55
$\begingroup$

Let $F$ be a field, and let $K,L$ be finite degree field extensions of $F$ inside a common algebraic closure. Consider the following two properties:

(i) $K$ and $L$ are linearly disjoint over $F$: the natural map $K \otimes_F L \hookrightarrow KL$ is an injection.

(ii) $K \cap L = F$.

It is well known that (i) $\implies$ (ii): see e.g. $\S$ 13.1 of my field theory notes. This implication ought to be (and usually is) followed up with the comment that (ii) does not imply (i) without some additional hypothesis: for instance take $F = \mathbb{Q}$, $K = \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt[3]{2})$, $L = \mathbb{Q}(e^{\frac{2 \pi i}{3}}\sqrt[3]{2})$, or more generally, any two distinct, but conjugate, extensions of prime degree. Thus some normality hypothesis is necessary. What is the weakest such hypothesis?

The following is a standard result: see e.g. $\S$ 13.3, loc. cit.

Theorem: If $K/F$ and $L/F$ are both Galois, then (ii) $\implies$ (i).

I remember this point coming up in a course I took as a graduate student, and the instructor claimed in passing that it was enough for only one of $K$, $L$ to be Galois. None of the standard field theory texts I own contains a proof of this. But by online searching I found an algebra text of P.M. Cohn which proves something stronger.

Theorem: If at least one of $K,L$ is normal and at least one is separable [it is permissible for the same field to be both normal and separable], then (ii) $\implies$ (i).

I wasn't able to freely view the proof, so if someone can pass it along to me I'd be appreciative. Still, I think I know of no counterexamples to the following stronger

Claim: If at least one of $K,L$ is normal, then (ii) $\implies$ (i).

Is this in fact true? (I believe I have seen it claimed in certain research papers, e.g. one by Piatetski-Shapiro. But because terminology and running separability hypotheses are not so standardized, I don't take this as conclusive evidence.)

$\endgroup$
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Here are the relevant pages from Cohn's Algebra, Volume 3: page 188/1, page 188/2, page 189/1, page 189/2. Cohn doesn't appear to address your question about counterexamples directly in the body of the section, but perhaps there is something hidden in the exercises which I am unable to recognize because I'm lacking the expertise. $\endgroup$ – Martin May 5 '13 at 11:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Martin: Thanks! That's very helpful. $\endgroup$ – Pete L. Clark May 5 '13 at 11:27
1
$\begingroup$

There are counterexamples to the Claim. Recall that an extension of a field $F$ of characteristic $p>0$ is separable if and only if it is linearly disjoint from $F^{1/p^\infty}$ over $F$. Note that $F^{1/p^\infty}/F$ is a normal extension. There is an insparable algebraic extension $K/F$ which does not intersect $F^{1/p^\infty} \smallsetminus F$ (see Does an inseparable extension have a purely inseparable element?). This gives a counterexample.

$\endgroup$

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.