3
$\begingroup$

Let $K = F(a)$ be a finite extension of $F$. For $\alpha \in K$, let $L_{\alpha}$ be the map from $K$ to $K$ defined by $L_{\alpha}(x) = \alpha x$. Show that $L_{\alpha}$ is an $F$-linear transformation. Also, show that $\det(xI-L_{a})$ is the minimal polynomial $\min(F,a)$ of $a$. For which $\alpha \in K$ is $\det(xI-L_{\alpha})=\min(F,\alpha)$?

$\bf{For\,the\,first\,part}.$ Take $x,y \in K$ and $\beta \in F$, so $$L_{\alpha}(\beta x + y) = \alpha(\beta x + y) = \alpha \beta x + \alpha y = \beta L_{\alpha}(x) + L_{\alpha}(y).$$

If $\beta \in F$, $L_{\alpha}(\beta) = L_{\alpha}(\beta 1) = \beta L_{\alpha}(1) = 1$, since $L_{\alpha}$ is surjective. Then $L_{\alpha}(F) = F$.$\square$

$\bf{For\,the\,second\,part}.$ By Cayley-Hamilton Theorem, $\det(xI-L_{a}) = \chi_{a}(x)$ where $\chi_{a}(x)$ is the characteristic polynomial of $xI-L_{a}$ and $\chi_{a}(L_{a}) = \chi_{a}(a)= 0$, so $a$ is a root of $\chi_{a}$. The minimal polynomial of $xI-L_{a}$ divides $\chi_{a}$, but the minimal polynomial of $xI-L_{a}$ is the $\min(F,a) = p(x)$. If $\chi_{a}(x) = p(x)q(x)$, $\deg(\chi_{a}) \geq \deg(p) = n$. Since $[K:F] = n$, $\chi_{a}(x) = \min(F,a) = \det(xI-L_{a})$.$\square$

I need help with the last part:"For which $\alpha \in K$ is $\det(xI-L_{\alpha})=\min(F,\alpha)$?"

I'm not sure about the my solution for the second part.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ One would think that $\det(xI-L_\alpha)$ was the minimal polynomial for $\alpha$ precisely when $K=F(\alpha)$. $\endgroup$ – Lubin Apr 10 '18 at 3:57
0
$\begingroup$

The equality $\chi_a(L_a) = \chi_a(a)$ is not really correct. $\chi_a(L_a)$ is a map $K \to K$ while $\chi_a(a)$ is an element of $K$. But what could you evaluate the map $\chi_a(L_a)$ at in order to get $\chi_a(a)$? I.e., what can you evaluate $L_a$ at in order to get $a$?

I don't quite follow your conclusion that $\chi_a = p$. You have that $p$ divides $\chi_a$ and $n = \deg(p) \leq \deg(\chi_a) = n$, so they have the same degree. This shows that $q$ must have degree $0$, but this just means $q$ is a scalar, not necessarily $1$. So why couldn't $\chi_a = -p$ or $\chi_a = 2p$?

For the last part, compare the degrees of $\det(xI - L_\alpha)$ and $\min(F,\alpha)$. (This does not give you an "explicit" answer, but I think it's the best one can do.) It might also help to consider an example, say $F = \mathbb{Q}$, $a = \sqrt[4]{2}$ and $\alpha = \sqrt{2}$. What do you get for $\det(xI - L_\alpha)$ and $\min(F,\alpha)$ in this case?

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Notice that the argument is this, $\deg(\chi_a)=[K:F]=\deg(\min(F,a))$ and $\min(F,a)|\chi_a$

For a general $\alpha$, we still get that $\min(F,\alpha)|\chi_\alpha$ and that $\deg(\chi_\alpha)=[K:F]$. So the result will hold iff $[K:F]=\deg(\min(F,\alpha))$ which is true iff $K = F(\alpha)$

$\endgroup$

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.