5
$\begingroup$

Let $F\subset F'$ be a field extension such that $F$ is algebraically closed inside $F'$, i.e. if $x\in F'$ is algebraic over $F$ then $x$ belongs to $F$ itself. Let now $F\subset L$ be a finite field extension generated by one element, i.e. $L=F(\alpha)$ for some $\alpha\in L$. Is then $L$ also algebraically closed inside $F'\otimes_{F}L$ ?

$\endgroup$

3 Answers 3

6
$\begingroup$

Counterexample:

let $F$ be a non-perfect field of characteristic $p$.

Let $L$ be an extension of $F$ of degree $p^2$ such that $L=F(a,b)$ with $a^p,b^p\in F$.

The polynomial $f(Y):=Y^p-(a^px^p+b^p)\in F(x)[Y]$ is irreducible, where $F(x)$ is the rational function field in the variable $x$.

Consider $F^\prime := F(x,y)$, where $y$ is a root of $f$.

Then $F$ is algebraically closed in $F^\prime$: let $K$ be the algebraic closure of $F$ in $F^\prime$. Then $[K:F]=[K(x):F(x)]\leq [F^\prime :F(x)]=p$. Hence $K\neq F$ implies $F^\prime =K(x)$ and thus $y=g(x)\in K[x]$ with $[K:F]=p$ -- in contradiction to the choice of $y$.

The tensor product $F^\prime\otimes_F L$ is not a field: the tensor product $F^\prime\otimes_K L$ equals $L(x)[Y]/(f)$. However $f$ is a $p$-th power in $L(x)[Y]$.

H

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Very nice. Now I see why my proof idea didn't pan out! $\endgroup$ Dec 2, 2009 at 19:53
0
$\begingroup$

I might was a bit too quick. Assuming your first statement, we then apply it to the case $L\subset F'\otimes_{F}L$, right!? So don't we first need to know that $F'\otimes_{F} L$ is a field to apply your criterion? Which is actually also the original statement I was interested in and which brought me to the above question. So maybe I should state my original problem:

Given $F$ algebraically closed inside $F'$ and $F\subset L$ a finite field extension, is then $F'\otimes_{F}L$ again a field?

If $L$ is simple, then this is easy seen to be true. Then I wanted to do an induction argument on the number of generators and for this I needed the above statement (given in my first question) to be true.

I am not quite sure it is actually true. Normally one needs something like $F\subset F'$ to be separable for general $L$. But one might can drop this condition for finite extensions $F\subset L$. So any suggestions regarding this problem/question?

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ If F' tensor F-bar is a field, then F' tensor L is a subring, so it's an integral domain, and it's finite over a field, so it's a field by the standard evil trick. $\endgroup$ Dec 1, 2009 at 20:50
  • $\begingroup$ [hence if my assertion "$F$ alg closed in $F'$ iff $\overline{F}\otimes_FF'$ is a field" is true then it solves all your problems.] $\endgroup$ Dec 1, 2009 at 21:45
0
$\begingroup$

Let me have a punt at this. $F$ alg closed inside $F'$ iff $\overline{F}\otimes_FF'$ is a field, right? So now it's easy because $\overline{L}$ is an algebraic closure of $F$, and I don't think I even assumed $L$ was simple over $F$. Did I miss something?

Edit: my first assertion needs justification and I can't justify it so I could be mistaken. It's clear that $\overline{F}\otimes_FF'$ is a field iff $L\otimes_FF'$ is a field for all finite extensions $L$ of $F$ (union of fields is a field; integral domain finite over a field is a field). Moreover, if $F$ is not algebraically closed in $F'$ then choose some $\alpha\in F'$ algebraic over $F$ but not in $F$, and $L=F(\alpha)$ is finite but $L\otimes_FF'$ is not a field (it contains $L\otimes L$), so one way is OK. The problem is the other way. First say $K=F(\beta)$ is finite and simple over $F$. Then $F$ alg closed in $F'$ implies $K\otimes_FF'$ is a field because if the min poly of $\beta$ factors in $F'$ then the factors are algebraic over $F$, so in $F$. But as the OP quite rightly points out, that isn't enough for me. So this is not yet an answer to the question.

Second edit: I couldn't justify my first assertion because it is false. The counterexample posted looks good to me.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ And why is the first statement true? The rest is clear. $\endgroup$
    – Jason
    Dec 1, 2009 at 19:54
  • $\begingroup$ Lemme check: is this homework?? $\endgroup$ Dec 1, 2009 at 19:56
  • $\begingroup$ No, don't worry ;). Just something I came across. $\endgroup$
    – Jason
    Dec 1, 2009 at 20:05
  • $\begingroup$ I keep trying to write down the trivial proof and getting bogged down, and now I have to put the kids to bed :-/ Maybe I made a mistake. I'll be back in about 45 mins, you can let me know if I have :-) $\endgroup$ Dec 1, 2009 at 20:41
  • $\begingroup$ OK back. I still don't see an argument though, so maybe I am simply mistaken and there's some weird inseparability issue. I'll edit. $\endgroup$ Dec 1, 2009 at 21:31

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.