5
$\begingroup$

Let $K⊂L⊂M$ be a tower of fields. Let $L/K$ and $M/L$ be separable, is it true that $M/K$ is separable?

I guess there are counterexamples, but I cannot point out them. Thank you for your kind help.[I know if we substitute separable to normal, there are easy example.]

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

Yes, it is! Let us first show that it is true for finite extensions and then reduce to the finite case later:

Assume that $M/L$ and $L/K$ are finite separable extensions. Recall that a finite extension is separable if and only if its degree of separability is equal to the degree of the extension. This leaves us with: $$[M:K]_s=[M:L]_s\cdot [L:K]_s=[M:L]\cdot [L:K]=[M:K]$$ So we are done with the finite case.

Let's assume that $M/L$ and $L/K$ are (not necessarily finite) separable extensions. Let $\alpha\in M$. Assume that $a_0,...,a_n\in L$ are the coefficients of the minimal polynomial of $\alpha$ over $L$. We know that the extension $K(\alpha,a_0,\dots,a_n)/K$ is finite. Define $$F:=K(\alpha,a_0,\dots,a_n)\cap L$$ Since $F\subset L$, we know that $F/K$ is separable. Also the minimal polynomial of $\alpha$ over $F$ is the same as that over $L$ and hence separable. Thus the extension $K(\alpha,a_0,\dots,a_n)/K$ is seperable by the first paragraph since all extensions are finite.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you ! In finite case, your proof seem to assume M is algebraic over L. Is it right? If so, there are counterexamples M/K is transcendental extension? $\endgroup$
    – dandelion
    Dec 5 '20 at 14:54
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I do assume that. But that is part of all the definitions of seperability I know $\endgroup$
    – CPCH
    Dec 5 '20 at 14:56
  • $\begingroup$ @CPCH There is a more general notion of separability of a (associative, unitary) commutative algebra over its field of scalars, and with this more general notion the feature of "transitivity" of separability remains true: if $K$ is a commutative field, $L$ a (commutative) extension of $K$ and $A$ a separable $L$-algebra, then the $K$-algebra $A$ obtained by restricting scalars is also separable. $\endgroup$
    – ΑΘΩ
    Dec 5 '20 at 15:34
  • $\begingroup$ @bellow To answer your question regarding potential counter-examples, do take a look at my comment above (to CPCH). $\endgroup$
    – ΑΘΩ
    Dec 5 '20 at 15:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ΑΘΩ And thanks for the recall that this holds true in the more general case! $\endgroup$
    – CPCH
    Dec 5 '20 at 17:40
0
$\begingroup$

By the primitive element theorem, $L=K(\alpha),M=L(\beta)=K(\alpha)(\beta)$ for some $\alpha\in L,\beta \in M$. Then the minimal polynomial $m_{\beta, L} \mid m_{\beta, K}$, whence $m_{\beta, L}$ is separable. Suppose $m_{\beta, K}$ is inseparable, i.e. the characteristic of $K$ is $p\gt 0$ and $m_{\beta, K}=f(x^p)$ for some irreducible polynomial $f(x)$. Then $m_{\beta, L}=g(x^p)$ for some irreducible polynomial $g(x)$ and the characteristic of $L=K(\alpha)$ is also p, which implies that $m_{\beta, L}$ is inseparable, a contradiction. So $\beta$ is separable over $K$ and thus $M/K$ is separable.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ But the primitive element theorem only works if we have FINITE extensions. Which doesn't have to be the case. But of course we can get around that, similarly to what I had written in my answer. So your proof is an alternative approach to the first paragraph of my proof below $\endgroup$
    – CPCH
    Dec 5 '20 at 17:28

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.