2
$\begingroup$

The following proof is from Robert Ash, Abstract Algebra, 6.8.2, and I have difficulty following it:

Let $E/F$ be a radical extension, and let $N$ be a normal closure of $E$ over $F$. Then $N/F$ is also a radical extension.

Proof. $E$ is obtained from $F$ by successively adjoining $\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_r$, where $\alpha_i$ is the $n$-th root of an element in $F_{i-1}$. On the other hand, $N$ is obtained from $F$ by adjoining not only the $\alpha_i$, but their conjugates $\alpha_{i1},\ldots, \alpha_{im(i)}$. For any fixed $i$ and $j$, there is an automorphism $\sigma \in \mbox{Gal}(N/F)$ such that $\sigma(\alpha_i) = \alpha_{ij}$ (see (3.2.3), (3.5.5) and (3.5.6)). Thus $$ \alpha_{ij}^n = \sigma(\alpha_i)^n = \alpha(\alpha_i^n) $$ and since $\alpha_i^n$ belongs to $F(\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_{i-1})$, it follows from (3.5.1) that $\sigma(\alpha_i^n)$ belongs to the splitting field $K_i$ of $\prod_{j=1}^{i-1} \mbox{min}(\alpha_j, F)$ over $F$. [Take $K_1 = F$, and note that since $\alpha_i^n = b_i \in F$, we have $\sigma(\alpha_i^n) = \sigma(b_i) = b_i \in F$. Alternatively, observe that by (3.5.1), $\sigma$ must take a root of $X^n - b_1$ to another root of this polynomial.] Thus we can display $N$ as a radical extension of $F$ by successively adjoining $$ \alpha_{11},\ldots, \alpha_{1m(1)}, \ldots, \alpha_{r1},\ldots, \alpha_{rm(r)}. \quad \square $$

I do not understand the 2nd paragraph. If we set $b_i := \alpha_i^n \in F(\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_{i-1})$, then $\alpha_i$ is a root of $X^n - b_i$. But $\sigma$ is an $F$-monomorphism, and $X^n - b_i$ is a polynomial over the larger field $F(\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_{i-1})$, so (3.5.1) does not gives that $\sigma(\alpha_i)$ is also a root of this polynomial. If it would be, then as $K_i$ is normal over $F$, and hence also over $F(\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_{i-1})$, this would give $\sigma(\alpha_i) \in K_i$. But other polynomials then $X^n - b_i$ does not come to my mind to somehow use normality of $K_i$ (as a splitting field, but it must be a polynomial over $F$ so that we can use (3.5.1)).

The cited parts:

(3.5.1) Let $\sigma : E \to E$ be an $F$-monomorphism, and assume that the polynomial $f \in F[X]$ splits over $E$. If $\alpha$ is a root of $f$ in $E$, then so is $\sigma(\alpha)$.

(3.2.3) If $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are roots of the irreducible polynomial $f \in F[X]$ in an extension $E$ of $F$, then $F(\alpha)$ is isomorphic to $F(\beta)$ via an isomorphism that carries $\alpha$ into $\beta$ and is the identity on $F$.

(3.5.5) The finite extension $E/F$ is normal iff every $F$-monomorphism of $E$ into an algebraic closure $C$ is actually an $F$-automorphism of $E$.

(3.5.6.) In the above, the algebraic closure could be replaced by any fixed normal extension of $F$ containing $E$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ @reuns Sorry, I do not understand what this has to do with the arguments given in the proof? $\endgroup$ – StefanH Oct 2 '17 at 15:52
  • $\begingroup$ I meant if $\alpha$ is a root of $x^m-a$ and $\sigma \in \text{Gal}(N/F)$ then $\sigma(\alpha)$ is a root of $x^m-\sigma(a)$. Thus the $F$-conjugates of $\sqrt[m]{a}$ are $\zeta_d^l \sqrt[m]{a_j}$ where $d= [F(\sqrt[m]{a}):F]$ and $a_j$ are the cojugates of $a$. $\endgroup$ – reuns Oct 2 '17 at 16:26
1
$\begingroup$

As i understand it, it works the following way:

You look at the polynomial $f_i$ defined by multiplying all the minimal polynomials of the $\alpha$'s up to $\alpha_{i-1}$. Now you know that his splitting field $K_i$ contains $F(\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_{i-1})$. Now, since $\alpha_i^n$ is contained in $F(\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_{i-1})$, it is contained in $K_i$. But $K_i$ is normal over $F$, so the minimal polynomial of $\alpha_i^n$ in $F$ splits in $K_i$ and therefore the monomorphism $\sigma$ sends $\alpha_i^n$ to another root of this polynomial in $K_i$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Ok. Thank you. May I ask you concerning one of the first sentences of the proof: "$N$ is obtained from $F$ by adjoining not only the $\alpha_i$, but their conjugates $\alpha_{i1},\ldots, \alpha_{im(i)}$" - So isn't everything already said here, that we adjoin roots and hence it could be written as a radical extension? Why still arguing that those conjugates are in $N$ then? $\endgroup$ – StefanH Oct 2 '17 at 18:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @StefanH We are not arguing that the conjugates are in $N$. Instead we are arguing, that they are actually roots of elements in $F_i$. Thats why we are writing any conjugates $\alpha_{ij}$ $n$-power as an element in $F_i$. $\endgroup$ – Verdruss Oct 2 '17 at 18:49

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.