12
$\begingroup$

My questions are:

$1.$ Is there a field morphism $\Bbb R(X) \hookrightarrow \Bbb R$ ?

$2.$ If the answer to $1.$ is "yes", are $\Bbb R$ and $\Bbb R(X)$ isomorphic as fields?

$ $


$ $ For $1.$, here are some comments:

As for 2. :

  • They are isomorphic as abelian groups, and actually as $\Bbb Q$-vector spaces. They are not isomorphic as $\Bbb R$-algebras, because they haven't the same transcendence degree over $\Bbb R$.

  • Let's try to see how to construct such a field isomorphism. We could try$^{[1]}$ to find a subset $B$ of $\Bbb R$ such that $\Bbb R = \Bbb Q(B)$ and $C \subsetneq B \implies \Bbb R \neq \Bbb Q(C)$. The set $B$ must contain transcendental elements, pick such an $x_0 \in B$.

    Then $\Bbb R = \Bbb Q(B) = \Bbb Q(B \setminus \{x_0\})(x_0)$ and we could try$^{[2]}$ to find a field isomorphism $\Bbb Q(B \setminus \{x_0\}) \cong \Bbb Q(B)$, so that $\Bbb Q(B \setminus \{x_0\})(x_0) \cong \Bbb Q(B)(x_0) \cong \Bbb R(X)$.

    For ${[1]}$, I tried to use Zorn's lemma on $\mathscr B = \{B \subset \Bbb R \mid \Bbb R = \Bbb Q(B)\}$ and the partial order $B_1 ≤ B_2 \iff B_1 \supset B_2$. But this is not clear to me why this should be an inductive set.

    For ${[2]}$, my idea was to define $f : \Bbb Q(B \setminus \{x_0\}) \cong \Bbb Q(B)$ by choosing a bijection $b : B \setminus \{x_0\} \to B$ (these sets should be uncountable), and then trying to extend $f\vert_{B \setminus \{x_0\}} = b$ to a field morphism.


Edit for $^{[1]}$: in this article (MINIMAL GENERATING SETS OF GROUPS, RINGS, AND FIELDS, by LORENZ HALBEISEN, MARTIN HAMILTON, AND PAVEL RUZICKA) the theorem 2.4. proves that $\Bbb R$ has no minimal generating set as field (or $\Bbb Q$-algebra, i.e. as ring). The argument uses Artin-Schreier theorem. Minimal generating sets of modules are also discussed here.

I think that $B$ is a minimal generating set of a subfield $K \subset \Bbb R$ over $\Bbb Q$ if and only if any element of $B$ cannot be written as a rational fraction of other elements of $B$. Under these conditions and using (transfinite) induction, we can probably prove (and this was my first idea) that any function $f: B \to \Bbb C$ such that $b$ and $f(b)$ are conjugate over $\Bbb Q$ (i.e. have the same minimal polynomial) extends to a (unique) field morphism $\sigma : K = \Bbb Q(B) \to \Bbb C$.

Actually, the collection $\mathscr B$ defined above doesn't have to be an inductive set, at least if we replace $\Bbb R$ by $K =\Bbb Q(\sqrt 2, \sqrt[4]{2},\sqrt[8]{2},\dots)$, because the descending chain $\left(E_n = \{\sqrt[2^m]{2} \mid m \geq n\}\right)_{n \geq 1}$ satisfy $K = \Bbb Q(E_n)$, but $K \neq \Bbb Q\left(\bigcap_{n≥1} E_n\right)=\Bbb Q$, so the chain has no upper bound w.r.t. $≤$ in $\mathscr B$.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Wouldn't $\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{R}(x)$ being isomorphic imply $\mathbb{C}(x)$ is algebraically closed? $\endgroup$ – Steve D Aug 19 '16 at 17:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @SteveD: in general the algebraic closure $\overline{F(x)}$ of $F(x)$ is not the same as $\overline{F}(x)$. $\endgroup$ – Watson Aug 19 '16 at 17:57
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Right, but $\mathbb{R}$ has index $2$ in its algebraic closure, so the isomorphism would suggest so does $\mathbb{R}(x)$. $\endgroup$ – Steve D Aug 19 '16 at 18:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @SteveD: ok and then by Artin–Schreier's theorem, it would follow that $\overline{\Bbb R(x)} \cong \Bbb R(X,i) \cong \Bbb C(x)$. $\endgroup$ – Watson Aug 19 '16 at 19:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For my first question, a field morphism $\Bbb R(X) \to \Bbb R$ would induce a field morphism $\overline{\Bbb R(X)} \to \Bbb C$, but there is no contradiction since $\overline{\Bbb R(X)} \cong \Bbb C$ as it is an algebraically closed field of characteristic $0$ and of cardinality $2^{\aleph_0}$. $\endgroup$ – Watson Aug 19 '16 at 19:46
15
$\begingroup$

There is no homomorphism $\mathbb{R}(X)\to\mathbb{R}$. Indeed, the only homomorphism $\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ is the identity, so a homomorphism $\mathbb{R}(X)\to\mathbb{R}$ would have to restrict to the identity on constants and then there is nowhere $X$ could go.

Here's a proof that the only homomorphism $f:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ is the identity. We know $f$ must be the identity on $\mathbb{Q}$. Now note that for any $r\in\mathbb{R}$ and any rational $q<r$, we must have $$f(\sqrt{r-q})^2=f(r-q)=f(r)-q,$$ so $f(r)-q\geq 0$ since it is a square. This means $f(r)\geq r$ for all $r$. By a similar argument using $\sqrt{q-r}$ instead of $\sqrt{r-q}$, you can also show that $f(r)\leq r$. Thus $f(r)=r$ for all $r$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Is there a description of the field homomorphisms $\Bbb R \to \Bbb C$ ? I believe that this is more difficult because we could restrict to $\Bbb R$ any wild automorphism of $\Bbb C$ . $\endgroup$ – Watson Aug 20 '16 at 10:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yeah, there are lots and lots of homomorphisms $\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{C}$. They come not just from automorphisms of $\mathbb{C}$ but from endomorphisms of $\mathbb{C}$, which need not be surjective. $\endgroup$ – Eric Wofsey Aug 20 '16 at 15:11

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.