Timeline for What does "linearly disjoint" mean for abstract field extensions?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 9, 2009 at 18:06 | history | edited | JS Milne | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 552 characters in body
|
| Dec 9, 2009 at 17:09 | comment | added | Greg Kuperberg | Well I was overlooking that, you're right. See my extended answer. | |
| Dec 9, 2009 at 15:49 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | @GK: Are you perhaps overlooking the fact that E and F need not be algebraic extensions of k? They need not be realizable as subfields of any algebraic closure of k. (Everything you have said is correct in the case that E and F are finite extensions of k.) | |
| Dec 9, 2009 at 15:23 | comment | added | Greg Kuperberg | In the general case, there is more than way to regard $E$ and $F$ as subfields of the algebraic closure of $k$. The ambiguity is exactly the ambiguity in the choice of a compositum, so it doesn't change anything. | |
| Dec 9, 2009 at 7:49 | comment | added | Andrew Critch | Do you know if this is equivalent to the tensor product being a domain? (I'm now appending this conjecture to the question.) I ask because I want to adopt a general definition if possible, not just an interpretation for these two theorems... | |
| Dec 9, 2009 at 7:43 | history | answered | JS Milne | CC BY-SA 2.5 |