When are nonintersecting finite degree field extensions linearly disjoint?
Let $F$ be a field, and let $K,L$ be finite degree field extensions of $F$ inside a common algebraic closure. Consider the following two properties:
(i) $K$ and $L$ are linearly disjoint over $F$: the natural map $K otimes_F L hookrightarrow KL$ is an injection.
(ii) $K cap L = F$.
It is well known that (i) $implies$ (ii): see e.g. $S$ 13.1 of my field theory notes. This implication ought to be (and usually is) followed up with the comment that (ii) does not imply (i) without some additional hypothesis: for instance take $F = mathbb{Q}$, $K = mathbb{Q}(sqrt[3]{2})$, $L = mathbb{Q}(e^{frac{2 pi i}{3}}sqrt[3]{2})$, or more generally, any two distinct, but conjugate, extensions of prime degree. Thus some normality hypothesis is necessary. What is the weakest such hypothesis?
The following is a standard result: see e.g. $S$ 13.3, loc. cit.
Theorem: If $K/F$ and $L/F$ are both Galois, then (ii) $implies$ (i).
I remember this point coming up in a course I took as a graduate student, and the instructor claimed in passing that it was enough for only one of $K$, $L$ to be Galois. None of the standard field theory texts I own contains a proof of this. But by online searching I found an algebra text of P.M. Cohn which proves something stronger.
Theorem: If at least one of $K,L$ is normal and at least one is separable [it is permissible for the same field to be both normal and separable], then (ii) $implies$ (i).
I wasn't able to freely view the proof, so if someone can pass it along to me I'd be appreciative. Still, I think I know of no counterexamples to the following stronger
Claim: If at least one of $K,L$ is normal, then (ii) $implies$ (i).
Is this in fact true? (I believe I have seen it claimed in certain research papers, e.g. one by Piatetski-Shapiro. But because terminology and running separability hypotheses are not so standardized, I don't take this as conclusive evidence.)
field-theory
asked May 5 '13 at 2:44
Pete L. Clark
80k9161311
add a comment |
Let $F$ be a field, and let $K,L$ be finite degree field extensions of $F$ inside a common algebraic closure. Consider the following two properties:
(i) $K$ and $L$ are linearly disjoint over $F$: the natural map $K otimes_F L hookrightarrow KL$ is an injection.
(ii) $K cap L = F$.
It is well known that (i) $implies$ (ii): see e.g. $S$ 13.1 of my field theory notes. This implication ought to be (and usually is) followed up with the comment that (ii) does not imply (i) without some additional hypothesis: for instance take $F = mathbb{Q}$, $K = mathbb{Q}(sqrt[3]{2})$, $L = mathbb{Q}(e^{frac{2 pi i}{3}}sqrt[3]{2})$, or more generally, any two distinct, but conjugate, extensions of prime degree. Thus some normality hypothesis is necessary. What is the weakest such hypothesis?
The following is a standard result: see e.g. $S$ 13.3, loc. cit.
Theorem: If $K/F$ and $L/F$ are both Galois, then (ii) $implies$ (i).
I remember this point coming up in a course I took as a graduate student, and the instructor claimed in passing that it was enough for only one of $K$, $L$ to be Galois. None of the standard field theory texts I own contains a proof of this. But by online searching I found an algebra text of P.M. Cohn which proves something stronger.
Theorem: If at least one of $K,L$ is normal and at least one is separable [it is permissible for the same field to be both normal and separable], then (ii) $implies$ (i).
I wasn't able to freely view the proof, so if someone can pass it along to me I'd be appreciative. Still, I think I know of no counterexamples to the following stronger
Claim: If at least one of $K,L$ is normal, then (ii) $implies$ (i).
Is this in fact true? (I believe I have seen it claimed in certain research papers, e.g. one by Piatetski-Shapiro. But because terminology and running separability hypotheses are not so standardized, I don't take this as conclusive evidence.)
field-theory
asked May 5 '13 at 2:44
Pete L. Clark
80k9161311
6
Here are the relevant pages from Cohn's Algebra, Volume 3: page 188/1, page 188/2, page 189/1, page 189/2. Cohn doesn't appear to address your question about counterexamples directly in the body of the section, but perhaps there is something hidden in the exercises which I am unable to recognize because I'm lacking the expertise.
– Martin
May 5 '13 at 11:23
1
@Martin: Thanks! That's very helpful.
– Pete L. Clark
May 5 '13 at 11:27
add a comment |
Let $F$ be a field, and let $K,L$ be finite degree field extensions of $F$ inside a common algebraic closure. Consider the following two properties:
(i) $K$ and $L$ are linearly disjoint over $F$: the natural map $K otimes_F L hookrightarrow KL$ is an injection.
