2
$\begingroup$

I believe this question is very dumb.

We know the following proposition from Algebraic Number Theory, by J. Milne:

enter image description here

In particular, if $[K:\mathbb{Q}]=n$, then the ring of integers $\mathcal{O}_{K}$ is a free $\mathbb{Z}$-module of rank $n$.

Since $K$ is a finite extension of $\mathbb{Q}$, then $K=\mathbb{Q}(\alpha)$ for some $\alpha \in \mathcal{O}_{K}$. The minimal polynomial for $\alpha$ has degree $n$ and $\{1,\alpha,...,\alpha^{n-1}\}$ form a basis of $K$ as $\mathbb{Q}$-vector space. In particular, $\{1,\alpha,...,\alpha^{n-1}\}$ is $\mathbb{Z}$-linearly independent.

So, I have a set linearly independent with $n$ elements. I believe it is a basis for $\mathcal{O}_{K}$ as $\mathbb{Z}$-module. Therefore $\mathcal{O}_{K}=\mathbb{Z}[\alpha]$. But it is not true in general.

For example, if I take $K=\mathbb{Q}(\theta)$ where $\theta^{3}+\theta^{2}-2\theta+8=0$. Then $\{1,\theta,\theta^{2}\}$ is not a basis because $\beta =\frac{\theta+\theta^{2}}{2}$ is algebraic integer and $\beta \notin \mathbb{Z}[\theta]$.

I would like to understand why there is no contradiction between the proposition and the set $\{1,\alpha,...,\alpha^{n-1}\}$ is not always a basis for $\mathcal{O}_{K}$.

I believe that the problem is that I can have a linearly independent set with n element, n = rank of the free module, but this set does not span the free module.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What you might be looking for is an algorithm to find an integral basis, that is, a basis for $\mathcal{O}_{K}$ as a $\mathbb{Z}$-module of rank $n$. You may refer to math.stackexchange.com/questions/2263077/… Bear in mind, that it is rather rare that the basis elements of $\mathbb{Q}(\alpha)$ over $\mathbb{Q}$ happens to also be an integral basis for $\mathbb{O}_{K}$ as a $\mathbb{Z}$-module. $\endgroup$ Commented May 29, 2020 at 6:55
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Your last observation is exactly it. Even in the rank 1 case, $2 \mathbb{Z} \subseteq \mathbb{Z}$ and $\{2\}$ is a linearly independent subset, but it's not a basis for $\mathbb{Z}$. While a vector space with dimension $0$ must be $\{0\}$, there are lots of nontrivial rank $0$ $\mathbb{Z}$-modules. $\endgroup$ Commented May 29, 2020 at 20:33

2 Answers 2

1
$\begingroup$

I am not totally sure about what you are asking, since you ask why there is no contradiction between the proposition and some set not being a basis, as it is clear that one does not contradict the other (since both are true).

Let me try to guess what is your problem, by making some clarifications:

If $K/\mathbb{Q}$ is a finite extension of degree $d$ and $K=\mathbb{Q}(\alpha)$ with $\alpha \in \mathcal{O}_K$, then $\mathbb{Z}[\alpha]$ has rank $d$ as $\mathbb{Z}$-module, and hence $\mathbb{Z}[\alpha]\subset \mathcal{O}_K$ has finite index, but it is rarely an equality.

Another question if it one can choose $\alpha$ such that $\mathbb{Z}[\alpha]= \mathcal{O}_K$; this is of course, a property of the field, and the answer is again negative in general. Such fields are called monogenic fields.

Finally, since $\mathbb{Z}[\alpha]\subset \mathcal{O}_K$ has finite index, say $m$, then we have $$K\supset \mathbb{Z}[\frac{\alpha}{m}]\supset \mathcal{O}_K$$ which is a way to make explicit what the proposition says in this case.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I believe that actually my question is: Let A be a ring and let M be A free module of rank n. Is possible that I can find a set with n linearly independent elements in M such that this set is not a basis for M? $\endgroup$
    – mat6676
    Commented May 29, 2020 at 15:10
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Yes. Let $A$ be an integral domain. Take $M=A$ which is free of rank $1$, and take $e\in M$ a non zero element which is not invertible. Then $e$ is linearly independent over $A$ since it is non zero and $A$ is an integral domain. However, this is not a basis. Otherwise, $M=A=Ae$, and we would have $1=ae$ for some $a$, meaning $e$ is invertible. For a concrete example, take $M=A=\mathbb{Z}$ and $e=2$. $\endgroup$
    – GreginGre
    Commented May 29, 2020 at 15:15
1
$\begingroup$

For a free module over a field (or skew-field), a maximal linearly independent set is a basis. But that is certainly not true over an arbitrary ring.

A silly example: $\mathbb Z$ is a free $\mathbb Z$-module of rank $1$, but the maximal linearly independent set $\{ 2\}$ is not a basis.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .