6
$\begingroup$

In what follows, $x$ is always taken to commute with the coefficient ring. This means that for any given polynomial, you can put the coefficients to the right or the left of $x$ as you please. This doesn't make a difference to the ring itself, but it will make a difference for the roots: a right root is an element that yields zero upon evaluation when you write $x$ to the right of the coefficients. (Similarly for left root. I suppose a two-sided root would be an element that is both a right and a left root.) For example, $\mathrm{j}$ is a right root but not a left root of the following polynomial (working in the quaternions). $$ \mathrm{i}x-\mathrm{k}. $$

Definition: Let $\mathbb{K}$ be a ring. Then, $\mathbb{K}$ is algebraically-closed iff every nonconstant polynomial with coefficients in $\mathbb{K}$ can be written as a product of polynomials with degree $1$.

Definition: A $\mathbb{K}$-algebra $\mathbb{K}\rightarrow \mathbb{L}$ is right algebraic over $\mathbb{K}$ iff every $\alpha \in \mathbb{L}$ is a right root of some $p\in \mathbb{K}[x]$.

Definition: A right algebraic-closure of a ring $\mathbb{K}$ is an algebraically-closed $\mathbb{K}$-algebra $\mathbb{K}\rightarrow \mathbb{L}$ that is right algebraic over $\mathbb{K}$.

(There are of course left and two-sided versions of the above definitions.)

It is well-known that every field possesses an algebraic-closure, which is unique up to (nonunique) isomorphism. What about division rings?

Does every division ring $\mathbb{K}$ possess a right/left/two-sided algebraic-closure? If so, is it unique up to isomorphism? If not, is it because I'm using the "wrong" definitions, or is it really not fixable?

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Just to fix ideas- in this setting, do you expect $\mathbb{L}$ to be a division algebra as well? or a simple ring over the center of $\mathbb{K}$? Can one prove either of these statements? $\endgroup$
    – kneidell
    Jul 10, 2017 at 6:17
  • $\begingroup$ @kneidell I'm not sure. One issue with adapting the proof from the commutative case (for example, the one in Dummit and Foote) is that at some point you go to show an ideal is proper (so that you can take a maximal ideal that contains it and then mod out by that). If you could make this work in the noncommutative case, I would expect it to be simple, but the proof seems to break down. There isn't enough room in a comment to explain details, but basically the problem comes down to the fact that a root of $f$ need not be a root of $gfh$. I don't know if this can be circumvented. $\endgroup$ Jul 10, 2017 at 6:35
  • $\begingroup$ There is also the issue of showing that the elements left/right/two-sided algebraic in $\mathbb{L}$ over $\mathbb{K}$ form a division ring or even just a ring. $\endgroup$ Jul 10, 2017 at 6:37
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ This question (and answers to it) may be of interest: math.stackexchange.com/q/1071874/101420 $\endgroup$
    – Vincent
    Jul 10, 2017 at 9:22

0

Your Answer

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