Mixing
Why does Lang describe a field as a union and compositum of its subfields in this manner?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I am reading Serge Lang's Algebra, revised 3rd edition, and on page 226, the author makes the following definitions and observations:
- If $E,F subset L$, the compositum of $E$ and $F$ in $L$ is defined to be the smallest subfield of $L$ containing both $E$ and $F$. It is denoted $EF$.
- If $k subset E$ and $alpha_1,dots,alpha_n in E$, then $k(alpha_1,dots,alpha_n)$ is defined to be the smallest subfield of $E$ containing $k$ and $alpha_1,dots,alpha_n$.
- Observe that $$ E = bigcup k(alpha_1,dots,alpha_n), $$ where the union is taken over all finite families $ alpha_1,dots,alpha_n $ of elements of $E$.
- The compositum of an arbitrary family of subfields of a field $L$ is defined as the smallest subfield of $L$ containing all fields in the family.
- $E$ is finitely generated over $k$ if there is a finite family $ alpha_1,dots,alpha_n $ of elements of $E$ such that $E = k(alpha_1,dots,alpha_n)$.
- Observe that $E$ is the compositum of all its finitely generated subfields over $k$.
My question is regarding the two observations (point nos. 3 and 6). It appears to me that it is enough to take union (and compositum) over all subfields generated by a single element. For example for point no. 3, I can write
$$
E = bigcup_alpha in E k(alpha)
$$
because the right-hand side contains $E$, and each $k(alpha)$ is contained in $E$ and hence the union is contained in $E$, and therefore it equals $E$. Similarly for point no. 6.
So, why does Lang emphasise to take the union and compositum over all finitely generated subfields? Is there some perspective that he wishes to emphasise that I am missing? Any help in understanding this will be appreciated.
abstract-algebra field-theory definition
asked Jul 27 at 13:55
Brahadeesh
3,40831246
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I am reading Serge Lang's Algebra, revised 3rd edition, and on page 226, the author makes the following definitions and observations:
- If $E,F subset L$, the compositum of $E$ and $F$ in $L$ is defined to be the smallest subfield of $L$ containing both $E$ and $F$. It is denoted $EF$.
- If $k subset E$ and $alpha_1,dots,alpha_n in E$, then $k(alpha_1,dots,alpha_n)$ is defined to be the smallest subfield of $E$ containing $k$ and $alpha_1,dots,alpha_n$.
- Observe that $$ E = bigcup k(alpha_1,dots,alpha_n), $$ where the union is taken over all finite families $ alpha_1,dots,alpha_n $ of elements of $E$.
- The compositum of an arbitrary family of subfields of a field $L$ is defined as the smallest subfield of $L$ containing all fields in the family.
- $E$ is finitely generated over $k$ if there is a finite family $ alpha_1,dots,alpha_n $ of elements of $E$ such that $E = k(alpha_1,dots,alpha_n)$.
- Observe that $E$ is the compositum of all its finitely generated subfields over $k$.
My question is regarding the two observations (point nos. 3 and 6). It appears to me that it is enough to take union (and compositum) over all subfields generated by a single element. For example for point no. 3, I can write
$$
E = bigcup_alpha in E k(alpha)
$$
because the right-hand side contains $E$, and each $k(alpha)$ is contained in $E$ and hence the union is contained in $E$, and therefore it equals $E$. Similarly for point no. 6.
So, why does Lang emphasise to take the union and compositum over all finitely generated subfields? Is there some perspective that he wishes to emphasise that I am missing? Any help in understanding this will be appreciated.
abstract-algebra field-theory definition
asked Jul 27 at 13:55
Brahadeesh
3,40831246
2
Probably typical Langish sloppiness. Perhaps he was thinking of direct limit of fields, rather than union, but I ought not presume…
– Lubin
Jul 27 at 14:28
1
It is hard to tell why Lang did something...