(ii) $K cap L = F$.
It is well known that (i) $implies$ (ii): see e.g. $S$ 13.1 of my field theory notes. This implication ought to be (and usually is) followed up with the comment that (ii) does not imply (i) without some additional hypothesis: for instance take $F = mathbb{Q}$, $K = mathbb{Q}(sqrt[3]{2})$, $L = mathbb{Q}(e^{frac{2 pi i}{3}}sqrt[3]{2})$, or more generally, any two distinct, but conjugate, extensions of prime degree. Thus some normality hypothesis is necessary. What is the weakest such hypothesis?
The following is a standard result: see e.g. $S$ 13.3, loc. cit.
Theorem: If $K/F$ and $L/F$ are both Galois, then (ii) $implies$ (i).
I remember this point coming up in a course I took as a graduate student, and the instructor claimed in passing that it was enough for only one of $K$, $L$ to be Galois. None of the standard field theory texts I own contains a proof of this. But by online searching I found an algebra text of P.M. Cohn which proves something stronger.
Theorem: If at least one of $K,L$ is normal and at least one is separable [it is permissible for the same field to be both normal and separable], then (ii) $implies$ (i).
I wasn't able to freely view the proof, so if someone can pass it along to me I'd be appreciative. Still, I think I know of no counterexamples to the following stronger
Claim: If at least one of $K,L$ is normal, then (ii) $implies$ (i).
Is this in fact true? (I believe I have seen it claimed in certain research papers, e.g. one by Piatetski-Shapiro. But because terminology and running separability hypotheses are not so standardized, I don't take this as conclusive evidence.)
field-theory
asked May 5 '13 at 2:44
Pete L. Clark
80k9161311
Let $F$ be a field, and let $K,L$ be finite degree field extensions of $F$ inside a common algebraic closure. Consider the following two properties:
(i) $K$ and $L$ are linearly disjoint over $F$: the natural map $K otimes_F L hookrightarrow KL$ is an injection.
(ii) $K cap L = F$.
It is well known that (i) $implies$ (ii): see e.g. $S$ 13.1 of my field theory notes. This implication ought to be (and usually is) followed up with the comment that (ii) does not imply (i) without some additional hypothesis: for instance take $F = mathbb{Q}$, $K = mathbb{Q}(sqrt[3]{2})$, $L = mathbb{Q}(e^{frac{2 pi i}{3}}sqrt[3]{2})$, or more generally, any two distinct, but conjugate, extensions of prime degree. Thus some normality hypothesis is necessary. What is the weakest such hypothesis?
The following is a standard result: see e.g. $S$ 13.3, loc. cit.
Theorem: If $K/F$ and $L/F$ are both Galois, then (ii) $implies$ (i).
I remember this point coming up in a course I took as a graduate student, and the instructor claimed in passing that it was enough for only one of $K$, $L$ to be Galois. None of the standard field theory texts I own contains a proof of this. But by online searching I found an algebra text of P.M. Cohn which proves something stronger.
Theorem: If at least one of $K,L$ is normal and at least one is separable [it is permissible for the same field to be both normal and separable], then (ii) $implies$ (i).
I wasn't able to freely view the proof, so if someone can pass it along to me I'd be appreciative. Still, I think I know of no counterexamples to the following stronger
Claim: If at least one of $K,L$ is normal, then (ii) $implies$ (i).
Is this in fact true? (I believe I have seen it claimed in certain research papers, e.g. one by Piatetski-Shapiro. But because terminology and running separability hypotheses are not so standardized, I don't take this as conclusive evidence.)
field-theory
field-theory
asked May 5 '13 at 2:44
Pete L. Clark
80k9161311
asked May 5 '13 at 2:44
Pete L. Clark
80k9161311
edited May 5 '13 at 10:47
asked May 5 '13 at 2:44
Pete L. Clark
80k9161311
asked May 5 '13 at 2:44
Pete L. Clark
80k9161311
asked May 5 '13 at 2:44
Pete L. Clark
80k9161311
80k9161311
6
Here are the relevant pages from Cohn's Algebra, Volume 3: page 188/1, page 188/2, page 189/1, page 189/2. Cohn doesn't appear to address your question about counterexamples directly in the body of the section, but perhaps there is something hidden in the exercises which I am unable to recognize because I'm lacking the expertise.
– Martin
May 5 '13 at 11:23
1
@Martin: Thanks! That's very helpful.
