Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I was feeling a bit rusty on my field theory, and I was reviewing out of McCarthy's excellent book, Algebraic Extensions of Fields. Out of Chapter 1, I was able to work out everything "left to the reader" or omitted except for one corollary, stated without proof (see here for the page in the book):

Let $K/k$ be a finite normal extension. Then $K$ can be obtained by a purely inseparable extension, followed by a separable extension.

The text immediately preceding this implies that the intermediate field that's going to make this happen is $F=\{a\in K:\sigma(a)=a$ for all $\sigma\in Gal(K/k)\}$, and I understand his argument as to why $F/k$ is purely inseparable (in fact, that's the theorem, Theorem 21, which this is a corollary to). What I don't understand is why $K/F$ is separable; I don't see how we've ruled out it being non-purely inseparable.

Note that I will be making a distinction between non-purely inseparable (inseparable, but not purely inseparable) and not purely inseparable (either separable or non-purely inseparable).

Here are some observations / my general approach:

  • One big thing that seemed promising was Theorem 11 (at the bottom of this page), which is basically the reverse of the corollary I'm having trouble with:

Let $K$ be an arbitrary algebraic extension of $k$. Then $K$ can be obtained by separable extension followed by a purely inseparable extension.

(the separable extension referred to is of course the separable closure of $k$ in $K$). It seems like we want to use Theorem 11 on $K/F$, and argue that there can't be "any more" pure inseparability, but I couldn't figure out a way of doing this.

  • Theorem 21 is actually an "if and only if" (that is, $a\in K$ is purely inseparable over $k$ iff $\sigma(a)=a$ for all $\sigma\in Gal(K/k)$). Because this implies that any $a\in K$ with $a\notin F$ is not purely inseparable over $k$, we have that $F$ is the maximum (not just maximal) purely inseparable extension of $k$ in $K$.

  • If any $a\in K$ were purely inseparable over $F$, by Theorem 8 (see here), there is some $e$ for which $a^{p^e}\in F$. But by the same theorem, since $F/k$ is purely inseparable, there is some $b$ for which $(a^{p^e})^{p^b}=a^{p^{e+b}}\in k$. Thus $a$ would be purely inseparable over $k$ by the converse (Corollary 1 to Theorem 9, see here), and hence be in $F$. Thus, $K$ (and any field between $K$ and $F$, besides $F$ itself) is not purely inseparable over $F$.

So, that's why I don't see how we've ruled out $K/F$ being non-purely inseparable. Sorry about making lots of references to the book - I'm just not sure what previously established results McCarthy intended to be used, and I wanted to point out what I saw as the important ones for people not familiar with the book. I'm sure I'm missing something obvious here. Does anyone see the last bit of the argument?

share|improve this question

3 Answers 3

up vote 2 down vote accepted

Edit: My mistake, I misread your post. Here's the correct answer.

http://books.google.com/books?id=FJmiSW1KRBAC&lpg=PP1&ots=k1ecm3FdbZ&dq=lang%20algebra&pg=PA251#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Proposition 6.11

share|improve this answer
    
No element in K generates a purely inseparable extension of F. That's the issue - I don't see why we couldn't have that an element in K generates a non-purely inseparable extension of F. –  Zev Chonoles Feb 21 '10 at 20:58
    
It's because if it's normal then you can construct it as a compositum of fields in a nice way using the automorphism groups. –  Harry Gindi Feb 21 '10 at 21:06
1  
Ah, a very clever argument - and more general than the result McCarthy states! Thanks for your help! –  Zev Chonoles Feb 21 '10 at 21:22
    
A minor suggestion: Lang's chapters 5,6, 7, and 8 are really some of the best treatments of this subject. Chapter 5 is by far my favorite treatment of algebraic extensoins, and chapter 6 is an excellent treatment of Galois theory based on Artin's famous monograph (although covered with more modern machinery). I suggest you read them rather than McCarthy. –  Harry Gindi Feb 21 '10 at 21:26
1  
I'll definitely check it out. Though McCarthy is hard to beat on price, I think - I got my copy for $4 :) –  Zev Chonoles Feb 21 '10 at 22:08

Dear Zev, as LASER pointed out, Lang's Proposition 6.11 indeed solves your problem. Still, I'd like to add two remarks that might put your problem in perspective.

A) Given a field $K$ and a group of automorphisms $G$ of $K$ we get a fixed field $K^G$ and an extension $K^G \subset K$ . This extension is algebraic if and only if all orbits of $G$ are finite and if this is the case the extension is always separable: each element of $x \in K$ has as minimal polynomial over $K^G$ the product $\prod \limits_{y \in Orb(x)}(T-y)$. [Let me emphasize that i) there is no base field $k$ in this general statement and ii) the group $G$ may very well be infinite with all its orbits finite: every infinite dimensional galois extension gives an example.]

B) The statement is false if you don't assume normality of $k \subset K$ (as I'm sure you guessed!). Here is an example taken from Bourbaki's Algebra V, exercise 3) for §5.

Take a field $F$ of characteristic $p>2$ and define $k=F(x,y)$ where $x,y$ are indeterminates. Let $\theta$ be a zero of the polynomial $P(T)=T^{2p}+xT^p+y$ (in an algebraic closure of $k$, say).Then if we put $K=k(\theta)$, we have our counter-example: no element in $K$ is purely inseparable over $k$, except if it already is in $k$. And yet $K$ is not separable over k since the minimal polynomial of $\theta$ over $k$ is $P(T)$ , which is obviously not separable.

share|improve this answer

At least in the finite case, I am pretty sure this follows from the fundamental theorem of Galois theory: if $F$ is a field, $G$ a finite group of automorphisms of $F$, and the fixed field of $F$ is $k$, then $f/k$ is Galois with Galois group $G$.

share|improve this answer
    
That's true, but I was trying to do without FTGT because McCarthy doesn't prove it until Chapter 2. –  Zev Chonoles Feb 21 '10 at 21:21

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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