In the last post, We’ve seen how to extend a field using an irreducible polynomial. Here, I want to show another way to do so, however, it’s going to be from a different prespective. However, I would like to give a few reminders first from ring theory
Prime Ideals and PID’s
Suppose that is a commutative ring, a prime ideal
is an ideal such that if
then
or
, and an element
is said to be prime if and only if the ideal
is prime.
Now, if you can recall, it turns out that if is an integral domain if and only if
is a prime ideal. Let’s prove it for those who don’t remember:
Suppose that is an integral domain, and there are elements
such that
but in the same time
and
. Thus, in the quotient ring ,
both are not zero. On the other hand though:
is zero. We get that
are zero-divisors which is a contradiction to
being an integral domain. Thus,
is a prime ideal.
The other direction is very similar – You start with a prime ideal and assume that
is not an integral domain, thus, it has zero divisors – from that you can get a contradiction for
being prime (Think about it!).
That’s a nice criteria that will help later in this post. One more thing that I would like to show, it that in a PID, a maximal ideal and a prime ideal are the same (it is actually also true in unique factorization domain (UFD) but I am not intereseted in them right now). Let’s prove it:
Suppose that is a maximal ideal, wev’e seen in the last post that
is a field. A field is in particular an integral domain, thus
in an integral domain, therefore
is prime (notice how I didn’t use the fact that
is a PID here)
On the other hand, suppose that is prime, then since
is a PID, then
where
. By defintions,
is prime. Now suppose that
for some
. Thus,
. Since
is prime, we can assume WLOG that
, thus,
for some
. and we get
pxb=ab=p \Rightarrow xb=1
(I can ‘cancel out’ since
is an integral domain) We now have got that
is invertible, thus
is irreducible, and we proved in the previous post that this means that
is maximal.
That’s all I wanted to show about rings, I am going to use what I have done here in this post, so I thought that adding it is necessary.
Back to fields
Suppose that we already have a field extention . and let’s pick some element
, now we can define a function
defined as:
\Phi(f(x))=f(\alpha)
What this function does is basically substitutes with
. Let’s try to understand this function, first, notice that:
\Phi(\beta \cdot f(x))=\beta f(\alpha)=\beta \cdot \Phi(f(x))
Ok, we can ‘slide’ the scalar out of the argument – is homogeneous, that’s nice, let’s see what else:
\Phi(f(x)+g(x))=f(\alpha)+g(\alpha)=\Phi(f(x))+\Phi(g(x))
great, so is additive as well. It is actually also multiplicative:
\Phi(f(x)\cdot g(x))=f(\alpha)\cdot g(\alpha)=\Phi(f(x))\cdot\Phi(g(x))
So, in conclusion, this is a ring homomorphism (it’s not hard to see that the unit is being sent to the unit), while also being a linear map between two vector spaces over . From the first isomorphism theorem we get:
F[x]/\ker \Phi\cong\text{Im}\Phi
and we know that is a sub-ring of
(it is a ring since it is isomorphic to a quotient ring). The only thing we can do now is to investigate the kernel of this map, which we denote as
. There are 2 cases now:
. This is a boring, it means that the only polynomial
satisfies (i.e
) is the zero polynomial:
. This means that
is not a root of any polynomial with coefficients from
. Such an elemet is said to be transcendental, and we get:
F[\alpha]=\text{Im}\Phi\cong F[x]/(0)\cong F[x]
and there nothing new – is exactly the same as
and ‘nothing changed’.
The second option, is when , here something actually happens: since
is a PID, there exists a polynomial
such that
(I’ll assume that
is not a constant, since if it is, then
(why?) which is a contradiction for it being a field). Then we get:
F[x]/\langle h\rangle =F[x]/\ker\Phi\cong \text{Im}\Phi=F[\alpha]\subseteq K
The interesting part here is: , and since
is a sub-ring of a field – it is an integral domain. Thus,
is an integral domain as well. Now for the punch line:
F[x] / \langle h \rangle\text{ is an i.d} \iff \langle h \rangle\text{ is prime} \iff \langle h \rangle\text{ is maximal} \iff F[x] / \langle h \rangle\text{ is a field}
We got something really special here – is not just a sub-ring, it is a sub-field (as it is isomorphic to a field) which contains
and
. What we have done here without even noticing, is adjoining an element from the ‘bigger’ field
to the ‘smaller’ field
to get a new sub-field (of course it is possible that
)
\begin{array}{c} K\\ \vert\\ F[\alpha]\\ \vert\\ F \end{array}
The minimal polynomial
So we now know how to adjoin an element to a field to create a bigger field, however, we also know that the new field, is a vector space over
, but what do we know about it? what is it’s dimention? From out construction, we’ve seen that
where
is a polynomial that generates the kernel, thus, it satisfies
. That’s actually helpful, since we know what is the dimention of the vector space
– it is the degree of the polynomial
!
