The extension is Galois iff E is a splitting field of a separable polynomial of F[x]

In summary, this conversation discusses the proof that a finite extension $E/F$ is Galois if and only if $E$ is a splitting field of a separable polynomial of $F[x]$. The first part of the conversation shows that if $E/F$ is Galois, then it is normal and separable, and therefore, $E$ is a splitting field of a polynomial $f\in F[x]$. The second part of the conversation shows that if $E$ is a splitting field of a separable polynomial of $F[x]$, then $E/F$ is normal and separable, and therefore, Galois. The proof includes a discussion of irreducible factors, roots, and separability, and also
  • #1
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
5,049
7
Hey! :eek:

Let $E/F$ be a finite extension.
I want to show that this extension is Galois if and only if $E$ is a splitting field of a separable polynomial of $F[x]$. I have done the folllowing:

$\Rightarrow$ :
We suppose that $E/F$ is Galois. So, we have that the extension is normal and separable.
Since the extension is normal we have that $E$ is a splitting field of a polynomial $f\in F[x]$.
Let $p(x)$ be an irreducible factor of $f(x)$.
Let $a$ be a root of $p(x)$ then $a$ is also a root of $f(x)$, so $a\in E$.
We have that $p(x)=\lambda \text{Irr}(a,F), \lambda\in F$.
Since the extension $E/F$ is separable we have that for each element $e\in E$ the $\text{Irr}(e,F)$ is separable, so it has only simple roots.
So, $\text{Irr}(a,F)$ has only simple roots, so also $p(x)$, so $p(x)$ is separable.
We have that a polynomial is separable if each irreducible factor is separable. So, $f(x)$ is separable.
So, $E$ is a splitting field of a separable polynomial $f(x)$.

Is this direction correct? (Wondering) $\Leftarrow$ :
We suppose that $E$ is a splitting field of a separable polynomial of $F[x]$, say $f(x)$.
From that we conclude that the extension $E/F$ is normal. So, each irreducible polynomial of $F[x]$ that has a root in $E$, has all the roots in $E$.
Let $a\in E$ be a root of $f(x)$.
$\text{Irr}(a,F)$ is an irreducible factor of $f(x)$. Since $f(x)$ is separable, we have that $\text{Irr}(a,F)$ is also separable.
To show that the extension $E/F$ is separable we have to show that for each $e\in E$ the $\text{Irr}(e,F)$ is separable, right?
From what I have shown so far, we have that this holds only for those elements of $E$ that are a root of $f(x)$, or not? (Wondering)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
mathmari said:
Let $a\in E$ be a root of $f(x)$.
$\text{Irr}(a,F)$ is an irreducible factor of $f(x)$. Since $f(x)$ is separable, we have that $\text{Irr}(a,F)$ is also separable.
To show that the extension $E/F$ is separable we have to show that for each $e\in E$ the $\text{Irr}(e,F)$ is separable, right?
From what I have shown so far, we have that this holds only for those elements of $E$ that are a root of $f(x)$, or not? (Wondering)

I changed this part... Let $a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_n\in E$ be all the roots of $f(X)$. Then $E=F(a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_n)=F(a_1)(a_2)(a_3)\ldots(a_n)$.
We have that when $a$ is separable $/F$, then the extension $F(a)$ is separable $/F$.
Let $a_i\in \{a_1, a_2, \ldots , a_n\}$ with $1\leq i \leq n$.
We will show that the extension $F(a_1, a_2, \ldots , a_n)$ is separable $/F$ by induction on $i$.

Base case: For $i=1$ we have that $m(a_1, F)$ is an irreducible factor of $f(X)$. Since $f(X)$ is separable, we have that $m(a_1, F)$ is separable. So, $a_1$ is separable $/F$. Then the extension $F(a_1)$ is separable $/F$.
Inductive Hypothesis: We suppose that it holds for $i=k$, i.e., the extsnion $F(a_1, \ldots , a_k)$ is separable $/F$.
Inductive step: We will show that it holds for $i=k+1$, i.e., that the extension $F(a_1, \ldots , a_{k+1})$ is separable $/F$. We have that $F(a_1, \ldots , a_{k+1})=F(a_1, \ldots , a_k)(a_{k+1})$. We have the extensions $$F\leq F(a_1, \ldots , a_k)\leq F(a_1, \ldots , a_k)(a_{k+1})$$
We have that $m(a_{k+1}, F(a_1, \ldots , a_k))$ is an irreducible factor of $f(X)\in F[X]\leq F(a_1, \ldots , a_k)[X]$. Since $f(X)$ is separable, we have that $m(a_{k+1}, F(a_1, \ldots , a_k))$is also separable. So, $a_{k+1}$ is separable $/F(a_1, \ldots , a_k)$. Then the extension $F(a_1, \ldots , a_k)(a_{k+1})$is separable $/F(a_1, \ldots , a_k)$.
From the inductive hypothesis we have that the extension $F(a_1, \ldots , a_k)$ is separable $/F$.
Therefore, the extension $F(a_1, \ldots , a_k)( a_{k+1})$ is separable $/F$.

So, the extension $E/F=F(a_1, a_2, \ldots , a_n)/F$ is separable.
Therefore, the extension $E/F$ is Galois. Is it correct now? Could I improve something? (Wondering)

Is the induction correct? (Wondering)
 

FAQ: The extension is Galois iff E is a splitting field of a separable polynomial of F[x]

What does it mean for an extension to be Galois?

An extension is Galois if it is a normal, separable, and finite extension of a field. This means that it has a unique subfield, called the base field, and all of its conjugates are contained within the extension.

What is a splitting field?

A splitting field is a field extension that contains all of the roots of a given polynomial over the base field. This means that the polynomial can be fully factored into linear factors over the splitting field.

What is a separable polynomial?

A separable polynomial is a polynomial whose roots are all distinct. In other words, there are no repeated roots in the polynomial. This is an important condition for an extension to be Galois.

How do you determine if an extension is Galois?

In order for an extension to be Galois, it must meet three conditions: it must be normal, separable, and finite. To check if a given extension meets these conditions, you can use the Galois correspondence theorem or the Galois group of the extension.

What is the significance of the statement "E is a splitting field of a separable polynomial of F[x]"?

This statement is a necessary and sufficient condition for an extension to be Galois. It means that the extension E contains all of the roots of a separable polynomial over the base field F, which allows for a unique automorphism of the extension and a well-defined Galois group.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
24
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top