1
$\begingroup$

Suppose $L$ is a splitting field of $F$ and let $f(x)$ be an separable irreducible polynomial in $F[x]$. Let $\sigma \in Aut(L/F)$ then we know that if $\alpha$ is a root of $f(x)$ then $\sigma(\alpha)$ is also a root of $f(x)$. Does it imply that degree of minimal polynomial of $\alpha$ is same as degree of minimal polynomial of $\sigma(\alpha)$?

Or $L$ is required to be Galois Extension of $F$?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ You mean $L$ is a finite extension of $F$ and is the splitting field of some separable polynomial $P \in F[x]$. In that case $L/F$ is Galois. $\endgroup$ – reuns Feb 1 '17 at 3:41
1
$\begingroup$

I'm not sure what happens when you don't require everything to be separable. So assume it is

In general $\alpha \in \overline{F}$ but $\alpha \not \in L$, so with $\sigma \in Aut(L/F)$, $\sigma(\alpha)$ only makes sense once you extended it to an automorphism $\sigma \in Aut(\overline{F}/F)$ (view $\overline{F}$ as a field extension of $L$, so as a $L$-algebra, onto which the action of $\sigma$ is obvious)

Once this is done $f(\sigma(a)) = \sigma(f(a))= 0$, and $h \in F[x], h(\sigma(a)) = 0 \implies h(a) = h(\sigma^{-1}(\sigma(a))) = \sigma^{-1}(h(\sigma(a)) = 0$ so that $deg(h) < deg(f)$ would contradict the minimality of $f$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ You have not used separability anywhere. And presumably you are meant to assume $\alpha\in L$. $\endgroup$ – Eric Wofsey Feb 1 '17 at 4:11
  • $\begingroup$ @EricWofsey Yes, indeed I wanted to write something about $\prod_{\sigma \in Gal(L/F)} (x-\sigma(a)) $ but I deleted it. $\endgroup$ – reuns Feb 1 '17 at 4:55

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.