Skip to main content
added 552 characters in body
Source Link
JS Milne
  • 8.3k
  • 1
  • 43
  • 44

Regard all the fields as subfields of the algebraic closure of K (or K(X)). More precisely, choose an algebraic closure of K and form $k^{1/p}$$k^{1/p^{\infty}}$ inside of it.

Added: Linear disjointness is only defined for subfields of some big field. If you choose a different algebraic closure of K, then an isomorphism from it to the first will carry $k^{1/p^{\infty}}$ onto $k^{1/p^{\infty}}$ (with my definition), so you get an isomorphic situation. A similar remark applies to the second example (take $\bar k$ to be the algebraic closure of k in an algebraic closure of K(X)). This is why some authors don't bother to make this explicit (judging by this discussion, they should).

There is no ambiguity.

Regard all the fields as subfields of the algebraic closure of K (or K(X)). More precisely, choose an algebraic closure of K and form $k^{1/p}$ inside of it.

Regard all the fields as subfields of the algebraic closure of K (or K(X)). More precisely, choose an algebraic closure of K and form $k^{1/p^{\infty}}$ inside of it.

Added: Linear disjointness is only defined for subfields of some big field. If you choose a different algebraic closure of K, then an isomorphism from it to the first will carry $k^{1/p^{\infty}}$ onto $k^{1/p^{\infty}}$ (with my definition), so you get an isomorphic situation. A similar remark applies to the second example (take $\bar k$ to be the algebraic closure of k in an algebraic closure of K(X)). This is why some authors don't bother to make this explicit (judging by this discussion, they should).

There is no ambiguity.

Source Link
JS Milne
  • 8.3k
  • 1
  • 43
  • 44

Regard all the fields as subfields of the algebraic closure of K (or K(X)). More precisely, choose an algebraic closure of K and form $k^{1/p}$ inside of it.