3
$\begingroup$

Defn: A field extension $K/F$ is obtained by adjoining $n$th roots if there is a tower of fields $F=K_1\subset\cdots\subset K_n=K$ such that for each $i$, $K_{i+1}=K_i(\alpha_i)$ and there exists some $n_i>1$ such that $\alpha_i^{n_i}\in K_i$.

I'm interested in whether subextensions $K/F$ of an extension $E/F$ obtained by adjoining $n$th roots must also be obtained by adjoining roots.

When $K/F$ is Galois, we can make use of the fact that Galois extensions are obtained by adjoining roots iff their Galois groups are solvable. Extend $E/F$ to its Galois closure, which is also obtained by adjoining roots, so $\mathrm{Gal}(E^{\mathrm{Gal}}/F)$ is solvable. Since $\mathrm{Gal}(K/F)$ is a quotient of $\mathrm{Gal}(E^{\mathrm{Gal}}/F)$ it is solvable as well, thus $K/F$ is obtained by adjoining roots.

This reduces the problem to the case $E=K^{\mathrm{Gal}}$. However, I have no idea how to usefully characterize non-Galois extensions which are obtained by adjoining roots, so I don't know how to approach this case.

I'm mostly interested in the case where $K$ is separable, but I'd also be interested in a counterexample where this is not the case.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Is $K^G$ your notation for the Galois closure of $K$ ? Pardon me but this might be one of the worst notations I've seen in my life... (EDIT: sorry for my comment about the title -- I got confused by this notation.) $\endgroup$ – darij grinberg Apr 5 '14 at 0:07
  • $\begingroup$ @darijgrinberg Is this not standard? Huh. Would you use $\overline{K}$ instead? $\endgroup$ – Alex Becker Apr 5 '14 at 0:08
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Maybe $K^{\mathrm{Gal}}$ ? The problem with $K^G$ is that it stands for the invariants of $K$ under the action of a group $G$, a situation rather common in Galois theory... $\endgroup$ – darij grinberg Apr 5 '14 at 0:09
  • $\begingroup$ @darijgrinberg That looks reasonable to me. I'll change the notation. $\endgroup$ – Alex Becker Apr 5 '14 at 0:10
  • $\begingroup$ @darijgrinberg Hmm... Now that I think about it, I'm only interested in the case where $K$ is separable, so I've only been considering those cases. Is it alright if I change the question? $\endgroup$ – Alex Becker Apr 5 '14 at 0:19
4
$\begingroup$

Let $f(x)=x^3-x-1$, let $\alpha$ be a zero of $f$ in an extension of the rationals, let $E={\bf Q}(\alpha)$, let $K$ be a splitting field for $f$ over $E$. Then $K$ is obtained from the rationals by adjoining $n$th roots, but $E$ isn't.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks, I see now that this question is trivial. So the Galois assumption is really quite necessary. $\endgroup$ – Alex Becker May 4 '14 at 20:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I wouldn't say it's trivial. I remember that the first time I taught Galois Theory out of Stewart's book, and saw the question raised in an exercise, I had some difficulty getting my head around it. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson May 5 '14 at 4:09

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.