Splitting field does not seem to exist... :O

In summary, a finite extension E of a field F is a splitting field over F for a polynomial f(x) if f(x) can be factored as a product of linear factors in E[x], but not in any proper sub-field of E over F. In the given example, the splitting field of x^2-4 over the field of complex numbers is C itself, since C already contains all the smaller fields in which x^2-4 can be factored. The definition of a splitting field for a polynomial depends on the field it is being extended from, and may not be unique.
  • #1
caffeinemachine
Gold Member
MHB
816
15
(Herstein Pg 222) DEFINITION: If $f(x) \in F[x]$, a finite extension $E$ of $F$ is said to be a splitting field over $F$ for $f(x)$ if over $E$(that is, in $E[x]$), but not over any proper sub-field of $E$, $f(x)$ can be factored as a product of linear factors.

Now here's my question. Take $p(x)=x^2-4 \in F[x]$, $F$ is the field of Complex Numbers. What is the splitting over $F$ for $p(x)$??

I would be tempted to say that $F$ itself is the splitting field over $F$ for $p(x)$. But then $\mathbb{R}$, the field of real numbers, would be a proper sub-field of $F$ in which $p(x)$ can be factored as a product of linear factors, viz, p(x)=(x-2)(x+2).

What have I missed?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Re: splitting field soes not seem to exist.. :O

there is a slight omission in the definition. recall that E is a splitting field over F.

that means that the proper subfields referenced in the definition, are to be understood as "sub-fields over F", that is, extensions K, F ≤ K < E.

since x2-4 splits in C, the splitting field of x2-4 over C, is C itself.
of course we can find smaller fields in which this polynomial splits. but since C already contains these smaller fields, we really aren't "extending anything".

for emphasis, the definition of a splitting field for a polynomial p(x) in F[x], depends on F.

for example, the splitting field of x2+1 over Q is Q(i), the gaussian rationals. the splitting field of x2+1 over R, is C, the complex numbers. these are *not* the same fields.

in other words, we are talking about a unique (up to isomorphism) extension of F, not a unique (up to isomorphism) field.
 

FAQ: Splitting field does not seem to exist... :O

Why is the splitting field not existing a problem?

The splitting field is a fundamental concept in abstract algebra that allows us to study the roots of polynomials. Without a splitting field, we cannot fully understand the behavior of these roots and their relationships with each other.

How do you determine if a splitting field exists for a given polynomial?

A splitting field exists for a polynomial if and only if the polynomial is separable and can be factored into linear factors over some extension field. This can be determined by checking if the polynomial is irreducible over its base field and if it has distinct roots.

What if I cannot find a splitting field for a polynomial?

If a polynomial does not have a splitting field, it means that the polynomial is not solvable by radicals. This means that the roots of the polynomial cannot be expressed using a combination of basic arithmetic operations and taking roots of numbers.

Can a polynomial have multiple splitting fields?

Yes, a polynomial can have multiple splitting fields. This is because a splitting field is not unique and can be different depending on the extension field chosen to factor the polynomial.

How is the splitting field related to Galois theory?

The concept of a splitting field is closely related to Galois theory, which studies the symmetries and structure of field extensions. The splitting field is important in Galois theory as it helps to determine whether a polynomial is solvable by radicals and if the roots have certain symmetry properties.

Back
Top