The question is whether every field extension $L/K$ of degree $2018$ is primitive; i.e. $K\subset L$ field extension and $[L:K]=2018$ implies $L=K(\alpha)$ for some $\alpha\in L$, true or false. The prime factorisation is $2\cdot1009=2018$. I know at least two theorem that could help me here: the theorem of the primitive element and another lemma about intermediate fields.

If $K\subset L$ is a finite separable extension (hence also algebraic), then there exists an $\alpha\in L$ such that $L=K(\alpha)$.

Second theorem:

Let $K\subset L$ be a finite field extension. Then equivalent are: [$L$ is primitive]$\iff$[there are only finitely many intermediate fields $E$ with $K\subset E\subset L$].

I don't now which one of these two will be easiest to show and I wouldn't know how to do either one of them. Any suggestions? Thanks in advance.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's now 2019, so I think your question is a year late. :) $\endgroup$ – KCd Mar 26 at 12:14
  • $\begingroup$ @KCd hahaha, you're right! However, this was a bonus question on the midterm of Galois Theory that I took a year ago which I came accross in my archive; so, it was up to date back then. In addition, since $2019=3\cdot673$ in prime factorisation, by the answer below it should hold that also every field extension of degree $2019$ is simple. Voilá, we've solved this year's bonus question too lol $\endgroup$ – Algebear Mar 26 at 12:21

Any extension of degree $pq$, with $p$,$q$ distinct primes is primitive.

Suppose $[K:F]=pq$, it suffices to assume it is inseparable. Let $S$ denote the separable closure of $K/F$, then $K/S$ is purely inseparable.

Without loss of generality, assume $\text{char }K = p$, then $[K:S]=p, [S:F]=q$. Choose any $\alpha\in S-F, \beta\in K-S$, then $S=F(\alpha), K=S(\beta)$, so $K=F(\alpha,\beta)$, with $\alpha$ separable over $F$. The proof is concluded by using

If $F(\alpha,\beta)/F$ is algebraic with $\alpha$ separable over $F$, then $F(\alpha,\beta)/F$ is primitive.

I remember seeing the assertion on this site, but cannot find it at the moment. I can add a proof if someone needs it.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Is this the link? $\endgroup$ – Thomas Shelby Mar 26 at 7:38
  • $\begingroup$ I think I'm very confused here. First of all, the separable closure of $K$ is defined as the set of all algebraic elements over $K$ which are separable over $K$, right? This includes all elements of $K$ plus an additional set of algebraic and separable elements over $K$. Then why is it the case that $[K:S]<\infty$? I would think that $S$ is a bigger field than $K$, so we would write $S/K$ and talk about $[S:K]$. Furthermore, I don't understand why this $S$ cannot be an infinite degree field extension over $K$, if what I said above in this comment is true. Or should I read $S$ over $F$ sep cl. $\endgroup$ – Algebear Mar 26 at 10:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ThomasShelby yes, thank you for finding the thread. $\endgroup$ – pisco Mar 26 at 11:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Algebear I edited my answer, $S$ is the separable closure of $K$ over $F$, the set of elements of $K$ that is separable over $F$. $\endgroup$ – pisco Mar 26 at 11:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Algebear (1) Because $K/S$ is purely inseparable, so its degree is a power of the characteristic. (2) $[S:F] = [K:F]/[K:S]$. (3) Because the degrees $[S:F], [K:S]$ are primes, so any element not in the base field generated whole extension. Your concerns will all be eradicated if you have a more consolidate understanding of basic field theory. $\endgroup$ – pisco Mar 28 at 10:05

Using pisco's notation and considering the original question we can assume that $p=2$. Then $\beta^2\in K(\alpha)$, which implies $K(\alpha)\subseteq K(\alpha+\beta)$ because of

$(\alpha+\beta)^2=\alpha^2+\beta^2\in K(\alpha)$



But $K(\alpha)\neq K(\alpha+\beta)$, hence the assertion.


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.