$ in $E$ is $k$ (this is exercise V.5.3, Algèbre, Bourbaki). If $E$ were normal, then $E$ would be $E_sE_i$ (Proposition V.10.11.13, Algèbre, Bourbaki), but this is clearly false.

$\endgroup$

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.