– Pete L. Clark
May 5 '13 at 11:27
add a comment |
6
Here are the relevant pages from Cohn's Algebra, Volume 3: page 188/1, page 188/2, page 189/1, page 189/2. Cohn doesn't appear to address your question about counterexamples directly in the body of the section, but perhaps there is something hidden in the exercises which I am unable to recognize because I'm lacking the expertise.
– Martin
May 5 '13 at 11:23
1
@Martin: Thanks! That's very helpful.
– Pete L. Clark
May 5 '13 at 11:27
6
6
Here are the relevant pages from Cohn's Algebra, Volume 3: page 188/1, page 188/2, page 189/1, page 189/2. Cohn doesn't appear to address your question about counterexamples directly in the body of the section, but perhaps there is something hidden in the exercises which I am unable to recognize because I'm lacking the expertise.
– Martin
May 5 '13 at 11:23
Here are the relevant pages from Cohn's Algebra, Volume 3: page 188/1, page 188/2, page 189/1, page 189/2. Cohn doesn't appear to address your question about counterexamples directly in the body of the section, but perhaps there is something hidden in the exercises which I am unable to recognize because I'm lacking the expertise.
– Martin
May 5 '13 at 11:23
1
1
@Martin: Thanks! That's very helpful.
– Pete L. Clark
May 5 '13 at 11:27
@Martin: Thanks! That's very helpful.
– Pete L. Clark
May 5 '13 at 11:27
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
There are counterexamples to the Claim. Recall that an extension of a field $F$ of characteristic $p>0$ is separable if and only if it is linearly disjoint from $F^{1/p^infty}$ over $F$. Note that $F^{1/p^infty}/F$ is a normal extension. There is an insparable algebraic extension $K/F$ which does not intersect $F^{1/p^infty} smallsetminus F$ (see Does an inseparable extension have a purely inseparable element?). This gives a counterexample.
answered Nov 22 at 14:25
unigermalto
134
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f381775%2fwhen-are-nonintersecting-finite-degree-field-extensions-linearly-disjoint%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
There are counterexamples to the Claim. Recall that an extension of a field $F$ of characteristic $p>0$ is separable if and only if it is linearly disjoint from $F^{1/p^infty}$ over $F$. Note that $F^{1/p^infty}/F$ is a normal extension. There is an insparable algebraic extension $K/F$ which does not intersect $F^{1/p^infty} smallsetminus F$ (see Does an inseparable extension have a purely inseparable element?). This gives a counterexample.
answered Nov 22 at 14:25
unigermalto
134
add a comment |
There are counterexamples to the Claim. Recall that an extension of a field $F$ of characteristic $p>0$ is separable if and only if it is linearly disjoint from $F^{1/p^infty}$ over $F$. Note that $F^{1/p^infty}/F$ is a normal extension. There is an insparable algebraic extension $K/F$ which does not intersect $F^{1/p^infty} smallsetminus F$ (see Does an inseparable extension have a purely inseparable element?). This gives a counterexample.
answered Nov 22 at 14:25
unigermalto
134
add a comment |
There are counterexamples to the Claim. Recall that an extension of a field $F$ of characteristic $p>0$ is separable if and only if it is linearly disjoint from $F^{1/p^infty}$ over $F$. Note that $F^{1/p^infty}/F$ is a normal extension. There is an insparable algebraic extension $K/F$ which does not intersect $F^{1/p^infty} smallsetminus F$ (see Does an inseparable extension have a purely inseparable element?). This gives a counterexample.
answered Nov 22 at 14:25
unigermalto
134
There are counterexamples to the Claim. Recall that an extension of a field $F$ of characteristic $p>0$ is separable if and only if it is linearly disjoint from $F^{1/p^infty}$ over $F$. Note that $F^{1/p^infty}/F$ is a normal extension. There is an insparable algebraic extension $K/F$ which does not intersect $F^{1/p^infty} smallsetminus F$ (see Does an inseparable extension have a purely inseparable element?). This gives a counterexample.
answered Nov 22 at 14:25
unigermalto
134
answered Nov 22 at 14:25
unigermalto
134
answered Nov 22 at 14:25
unigermalto
134
answered Nov 22 at 14:25
unigermalto
134
134
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f381775%2fwhen-are-nonintersecting-finite-degree-field-extensions-linearly-disjoint%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
6
Here are the relevant pages from Cohn's Algebra, Volume 3: page 188/1, page 188/2, page 189/1, page 189/2. Cohn doesn't appear to address your question about counterexamples directly in the body of the section, but perhaps there is something hidden in the exercises which I am unable to recognize because I'm lacking the expertise.
– Martin
May 5 '13 at 11:23
1
@Martin: Thanks! That's very helpful.
– Pete L. Clark
May 5 '13 at 11:27