Prove: \(F(a,b)^*=F(a) \cup F(b)\)

  • MHB
  • Thread starter Kiwi1
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Field
In summary, the conversation discusses a problem involving automorphisms and Galois Groups, specifically proving parts 1-3 related to a field extension. There is a confusion about the notation used and the author's intention, but it is eventually clarified that the * notation refers to the field of automorphisms of a larger field that does not change each element.
  • #1
Kiwi1
108
0
G. Shorter questions relating to automorphisms and Galois Groups

Let F be a field, and K a finite extension of F. Suppose \(a,b \in K\). Prove parts 1-3.

2. \(F(a,b)^*=F(a)^* \cap F(b)^*\)

Surely, they mean the union of F(a) and F(b) and not the intersection? There is no reason to think that \(b \in F(a)\) and therefore no reason to think \(b \in F(a)^* \cap F(b)^*\)?

Also what is the * about? Usualy I would expect \(F(a)^*=F(a)-\{0\}\) but I can see no reason to exclude the zero element. So has the author made typos or am I just confused?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Kiwi said:
Also what is the * about?
That's the same question that I have. The * notation cannot refer to the nonzero elements. It seems to me that it must indicate some sort of dual structure. I suggest you look bach through whatever text these questions come from, to see where this notation is defined.
 
  • #3
Could it mean the subset of elements that have an inverse?
 
  • #4
You could have given us more information about the book you are reading. But on page 327 of that book, I read that $I^*=\mbox{Gal} (K:I)$ is the fixer of $I$. I have no idea what that means.
 
  • #5
Thanks guys. F(a,b)* is the field of automorphisms of, a larger field containing F(a,b), that don't change each element in F(a,b). With that knowledge solving the problem is straightforward.
 

FAQ: Prove: \(F(a,b)^*=F(a) \cup F(b)\)

What does the notation "F(a,b)^*" mean in the statement "Prove: F(a,b)^*=F(a) \cup F(b)"?

The notation "F(a,b)^*" represents the closure of the set F(a,b), which is the set containing all elements that can be obtained by combining elements from F(a,b) using the operations defined for the set.

How is the closure of a set related to the union of two sets?

The closure of a set is a superset of the union of two sets. In other words, the union of two sets is a subset of the closure of a set, but the closure of a set may contain additional elements that are not in the union of the two sets.

Why is it important to prove that the closure of F(a,b) is equal to the union of F(a) and F(b)?

This proof is important because it shows that the union of two sets is closed under the same operations as the original set. This is a fundamental property of mathematical structures and allows for the extension of operations and definitions from smaller sets to larger sets.

Can you provide an example of how the statement "F(a,b)^*=F(a) \cup F(b)" can be applied in a real-world context?

One example could be in set theory, where the closure of a set corresponds to the set of all possible outcomes from a given set of inputs. The union of two sets in this context would represent the combination of two sets of inputs, resulting in a larger set of possible outcomes.

Is it possible for the closure of a set to be equal to the union of two sets without proving it?

No, a proof is necessary to show that the closure of a set is equal to the union of two sets. This is because the closure of a set and the union of two sets are defined differently and may not always be equal. A proof is required to establish this equality and show that the two sets have the same elements.

Similar threads

Back
Top