1
$\begingroup$

I need to give a counter-example against the following theorem:

Suppose $H \subset \operatorname{Gal}(\mathbb{Q}(\zeta_n)/\mathbb{Q})$ is a subgroup. Then we have $\mathbb{Q}(\zeta_n)^H = \mathbb{Q}(\eta_H)$, with $\eta_H = \sum_{\sigma \in H} \sigma(\zeta_n)$, the Gaussian-period.

This theorem is true for $n = p$ prime, but not for general $n$. So far, my attempt is the following. We take $n = 8$. Then $\operatorname{Gal}(\mathbb{Q}(\zeta_8)/\mathbb{Q}) \cong (\mathbb{Z}/8\mathbb{Z})^\ast = \{1,3,5,7\} \cong \mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z}$.

Now we have the subfield $\mathbb{Q}(\zeta_4) = \mathbb{Q}(i)$, since $4 \mid 8$. We also have the subfield $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2})$ since $\zeta_8 + \zeta_8^{-1} = 2 \cos(2\pi/8) = \sqrt{2}$. Hence, we have also the quadratic subfield $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-2})$. Notice that $1,5$ keep $i$ fixed, so according to the above theorem, we have $$ \mathbb{Q}(i) = \mathbb{Q}(\zeta_8)^{\{1,5\}} = \mathbb{Q}(\zeta_8 + \zeta_8^5). $$ I am stuck at this point, how to derive a contradiction from this?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $(\mathbb{Z}/8\mathbb{Z})^*$ is not isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z}$. That wouldn't make sense because $\mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z}$ has three subgroups, but we've already seen five subfields, $\mathbb{Q},\mathbb{Q}(i),\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2}),\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-2}),$ and $\mathbb{Q}(\zeta_8)$. The Galois group is isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}\times\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$. $\endgroup$ – A. Kriegman Jun 25 at 14:22
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, you are right, I made a mistake there. Apart from that, do you think the proof is correct, adding the extra line of Angina? $\endgroup$ – Sigurd Jun 25 at 14:40
  • $\begingroup$ IMO, the point of proof is that you don't need someone else to tell you if it's correct. $\endgroup$ – A. Kriegman Jun 25 at 15:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Somewhat related. The primitive roots of unity of order $n$ form a basis (necessarily then a normal basis) of $\Bbb{Q}(\zeta_n)/\Bbb{Q}$ if and only if $n$ is square-free. I think in that case the Gaussian period always generates the fixed field. So, just like you did, you need to choose $n$ such that it is divisible by some square to get your counterexample. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Jun 25 at 17:25
  • $\begingroup$ @JyrkiLahtonen That's a nice addition, thanks! I didn't realize that, it was a coincidence, but that will narrow down the searching. $\endgroup$ – Sigurd Jun 25 at 18:18
2
$\begingroup$

This is because $\zeta_8^5=-\zeta_8$, so that $\zeta_8+\zeta_8^5=0$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Indeed! Adding this line, is the rest of my proof correct do you think? $\endgroup$ – Sigurd Jun 25 at 14:09

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.