So now we know that every time we are adjoining an element to a field, we also need to find this specific polynomial in order to know the dimention of our new vector space. So let’s find out what properties
has.
First of all, I want to be a monic polynomial – i.e. it’s leading coefficient is 1 (I can assume that – indeed, if
is not monic, we can just divide it by it’s leading coefficient to get a monic polynomial). We also know that since
is a field, then
is maximal, thus
is irreducible. Okay, now let’s suppose that
satisfies
, thus
. Therefore,
, and we can now conclude that
. So
is the polynomial that satisfies
with the lowest degree. Let’s see what we have found out so far:
is monic.
is irreducible.
is the polynomial with the lowest degree that satisfies
.
Since is monic, then it is unique, and the other 2 properties, kind of make
look small / minimal. This leads us to a definition. We say that the polynomial
is the minimal polynomial of
, and I’ll denote it by
, as we’ve seen, this is a pertty important polynomial. Let’s see a concrete example.
Consider the fields and
, and let’s pick
.
From now on I’ll denote the dimention of the field over
as
and I’ll call it the degree of the extenstion.
So I want to find the degree of the extention. In order to do so, we need to find the minimal polynomial . Let’s try to find it:
\alpha=\sqrt[3]{5}\Rightarrow \alpha^3=5\Rightarrow\alpha^3-5=0
So it seems like is a good candidate to be the minimal polynomial. This polynomial is monic,
and irreducible (This is an eisenstien polynomial with
– If you have no idea what I am talking about, don’t worry, I’ll write about it in the future when I’ll start writing posts about ring theory). Thus, it is indeed the minimal polynomial! Since it is of degree 3, we conclude that
.
Creating roots out of nowhere
So far we’ve discussed a way to create field using an existing element from a ‘bigger’ field. Unfortunately, we don’t always have such a field to take elements from, so what can we do? We actually talked about it before, we can create field by dividing the ring of polynomials by an irreducible polynomial. However, it turns out that this process actually generates the element we want:
Suppose that is a field and
is irreducible. Let
be the field quotient ring, which is actually a field. now I will denote
, and let’s check what is the value of
, we will write first
, then:
h(\alpha)=\sum_{i=0}^na_i\alpha^i=\sum_{i=0}^na_i(x+\langle h\rangle)^i=\sum_{i=0}^na_i(x^i+\langle h\rangle)
=\sum_{i=0}^na_ix^i+\langle h\rangle=h+\langle h\rangle=0 +\langle h\rangle
We got that is a root of
in the new field
. Therefore, for any irreducible polynomial
in a field
we can find a field
that extends
such that
has a root in it!
At first sight it seems like cheating, is seems like I decided that I want the polynomial to have a root so I just made one. However, go over it again and observe carefully how Iv’e gotten to it and make sure you understand every step here. After you do so, you will understand that this is a real consturction that is valid and nothing here is cheating.
\begin{array}{c} f\in F[x]\text{ is irreducible}\\ \downarrow\\ K=F[x]/\langle f(x)\rangle\text{ is a field}\\ \downarrow\\ f(x+\langle f(x)\rangle)=0_{K}\\ \downarrow\\ \alpha=x+\langle f(x)\rangle\text{ is a root of } f \text{ in } K \end{array}
In my opinion, this is a really elegant way to ‘generate’ roots to a polynomial, and I would like to show one famous example for it:
Consider the field . As you know, there is not real root to the polynomial
. So let’s take look at the quotient ring:
K=\mathbb{R}[x]/\langle x^2+1 \rangle
we know that is a root for
in
. Thus,
or
. Looks familiar? We just constructed the field of complex numbers
. This is one of the many ways to construct this field, I definitly like it, although, it is not my favourite (my favourite is done by more geometric way – I hope to present it in the future when I’ll write about complex analysis), but it is valid, and it works, and it solves our problem (finding a root for an irrecducible polynomial), and it gives us information on the extesntion itself: Since the minimal polynomial is
(Why?) then we know that
.
I think that’s enough to process for one post, in the next post I will start by showing how to calculate inverse elements in the field , and I’ll start talking about splitting fields.
One thought on “Fields from Elements & Elements from Fields”