In all the books that I've checked the use of roots of unity (as hypothesis) is very crucial to prove that if $f(x)\in F[x]$ is solvable by radicals then its Galois group $Gal(E/F)$ is solvable, but the professor said that it's not needed that the field must have enough roots of unity. I think this is curious, and I want to prove it. She also gave three steps to prove this and I'm struggling with them.

(1) Let $F=B_0\subseteq B_1\subseteq\dots\subseteq B_t$ a radical extension with $E\subseteq B_t$ and $B_t$ the splitting field of $f(x)\in F[x]$ with $deg(f(x))=m$. We defined $\mathcal E$ as the splitting field of $h(x)=x^m-1$ over $E$ and $\mathcal F=F(\Psi)$, where $\Psi$ are all the $m$th roots of unity. Prove that $\mathcal E$ is the splitting field of $f(x)$ over $\mathcal F$, and there for $Gal(\mathcal E/\mathcal F)$ is solvable.

I don't see why do we need that function $h(x)$ if what we are trying to do is to take the roots of unity out. Also, for $\mathcal E,\mathcal F$ we are basically adding the same elements, $\Psi$, to $E,F$, but by hypothesis we already have that $E=F(\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_m)$ with $\alpha_i$ the roots of $f(x)$, and $\mathcal E= E(\Psi)=F(\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_m,\xi_1,\dots,\xi_m)$ so if anything we are adding things and $f(x)$ can still get decomposed into linear factors, so what are we suppose to do?

(2) Prove that $Gal(\mathcal E/\mathcal F)\unlhd Gal(\mathcal E/ F)$ and $Gal(\mathcal E/ F)/Gal(\mathcal E/\mathcal F)\cong Gal(\mathcal F/F)$ and $Gal(\mathcal E/F)$ is solvable.

To prove that $Gal(\mathcal E/\mathcal F)\unlhd Gal(\mathcal E/ F)$, we show that $\mathcal F/F$ is a Galois extension: lets take $f(x)\in F[x]$, then by definition all the roots of $f(x)$ are in $\mathcal F$, then it is a splitting field, hence $\mathcal F/F$ is a Galois extension.
Now we can talk about the quotient $Gal(\mathcal E/ F)/Gal(\mathcal E/\mathcal F)$ and $Gal(\mathcal F/F)$, but I can't find the right isomorphism to fit this, and I'm starting to think that maybe this isn't right.
And to prove $Gal(\mathcal E/F)$ is solvable, I wanted to prove that there exists a radical extension, but to use that I would need that $F$ is of characteristic $0$, and I don't have as a hypothesis.

(3) Prove that $Gal(\mathcal E/E) \unlhd Gal(\mathcal E/F)$ and $Gal(\mathcal E/ F)/Gal(\mathcal E/ E)\cong Gal(E/F)$, and conclude that $Gal(E/F)$ is solvable.

The prove is pretty much the same as before, isn't it?

(p.s. sorry for the long post)

EDIT: I think I came up with te proof for (1). We know that $\alpha_i\in\mathcal E$ and $\mathcal F\subseteq\mathcal E$ then by the definition of $\mathcal E$ it is the splitting field of $f(x)$ over $\mathcal F$. Now lets take the tower of fields: $\mathcal F=B_0(\Psi)\subseteq B_1(\Psi)\subseteq\dots\subseteq B_t(\Psi)$ with $\mathcal E\subseteq B_t(\Psi)$ then it is a radical extension and $\mathcal E/\mathcal F$ is Galois, where $\mathcal F$ contains all the roots of unity, then $Gal(\mathcal E/\mathcal F)$ is solvable

For (2),(3) I still can't figure oit how to prove the isomorphism.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A minor comment: it does not make sense to say that a group is solvable by radicals. Groups are just solvable, or not. $\endgroup$ – Derek Holt May 18 '14 at 12:10
  • $\begingroup$ @DerekHolt, yes you're right, I've corrected it... $\endgroup$ – Ana Galois May 18 '14 at 16:47

"Exercise 5.27 on page 468 shows how to eliminate this hypothesis" on Rotman's "A First Course in Abstract Algebra" http://www.math.uiuc.edu/~kapovich/417-05/book.pdf And with Diana Avella, you can assume that char(F) is not [Bi+1 : Bi] for all i.


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.