1
$\begingroup$

In section 14.4 of Dummit/Foote, there is the following proposition:

Suppose $K/F$ is a Galois extension and $F'/F$ is any extension. Then $KF'/F'$ is a Galois extension, with Galois group

\begin{equation*} \text{Gal}(KF'/F') \cong \text{Gal}(K/K \cap F') \end{equation*}

The proof begins as follows:

  • Since $K$ is Galois over $F$, $K$ is the splitting field of some polynomial $f(x) \in F[x]$. Now $F' \supset F$, so $f(x) \in F'[x]$. It follows that $KF'/F'$ is the splitting field for $f(x) \in F'[x]$. Hence $KF'/F'$ is a Galois extension.

  • Since $K/F$ is Galois, every embedding of $K$ fixing $F$ is an automorphism of $K$, so the map \begin{equation*} \phi: \text{Gal}(KF'/F') \to \text{Gal}(K/F) \end{equation*} defined by $\sigma \mapsto \sigma|_K$ is well defined.

  • $\phi$ is clearly a homomorphism, and \begin{equation*} \text{ker}(\phi) = \{ \sigma \in \text{Gal}(KF'/F'): \sigma|_K = 1\} \end{equation*}

  • Now any $\sigma \in \text{Gal}(KF'/F')$ is trivial on $F'$. If $\sigma$ is also in the kernel of $\phi$, then $\sigma$ is trivial on $K$.

  • It follows that any $\sigma \in \text{ker}(\phi)$ is trivial on the composite $KF'$.

It is this last bullet point that I am confused about. If $F'/F$ is a finite extension, then I can see how $\sigma\in \ker(\phi)$ gives $\sigma$ trivial on $KF'$, since any element of $KF'$ can be written out explicitly in terms of the basis elements of $K$ and $F'$.

So my question is:

If $F'$ is infinite-dimensional over $F$, how does one argue that $\sigma$ remains trivial on the composite $KF'$?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ One does not need finiteness of the extension to write out the elements explicitly. $\endgroup$ – Starfall Apr 7 '17 at 20:30
  • $\begingroup$ @Starfall could you be a bit more specific...? How would you write a generic element of $KF'$? $\endgroup$ – Sam Y. Apr 8 '17 at 0:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ math.stackexchange.com/questions/1226078/… $\endgroup$ – Ben West Apr 11 '17 at 1:25
2
+50
$\begingroup$

Presumably $K$ and $F'$ here are both subfields of some big field $L$. By definition $KF'$ is the smallest subfield of $L$ containing both $K$ and $F'$. Now note that $L^\sigma=\{x\in L:\sigma(x)=x\}$ is a subfield of $L$, and it contains both $K$ and $F'$. Therefore $KF'\subseteq L^\sigma$.

So you don't actually need to know what elements of $KF'$ look like to prove this. As for what they do look like, every element of $KF'$ can be written as a quotient $$\frac{a_1b_1+\dots+a_nb_n}{c_1d_1+\dots+c_md_m}$$ where $a_1,\dots,a_n,c_1,\dots,c_m\in K$ and $b_1,\dots,b_n,d_1,\dots,d_m\in F'$. Indeed, clearly any such expression must be an element of $KF'$. Conversely, the set of such expressions is a subfield of $L$ (if you add, subtract, multiply or divide two such expressions you get another one of the same form) and contains $K$ and $F'$, and therefore every element of $KF'$ must be of that form.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Great answer. One question though: in the quotient you wrote above, we would need the restriction that there exists some $i$ for which $c_id_i \neq 0_L$, right? (I know this is probably obvious, but just wanted to make sure we are on the same page.) $\endgroup$ – Sam Y. Apr 11 '17 at 16:32
  • $\begingroup$ You need more than that: you need the restriction that the entire sum $c_1d_1+\dots+c_md_m$ is nonzero. (It's possible for the sum to be zero even if the individual terms are nonzero.) $\endgroup$ – Eric Wofsey Apr 11 '17 at 16:46
  • $\begingroup$ Yep, you are absolutely correct. I will try to prove that the collection of such sums is a field... $\endgroup$ – Sam Y. Apr 11 '17 at 16:48

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.