I'm teaching myself some mathematics, so post question here sometimes is my last resort to get an answer, i have already posted this question on Mathematics Stack Exchange But no one answers, and I really want to know the answer.

Let $E$ be an extension of $\mathbb{C}$ such that $E$ = $\mathbb{C}(t,u)$ where $t$ is transcendental over $\mathbb{C}$ and $u$ satisfies the equation $u^2+t^2=1$ over $\mathbb{C}(t)$.

let $n = 2m + 1$ and let $\mathbb{C}(t^n,u^n)$ be an extension field over $\mathbb{C}$, then $\mathbb{C}(t,t^n,u^n)$ is a splitting field over $\mathbb{C}(t^n,u^n)$ of $x^n-t^n$ ($\mathbb{C}$ contains nth roots of unity) in fact $\mathbb{C}(t,t^n,u^n)$ = $\mathbb{C}(t,u)$ since $u^{2m} = (1-t^2)^{m}$ then $u = u^n/(1-t^2)^{m}$ hence $\mathbb{C}(t,u)$ is a splitting field over $\mathbb{C}(t^n,u^n)$ of $x^n-t^n$ we can apply same discussion to $u$ to get $\mathbb{C}(u,t^n,u^n)$ = $\mathbb{C}(t,u)$ and $\mathbb{C}(t,u)$ is a splitting field over $\mathbb{C}(t^n,u^n)$ of $x^n-u^n$

let $\eta \in Gal\mathbb{C}(t,u)/\mathbb{C}(t^n,u^n)$ then $\eta(t) = zt$ and $\eta(u) = qu$ where $z$ and $q$ are nth roots of unity

BUT $\eta(u^2) + \eta(t^2) = 1$ implies $q^2u^2 + z^2t^2 = 1$ implies $q^2(1-t^2) + z^2t^2 = 1$ since $t$ is transcendental over $\mathbb{C}$ hence $q^2 = z^2$ and $q^2 = 1$ which is absurd when $m \gt 0$, therefore $Gal\mathbb{C}(t,u)/\mathbb{C}(t^n,u^n) = \{1\}$ when $m \gt 0$ this means$\mathbb{C}(t,u) = \mathbb{C}(t^n,u^n)$

so I must have made some grotesque error above (is $sinx$ expressible rationally with complex coefficients in terms of $cos^nx$ and $sin^nx?$ $n = 2m + 1 $, $ m \gt 0 $), who can help me figure it out? thanks!!!!

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What you did is basically a proof by contradiction that the extension you consider is not Galois. In fact, $\mathbb{C}(t,u)=\mathbb{C}(z)$, where $z=u+it$, and this field can't be a Galois extension of its subfield. $\endgroup$ – Alex Gavrilov Sep 10 '16 at 6:32
  • $\begingroup$ please provide a link to the MathSE question $\endgroup$ – YCor Sep 10 '16 at 6:33
  • $\begingroup$ the link is math.stackexchange.com/q/1920483/262757 $\endgroup$ – sunya hu Sep 10 '16 at 6:48
  • $\begingroup$ $\mathbb{C}(t)$ is a proper subfield of $\mathbb{C}(t,u)$ since if $u \in \mathbb{C}(t)$ then $u = f(t)/g(t)$ where $f(x)$, $g(x)$ $ \in \mathbb{C}[x]$ but it yields $(f(t)/g(t))^2 + t^2 = 1$ since $t$ is transcendental hence it is impossible. $\mathbb{C}(t,u)$ is a splitting field over $\mathbb{C}(t)$ of a separable polynomial of $\mathbb{C}(t)[x]$ namely $x^2 + t^2 -1$ hence $\mathbb{C}(t,u)$ is Galois over $\mathbb{C}(t)$ $\endgroup$ – sunya hu Sep 10 '16 at 8:38
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I was wrong there: there are some exceptions. I will better write an answer instead of a comment. $\endgroup$ – Alex Gavrilov Sep 10 '16 at 10:37

What the above argument proves is that the extension is either trivial, or not Galois. My first guess was that it isn't Galois, but it was a stupid mistake! In fact, it is trivial.

Denote $z=u+it$. Then $2u=z+z^{-1}$, hence $\mathbb{C}(t,u)=\mathbb{C}(z)$. Consider the simplest case m=1. Let $A=u^3-it^3,\,B=u^3+it^3$. Then
$$z=\frac{3}{4}\cdot\frac{27A^3-7AB^2-16A^2B^3-4B}{27A^4-16A^3B^3-6A^2B^2-3AB-2}.$$ Thus, $\mathbb{C}(t^3,u^3)=\mathbb{C}(z)$.

The same is true for $m>1$, but the computations grow tedious, and a proof I have in mind is a bit complicated. (Does anyone know a simple one?)

| cite | improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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