1
$\begingroup$

Given a field extension $K/k$ we can take the algebraic (integral) closure of $F / k$ in $K$ and then $F/K$ only has transcendental elements. However in this MO post the top answer talks about the 'reverse': where $K$ is an algebraic extension of some intermediate field that is purely transcendental over $k$. In the context of the post $k$ is the prime subfield, but I don't believe that should matter and the notion should apply an extension of any field.

The problem is I do not see how this is constructed. We cannot simply take the collection of all elements transcendental over $k$ as the field it generates will contain algebraic elements assuming $K$ has them to begin with. Actually as I was writting this I realized we can use AC to construct a chain $k < k(\gamma_0) < k(\gamma_0, \gamma_1) ...$ of purely trancendental extentions which must terminate and then $F = \lim k_{\alpha}$ is our desired field. Still I would like to know what the differences/advantages between these two constructions are and the situations in which they are each useful.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

It seems to me that you are looking for the notions of transcendence degree and/or transcendence basis.

If $K/k$ is an extension of fields, then we say that a subset $B\subset K$ is a transcendence basis of $K/k$, if

  • $B$ is algebraically independent over $k$, i.e. the elements of $B$ do not satisfy any non-trivial multivariable polynomial equation with coefficients from $k$, and
  • The extension $K/k(B)$ is algebraic. In other words, every element of $K$ is algebraic over $k(B)$.

It turns out that all transcendence bases of a given extension $K/k$ have the same cardinality. But, there is nothing canonical about the intermediate field $k(B)$. In particular the degrees $[K:k(B)]$ can vary wildly when we vary the basis $B$.

For a specific example consider the function field $K=k(x,y)$ of an elliptic curve $$y^2=x^3+ax+b$$ defined over a field $k$ such that $6\cdot1_k\neq0_k$. Clearly $K$ is algebraic over either $k(x)$ or $k(y)$, so either $x$ or $y$ (they are both transcendental over $k$ by definition) will form a transcendence basis of $K/k$. So does any monomial $x^m$ or $y^n$. The transcendence degree $\operatorname{tr.deg}(K/k)=1$. But $[K:k(x)]=2$, $[K:k(y)]=3$, $[K:k(x^n)]=2n$ et cetera.

In this example case a nice geometric result is that the field $K/k$ is not purely transcendental. IOW there cannot be an element $z\in K$, transcendental over $k$, such that $K=k(z)$. This is possible only for function fields of curves of genus zero. As the elliptic curves have genus one, such an element $z$ cannot exist.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Is there any significance of a choice of basis where $[K:k(B)]$ is minimal? $\endgroup$ – basket Sep 26 '16 at 18:57
  • $\begingroup$ May be? That is a good question, @basket, but I don't know the answer. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Sep 26 '16 at 18:58

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.