- #1
TopCat
- 58
- 0
Hungerford says that
But if we take K = ℝ and [itex]K(x_{1})[/itex] = ℝ(i) = ℂ, we have that i is not in ℝ yet is algebraic over ℝ. Guess I'm missing something here. Is it that this need not be true for simple extensions if the primitive element is algebraic over the field?
In the field extension
[tex]K \subset K(x_{1},...,x_{n})[/tex]
each [itex]x_{i}[/itex] is easily seen to be transcendental over K. In fact, every element of [itex]K(x_{1},...,x_{n})[/itex] not in K itself is transcendental over K.
But if we take K = ℝ and [itex]K(x_{1})[/itex] = ℝ(i) = ℂ, we have that i is not in ℝ yet is algebraic over ℝ. Guess I'm missing something here. Is it that this need not be true for simple extensions if the primitive element is algebraic over the field?