0
$\begingroup$

Suppose that I have a complex number $\alpha\not\in\mathbb Q$ such that $\alpha^n\in\mathbb Q$. I take the extension $\mathbb Q(\alpha)$. Suppose that $\mathbb Q(\alpha)$ is Galois. Clearly, this extension need not be cyclic. However, I believe that if I consider the extension $F$ of $\mathbb Q$ where $F$ contains all the roots of unity in $\mathbb Q(\alpha)$, then the extension $[\mathbb Q(\alpha):F]$ becomes cyclic. I've seen this used in a few places, but can't seem to rigorously find why this is the case. I can see that $\alpha$ satisfies $x^n-\alpha^n$, but how do I know the minimal polynomial? I guessed that the roots of the minimal polynomial might be $\alpha\zeta_n$, where $\zeta_n$ is a primitive root of unity, but even then I'm not sure. I'd appreciate some help. Thanks.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ You probably want to say that $F(\alpha)/F$ is cyclic, not $\mathbb Q(\alpha)/F$ because in the latter, $\mathbb Q(\alpha)$ does not necessarily contain $F$. $\endgroup$ – Ravi Nov 23 '16 at 6:10
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, but I think I may as well suppose $\mathbb Q(\alpha)$ is Galois over $\mathbb Q$. I've edited it. $\endgroup$ – adrija Nov 23 '16 at 6:13
  • $\begingroup$ I don't think you should assume that because that will lead to you quickly coming to the conclusion that $n=2$ from your opening sentence. $\endgroup$ – Ravi Nov 23 '16 at 6:16
  • $\begingroup$ How so? I didn't say $\alpha$ is real, it may as well be a primitive $n^{th}$ root. $\endgroup$ – adrija Nov 23 '16 at 6:20
0
$\begingroup$

First some definitions and notations: $a\in \mathbf Q^*, K=\mathbf Q(\alpha)$, where $\alpha$ is a root of $g_n (X)=X^n - a$. You suppose that $K/ \mathbf Q$ is normal, and you ask whether a certain subfield $F$ of $K$, containing enough roots of unity, is such that $K/F$ is a cyclic extension. Let us consider two cases according to the (ir)reducibility of $ g_n (X)=X^n - a$. In the following, just to avoid petty trouble with $2$ , all rational primes which enter the game will be odd (but this not a mathematical restriction).

1) If $ g_n (X)$ is irreducible, the normality hypothesis implies that $K$ contains the group $\mu_n$ of $n$-th roots of unity. Take $F=\mathbf Q (\mu_n)$ ; then $K=F(\alpha)$ is a simple Kummer extension, hence cyclic (see e.g. S. Lang's "Algebra", chap.8, §8), of degree dividing $n$

2) If $ g_n (X)$ is reducible, a general criterion in op. cit., chap.8, §9, asserts that there exists a prime divisor $p$ of $n$ such that $a\in \mathbf Q ^{*p}$. Let $p^r$ the maximal power such that $a\in \mathbf Q^{*p^r}$. Then $\beta :=\alpha^{p^r}$ is a root of $g_m(X)=X^m - a$, where $n=mp^r$. If $\beta$ were a $p$-th power in $\mathbf Q(\beta)$, say $\beta=\gamma^{p^r}$, taking norms in $ \mathbf Q(\beta) / \mathbf Q$ would give that $a= N(\pm\gamma) ^{p^{r+1}}$ (here we use that $p$ is odd), which contradicts the maximality of $r$. Hence, according to the same criterion op. cit., $X^{p^r} – a$ is irreducible over $\mathbf Q(\beta)$. The same argument as in 1) then shows that $K$ is cyclic over $F_p := \mathbf Q(\beta, \mu_{p^r})$, of degree dividing $p^r$. Repeat this process for all prime divisors $q$ of $n$ wich share the same propery as $p$ above, and take $F$ to be the compositum of all the $F_q$ ‘s. Then $Gal(K/F)$, being the intersection of all the $Gal(K/F_q)$'s, is cyclic

$\endgroup$

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.