3
$\begingroup$

Let $K$ be a field of characteristic 0 and $L$ a finite extension of $K$. Denote by $m$ the natural multiplication map from $L \otimes_K L$ to $L$. Denote by $I$ the kernel of the morphism $m$. Is $I$ nilpotent?

$\endgroup$
4
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ What is the natural multiplication by $m$ for you? Do you mean $a\otimes b\mapsto mab$? Then the kernel is not nilpotent unless $K=L$. $\endgroup$
    – Mohan
    Sep 1, 2017 at 0:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Mohan, I think $m$ doesn't belong on the right-hand side of your definition of $m$, right? That is, the map is $m \mathrel: a \otimes b \mapsto a b$. Is the non-nilpotence obvious? (Probably, but I never considered tensoring fields until late in life, and so I still look somewhat askance at it.) $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Sep 1, 2017 at 2:05
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The kernel $I$ is nilpotent iff $L|K$ is purely inseparable. Since $\mathrm{char}(K)=0$ this implies $L=K$. $\endgroup$ Sep 1, 2017 at 6:15
  • $\begingroup$ @LSpice "late in life"... :) $\endgroup$ Sep 21, 2019 at 22:48

1 Answer 1

8
$\begingroup$

In general, if $A$ is a field of characteristic $0$ and $B/A, C/A$ are two finite extensions of $A$, then the tensor product $B \otimes_A C$ is isomorphic to the product (i.e. direct product of $K$-algebras) of all "composita" (plural of "compositum") of $B/A$ and $C/A$. Here a "compositum" of the two extensions is a finite extension $D/A$ together with injections $B \hookrightarrow D$ and $C \hookrightarrow D$, which make an obvious commutative diagram, and such that $D$ is generated by the images of $B$ and $C$.

In your case, there is a trivial compositum of $L$ and itself, namely $L$. Let $d$ denote the degree $[L:K]$. The algebra $L \otimes_K L$ has dimension $d^2$ over $K$, and the trivial compositum has dimension $d$ over $K$. Therefore, if $L$ is not equal to $K$, then there exist necessarily composita other than the trivial one.

If one writes $L \otimes_K L = L \times (\textit{product of other composita})$, then the morphism $m: L \otimes_K L \rightarrow L$ coincides with the "projection to the first summand".

From this, it is clear that the kernel $I$ is not nilpotent, whenever $L$ is not equal to $K$. In fact, it is a product of some field extensions of $K$.


A simple example: take $K = \mathbb{R}$ and $L = \mathbb{C}$. Then we have the isomorphism: $$ \mathbb{C} \otimes_{\mathbb{R}} \mathbb{C} \simeq \mathbb{C} \times \mathbb{C},$$ the map being given by $a \otimes b \mapsto (ab, a\overline{b})$. The morphism $m$ is then the projection to the first summand $\mathbb{C}$, and the kernel is the whole second summand $\mathbb{C}$, which is certainly not nilpotent.


UPDATE: I attach here a proof of the claim in the first paragraph.

By primitive element theorem, we may choose a primitive element $b\in B$ so that the ring homomorphism $A[X]\rightarrow B$ sending $X$ to $b$ induces an isomorphism $A[X]/f \simeq B$, where $f\in A[X]$ is the minimal polynomial of $x$ over $A$.

Note that $f$ only has simple roots, as the extension $B/A$ is separable. This means that, in the ring $C[X]$, $f$ decomposes as $g_1\dots g_r$ with distinct irreducible polynomials $g_1, \dots, g_r \in C[X]$.

Therefore we have $B\otimes_A C\simeq \prod_{i = 1}^r D_i$, where $D_i = C[X]/g_i$ is a field. Note that each $D_i$ is a compositum of $B$ and $C$: the embedding $C\hookrightarrow D_i$ is clear, and the embedding $B\hookrightarrow D_i$ is induced by the natural map $A[X] \rightarrow C[X]$. It is clear that the images of $B$ and $C$ generate $D_i$.

It remains to show that:

  1. Every compositum $D$ of $B$ and $C$ is isomorphic to one such $D_i$ (isomorphic in the sense of composita, i.e. $D$ isomorphic to $D'$ if there exists a field isomorphism $D \simeq D'$ which makes a big commutative diagram);
  2. For different indices $i, j$, the composita $D_i$ and $D_j$ are not isomorphic.

For 1: Take a compositum $D$ and look at the image of $b$ (the primitive element that we have chosen) in $D$. Let's call the image $d$ and look at the minimal polynomial $g$ of $d$ over $C$.

Since $f(d) = 0$, we know that $g$ must be equal to some $g_i$. Hence the homomorphism $C[X] \rightarrow D$ sending $X$ to $d$ induces a homomorphism $D_i \rightarrow D$, which (as both sides are fields) must be injective. It is also surjective, because $D$ is generated over $A$ by $d$ and $C$, by definition of compositum.

Therefore we get an isomorphism $D_i \simeq D$ and it is easy to verify the commutative diagram.

For 2: If we have an isomorphism $D_i \simeq D_j$ which makes a commutative diagram, then the image of $b$ in $D_i$ (call it $d_i$) is mapped via this isomorphism to the image of $b$ in $D_j$ (call it $d_j$).

This means that the minimal polynomials of $d_i$ and $d_j$ over $C$ should be the same. However, by definition, these minimal polynomials are $g_i$ and $g_j$, respectively, which are different.


Remark: Although we have made the choice of a primitive element in the proof, the isomorphism $B\otimes_A C\rightarrow \prod D$ is canonical and does not depend on such a choice. In fact, for each $D$, the canonical injections $B\hookrightarrow D$ and $C\hookrightarrow D$ induce a homomorphism $B\otimes_A C \rightarrow D$ and these pack together to give a homomorphism $B \otimes_A C \rightarrow \prod D$.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ I guess this means that $I$ consists of the zero divisors of $L \otimes_K L$, since the krull-dimension of this ring is zero (by the Grothendieck-Sharp theorem). So, can you say anything about the field of quotients of this ring? $\endgroup$
    – user43198
    Sep 1, 2017 at 7:45
  • $\begingroup$ The tensor product is a direct product of fields, and the ideal $I$ is a product of fields also. You cannot obtain anything new using "fractions" here. $\endgroup$ Sep 3, 2017 at 7:28
  • $\begingroup$ Can you give a reference for the fact that the tensor product is isomorphic to the product of all composita? $\endgroup$
    – Jose Brox
    Jun 29, 2021 at 13:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JoseBrox Sorry, I don't know any reference, although I guess some reference must exist somewhere. I proved it myself many years ago as answer to a question of my wife. I remember that the proof wasn't too difficult, e.g. using primitive element theorem. It might also be generalized to other cases such as separable extensions. Please leave a comment if you would like to see a written-down proof. $\endgroup$
    – WhatsUp
    Jun 29, 2021 at 18:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JoseBrox I updated the answer with the proof. It seems that the only thing needed is that one of the two extensions $B/A$ and $C/A$ is separable. I haven't checked carefully, though. Please don't hesitate to point out errors/typos. $\endgroup$
    – WhatsUp
    Jun 30, 2021 at 18:53

Your Answer

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

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