1
$\begingroup$

Let $L$ be an extension of a field $F$. Let $\alpha_1, \alpha_2\in L$ be such that both of them are algebraic over $F$ and have the same minimal polynomial $m$ over $F$. We know that there is an isomorphism $\phi:F(\alpha_1)\to F(\alpha_2)$ defined as $\phi(\alpha_1)=\alpha_2$ and $\phi(x)=x$ for all $x\in F$. We can extend $\phi$ to an isomorphism $\psi:F(\alpha_1)[x]\to F(\alpha_2)[x]$ defined as $\psi(\sum_{j=0}^k a_jx^j)=\sum_{j=0}^k \phi(a_j)x^j$. Let $l_1$ be the minimal polynomial of $\alpha_2$ over $F(\alpha_1)$ and define $l_2(x)=\psi(l_1(x))$.

QUESTION. Is it necessarily true that $\alpha_1$ has $l_2$ as its minimal polynomial over $F(\alpha_2)$?

I have some evidence which says that $l_2$ indeed is the minimal polynomial of $\alpha_1$ over $F(\alpha_2)$.

  1. Say $l_2^*$ is the minimal polynomial of $\alpha_1$ over $F(\alpha_2)$. Then $[F(\alpha_1,\alpha_2):F(\alpha_2)]=\deg l_2^*$. Which gives $[F(\alpha_1,\alpha_2):F]=\deg l_2^*\cdot\deg m$. Similarly $[F(\alpha_1,\alpha_2):F]=\deg l_1\cdot\deg m$ and we conclude that $\deg l_1=\deg l_2^*$.

  2. Since $l_1$ is the minimal polynomial of $\alpha_2$ over $F(\alpha_1)$, we must have that $l_1(x)|m(x)$ in $F(\alpha_1)[x]$. Thus there is an element $q_1(x)\in F(\alpha_1)[x]$ such that $l_1(x)q_1(x)=m(x)$. Operating $\psi$ on both the sides we get $l_2(x)q_2(x)=m(x)$, where $q_2(x)=\psi(q_1(x))$. Now since $m(\alpha_1)=0$, we have $l_2(\alpha_1)q_2(\alpha_1)=0$. If from here we can show that $l_2(\alpha_1)=0$ then we'd be done. But I can't rule out the possibility that $q_2(\alpha_1)=0$.

Can any one help?

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

No, I think maybe you were taking examples that were too easy (or maybe too hard!). Let’s look at a specific situation, where $L$ is normal and abelian over $K$. Take indeed a cubic cyclic extension $L$ of $\mathbb Q$. Let $\zeta\in L\setminus\mathbb Q$, so that $L=\mathbb Q(\zeta)$. Then $\zeta$ has two conjugates, say $\zeta'$ and $\zeta''$, both in $L$. Now call $\phi$ the automorphism of $L$ that sends $\zeta$ to $\zeta'$; it’ll send $\zeta'$ to $\zeta''$, of course, since it’s not an involution. And what’s the minimal polynomial for $\zeta'$ over $L=\mathbb Q(\zeta)$? It’s $X-\zeta'$, since $\zeta'$ is already in $L$. And when you operate on $X-\zeta'$ by $\phi$, you get $X-\zeta''$, the minimal polynomial for $\zeta''$, not for $\zeta$.

In case you haven’t worked with cubic cyclic fields over $\mathbb Q$, the easiest one is the cubic subfield of $\mathbb Q(\omega_7)$, where $\omega_7$ is a primitive seventh root of unity. It’s not hard to find an element in this field and its minimal polynomial.

EDIT: To help @caffeinemachine with the example I had in mind, let me work it out more fully. We start with $\omega=\omega_7$, primitive seventh root of unity, whose minimal polynomial over $\mathbb Q$ is $(X^7-1)/(X-1)$ We therefore have the fundamental “zero-relation” $\omega^3+\omega^2+\omega+1+\omega^{-1}+\omega^{-2}+\omega^{-3}=0$. Now let $\zeta=\omega+\omega^{-1}$, and expand $\zeta^3$ using Binomial Theorem, and then subtract the fundamental zero from the right-hand side of what you just got to find that $$ \zeta^3=-\omega^2+2\omega-1+2\omega^{-2}-\omega^{-2}\,. $$ Next write $$ \zeta^3+\zeta^2=2\omega+1+2\omega^{-2}\,, $$ so that the minimal polynomial for $\zeta$ is $F(X)=X^3+X^2-2X-1$. By calculating $F(X+2)$ and seeing that the result is $7$-Eisenstein, you verify that $F$ itself is irreducible. Now, the Galois group of $\mathbb Q(\omega)$ over $\mathbb Q$ is cyclic, generated by (for instance) $\omega\mapsto\omega^3$. I won’t go through the details, but you see that this substitution sends $\zeta$ to $-\zeta^2-\zeta+1$, and we can call this quantity $\zeta'$, and the automorphism of $\mathbb Q(\zeta)$ that induced it we can call $\phi$. You can check that $\phi(\zeta')=\zeta^2-2$, which is what I had in mind for $\zeta''$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you Mr. Lubin for your response. I don't fully understand the counterexample you have provided but it's relieving to know that there is a counterexample. I wasn't able to find one myself. I will read some more material and read your answer again. $\endgroup$ – caffeinemachine Aug 14 '13 at 6:34

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.