4
$\begingroup$

I do know that, given an extension $F\big/K$, if there is a normal intermediate extension, the corresponding subgroup of $\mbox{Gal}\left(F\big/K\right)$ is normal. The problem is that I don't see why because the definition of a normal subgroup and the definition of a normal extensions mean very different to me. I don't know why they are related. I hope there is someone that can put some light on it. Thank you.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Are you looking for a complete proof? Are you looking into having some details on a proof you might have explained? That theorem should be stated and proved on any Galois Theory book. $\endgroup$
    – Git Gud
    Jan 25 '13 at 19:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Have you ever looked at a proof of this theorem? I think it's a little difficult helping you without some very concrete questions of yours to start with. $\endgroup$ Jan 25 '13 at 20:06
  • $\begingroup$ I didn't have the proof but I have found it. I'll take a look, thanks for your comments. $\endgroup$
    – synack
    Jan 25 '13 at 20:08
5
$\begingroup$

Let $G$ be the Galois group of $F/K$, and let $L$ be an intermediate extension. Then for each $\sigma \in G$ we have a conjugate extension $\sigma L$ which is also an intermediate extension of $F/K$. Normality of $L/K$ means that $\sigma L \subseteq L$ for all $\sigma \in G$, or equivalently $\sigma L = L$ for all $\sigma \in G$. By the Galois correspondence this is equivalent to $\operatorname{Gal}(F/L) = \operatorname{Gal}(F/\sigma L)$ for all $\sigma \in G$. But $\operatorname{Gal}(F/\sigma L) = \sigma \operatorname{Gal}(F/L)\sigma^{-1}$, as one sees easily. So normality of $L/K$ is equivalent to $\operatorname{Gal}(F/L) = \sigma \operatorname{Gal}(F/L) \sigma^{-1}$ for all $\sigma \in G$, which is exactly saying that $\operatorname{Gal}(F/L)$ is a normal subgroup of $\operatorname{Gal}(F/K)$.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ +1 For making a rather concise shorcut of a rather involved theorem...which I'm afraid no one who hasn't yet studied some Galois Theory won't understand anyway. $\endgroup$
    – DonAntonio
    Jan 25 '13 at 21:52

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.