Let $E|F$ be a finite Galois extension and $f(x) \in F[x]$ an irreducible polynomial. Prove that each of the irreducible factors of $f(x)$ in $E[x]$ have the same degree.

An idea: Let $\phi \in Gal(E|F)$ and $f(x)=g_1(x) \ldots g_m(x)$, where $g_i(x) \in E[x]$ is irreducible. Since $\phi$ fixes F, $f(x)=\phi f(x)=\phi g_1(x) \ldots \phi g_m(x)$. Therefore, since factorization is unique $\phi$ permutes the $g_i$'s. Note that $\phi$ preserves the polynomial's degree. So, if we can show that $Gal(E|F)$ acts transitively on $\{g_1(x), \ldots ,g_m(x)\}$, then we are done.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Jyrki: Why are the roots of $f(x)$ distinct? The extension is separable, but that only means minimal polynomials of elements in E are separable, right? $\endgroup$ – Marco Flores Oct 15 '14 at 6:10
  • $\begingroup$ A good question, Marco. I completely missed the boat this time. I was thinking about the case of a tower of Galois extensions $L/E/F$ with $L$ being the splitting field of $f(x)$ and $L/F$, $E/F$ both Galois. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Oct 15 '14 at 7:18

Let $g_1(x)$ be one of the irreducible factors in $E[x]$. Let $H\le G$ be the subgroup of automorphisms that fixes all the coefficients of $g_1$, and let $D=\{\tau_1,\tau_2,\ldots,\tau_k\}$ be a set of representatives of left cosets of $H$.

Consider the polynomial $$ g(x)=\prod_{i=1}^k(\tau_i g_1)(x). $$ Fix an element $\phi\in G$. We have that $\phi D$ is another set of reprensentatives of left cosets of $H$. In other words there is a permutation $\alpha\in S_k$ such that $$ \phi\tau_i=\tau_{\alpha(i)}h_i $$ for all $i=1,2,\ldots,k,$ and some elements $h_i\in H$. Therefore $$ \begin{aligned} (\phi g)(x)&=\prod_{i=1}^k(\phi\tau_i g_1)(x)\\ &=\prod_{i=1}^k(\tau_{\alpha(i)}h_i g_1)(x)\\ &=\prod_{i=1}^k(\tau_{\alpha(i)}g_1)(x)\\ &=g(x). \end{aligned} $$ As $\phi$ was arbitrary this means that $g(x)$ is fixed under all of $G$. Therefore $g(x)\in F[x]$.

As you observed, all the polynomials $\tau_i g_1$ are factors of $f$. As they are distinct, so is their product $g(x)$. But $f(x)$ was assumed to be irreducible, so we must have $g(x)=f(x)$. The claim follows from this the way you outlined.


Consider the action of $\text{Gal}(E/F)$ on the factors $g_1,\ldots, g_m$ and assume it is not transitive, say no $\sigma$ sends $g_1$ to $g_2$.

Then we have $\{\sigma(g_1) : \sigma\in G\}\cap \{\sigma(g_2) : \sigma\in G\}=\varnothing$, i.e. the orbits $G\cdot g_1, G\cdot g_2$ are disjoint. But then we can find a rational function $q(x)\in E(x)$ so that $g_1|\sigma(q)$ and $g_2|\sigma(q)^{-1}$, for each $\sigma\in G$ thanks to the CRT where division means it divides the numerator and the $^{-1}$ means reciprocal.


$$f\bigg|\prod_\sigma \sigma(q)$$

because $G$ permutes all the roots of $f$ transitively. At the same time, we have

$$f\bigg |\prod_\sigma \sigma(q)^{-1}$$

for the same reason--a blatant impossibility since $q(x)$ can be taken to be reduced.


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.