0
$\begingroup$

Let $F_1 \subseteq F_2$ be a field extension, with char($F_1$)$=0$, and let $f\in F_1[x]$. Let $K_i=$splitting field of $f$ over $F_i$.

We see that $K_1\subseteq K_2$ and that $K_1/F_1$ and $K_2/F_2$ are Galois extensions.

Question: What is the relationship between Gal($K_1/F_1$) and Gal$(K_2/F_2)$?

Are they isomorphic? Or is one a subgroup of the other? Or what?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ If $K_1 \subseteq K_2$, and $f$ splits in $K_1$, then $K_1=K_2$, because splitting field is a smallest field in which $f$ splits. Are you sure it's what you are asking for? $\endgroup$ – mzg147 May 24 '18 at 17:06
  • $\begingroup$ How do you obtain $K_1=K_2$? I am a little skeptical. $\endgroup$ – Pascal's Wager May 24 '18 at 17:17
  • $\begingroup$ $K_1$ and $K_2$ are both splitting fields of the same polynomial. And splitting fields are unique. $\endgroup$ – mzg147 May 24 '18 at 17:19
  • $\begingroup$ But they are splitting fields of $f$ over different fields. I mean, $K_2$ must be an extension field of $F_2$, but it isn't clear to me that $K_1$ is also an extension field of $F_2$. $\endgroup$ – Pascal's Wager May 24 '18 at 17:20
  • $\begingroup$ Well, it's my first time seeing "splitting field over a field". It is always "splitting field of a polynomial", and that polynomial has *coefficients * in some field. So, the only field that really matters is $F_1$, because $f\in F_1[x]$. $\endgroup$ – mzg147 May 24 '18 at 17:27
1
+50
$\begingroup$

First, $Gal(K_1/F_1)$ and $Gal(K_2/F_2)$ are, in general, not literally comparable as sets (or as subgroups) since $Gal(K_1/F_1)$ contains automorphisms $K_1 \to K_1$ and $Gal(K_2/F_2)$ contains automorphisms $K_2 \to K_2$.

Now, suppose that $r_1,\dots,r_n$ are the roots of $f$ in $K_2$. Then $K_2=F_2(r_1,\dots,r_n)$ and $K_1=F_1(r_1,\dots,r_n)$ ($K_1$ will be isomorphic to this, but we might as well work with this splitting field).

My answer is that there is an inclusion $Gal(K_2/F_2) \hookrightarrow Gal(K_1/F_1)$ (which sort of means that we can think of $Gal(K_2/F_2)$ as a subgroup of $Gal(K_1/F_1))$ but not necessarily a reverse inclusion.

Define $\phi:Gal(K_2/F_2) \to Gal(K_1/F_1)$ by $\phi(\alpha)=\alpha|_{K_1}$ for $\alpha \in \phi:Gal(K_2/F_2)$. Now, for $\alpha \in \phi:Gal(K_2/F_2)$, we know that $\alpha|_{K_1}:K_1 \to K_2$. But since for each $i$, $f(\alpha(r_i))=0$, $\alpha$ sends each $r_i$ to some $r_j$ and $\alpha|_{F_1}\equiv id|_{F_1}$, so $\alpha|_{F_1(r_1,\dots,r_n)}$ takes $F_1(r_1,\dots,r_n)$ into $F_1(r_1,\dots,r_n)$. Also, you can show that $\phi$ is injective by working with the $r_i$. Suppose that $\phi(\alpha_1)\equiv\phi(\alpha_2)$. Then for each $i$, $\alpha_1(r_i)=\alpha_2(r_i)$. Then $\alpha_1\equiv \alpha_2$. Thus $\phi:Gal(K_2/F_2) \hookrightarrow Gal(K_1/F_1)$.

As an example of when we might not have the reverse inclusion, consider $F_1=\Bbb{Q}$, $F_2 = \Bbb{Q}(\sqrt2)$ and $f = x^2 - 2$ which implies that $K_1=K_2=F_2$. Then $Gal(K_2/F_2)$ is trivial but $Gal(K_1/F_1)$ is not.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ So $Gal(K_2/F_2)$ is isomorphic to $img( \phi)$, which is a subgroup of $Gal(K_1/F_1)$. By the way, thank you for emphasizing that $Gal(K_2/F_2)$ isn't really a subgroup of $Gal(K_2/F_2)$. +1 for clarity! $\endgroup$ – Pascal's Wager Jun 7 '18 at 4:43
0
$\begingroup$

This is the Theorem on Natural Irrationalities.

Let me change your notation slightly and call the small field $F$ and the big one $F'$. By adjoining all the roots $\{r_1,\cdots,r_n\}$ of a polynomial, you’re simply making the most general finite Galois extension of $F$ (since the characteristic is zero, the extension is automatically separable). So your two extensions are $K=F(\mathbf r)$, where I’m using $\mathbf r$ to stand for the $n$ roots of $f$, and $K'=F'(\mathbf r)$.

Changing the notation again slightly, I point out that $K'=F'K$, the compositum. So we have five fields, $F\subset K\cap F'\subset K\subset F'K$, fitting in with $F\subset K\cap F'\subset F'\subset F'K$. If you draw the standard Hasse diagram showing these relationships, you have a rhombus with a tail, kite-like. The Theorem says that $KF'$ is Galois over $F'$, and the associated Galois group is isomorphic to $\text{Gal}^K_{K\cap F'}$, via restriction to $K$. Therefore, to answer your question, the upper Galois group is a subgroup of the lower one.

I believe that you’ll find it easy enough to prove the Theorem for yourself, but nothing holds you back from looking a proof up. Notice that we make no hypotheses on the extension $F'\supset F$: it need not be finite or Galois or even algebraic. You can think of situations where $F'=\Bbb R$ and $KF'=\Bbb C$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I think you are saying that $Gal(K_1/F_1)$ is isomorphic to some subgroup of $Gal(K_2/F_2).$ If so, what is the isomorphism? $\endgroup$ – Pascal's Wager May 31 '18 at 17:01
  • $\begingroup$ Not at all, @Pascal'sWager. The upper group is a subgroup of the lower group. That is Gal$(K_2/F_2)$ is a subgroup of Gal$(K_1/F_1)$, by restricting to the intersection $F_2\cap K_1$. For an example, take a cyclotomic polynomial for $f$, $F_1=\Bbb Q$, and $F_2=\Bbb R$. $\endgroup$ – Lubin Jun 1 '18 at 3:15

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.