– xarles
Jul 27 at 21:57
Consider $a_1,a_2in E$ where $E$ is a set. You have $E'=cup_ain Ek(a)$. Why is $a_1+a_2$ inside $E'$. You can take ascending chain family of $E_n=K(a_1,dots, a_n)$ s.t. $E_nsubset E_n+1$ with $a_iin E$. This gives you the field containing elements of $E$.
– user45765
Jul 27 at 22:06
2
Maybe it’s because finitely generates fields is a nice family, while fields generated by one element; although smaller, is not as nice?
– Lior B-S
Jul 28 at 0:14
@Lubin Maybe there is trouble for separatedness. There are fields that cannot be principally generated if the extension is not finite separable.
– user45765
Jul 28 at 0:18
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I am reading Serge Lang's Algebra, revised 3rd edition, and on page 226, the author makes the following definitions and observations:
- If $E,F subset L$, the compositum of $E$ and $F$ in $L$ is defined to be the smallest subfield of $L$ containing both $E$ and $F$. It is denoted $EF$.
- If $k subset E$ and $alpha_1,dots,alpha_n in E$, then $k(alpha_1,dots,alpha_n)$ is defined to be the smallest subfield of $E$ containing $k$ and $alpha_1,dots,alpha_n$.
- Observe that $$ E = bigcup k(alpha_1,dots,alpha_n), $$ where the union is taken over all finite families $ alpha_1,dots,alpha_n $ of elements of $E$.
- The compositum of an arbitrary family of subfields of a field $L$ is defined as the smallest subfield of $L$ containing all fields in the family.
- $E$ is finitely generated over $k$ if there is a finite family $ alpha_1,dots,alpha_n $ of elements of $E$ such that $E = k(alpha_1,dots,alpha_n)$.
- Observe that $E$ is the compositum of all its finitely generated subfields over $k$.
My question is regarding the two observations (point nos. 3 and 6). It appears to me that it is enough to take union (and compositum) over all subfields generated by a single element. For example for point no. 3, I can write
$$
E = bigcup_alpha in E k(alpha)
$$
because the right-hand side contains $E$, and each $k(alpha)$ is contained in $E$ and hence the union is contained in $E$, and therefore it equals $E$. Similarly for point no. 6.
So, why does Lang emphasise to take the union and compositum over all finitely generated subfields? Is there some perspective that he wishes to emphasise that I am missing? Any help in understanding this will be appreciated.
abstract-algebra field-theory definition
asked Jul 27 at 13:55
Brahadeesh
3,40831246
I am reading Serge Lang's Algebra, revised 3rd edition, and on page 226, the author makes the following definitions and observations:
- If $E,F subset L$, the compositum of $E$ and $F$ in $L$ is defined to be the smallest subfield of $L$ containing both $E$ and $F$. It is denoted $EF$.
- If $k subset E$ and $alpha_1,dots,alpha_n in E$, then $k(alpha_1,dots,alpha_n)$ is defined to be the smallest subfield of $E$ containing $k$ and $alpha_1,dots,alpha_n$.
- Observe that $$ E = bigcup k(alpha_1,dots,alpha_n), $$ where the union is taken over all finite families $ alpha_1,dots,alpha_n $ of elements of $E$.
- The compositum of an arbitrary family of subfields of a field $L$ is defined as the smallest subfield of $L$ containing all fields in the family.
- $E$ is finitely generated over $k$ if there is a finite family $ alpha_1,dots,alpha_n $ of elements of $E$ such that $E = k(alpha_1,dots,alpha_n)$.
- Observe that $E$ is the compositum of all its finitely generated subfields over $k$.
My question is regarding the two observations (point nos. 3 and 6). It appears to me that it is enough to take union (and compositum) over all subfields generated by a single element. For example for point no. 3, I can write
$$
E = bigcup_alpha in E k(alpha)
$$
because the right-hand side contains $E$, and each $k(alpha)$ is contained in $E$ and hence the union is contained in $E$, and therefore it equals $E$. Similarly for point no. 6.
So, why does Lang emphasise to take the union and compositum over all finitely generated subfields? Is there some perspective that he wishes to emphasise that I am missing? Any help in understanding this will be appreciated.
abstract-algebra field-theory definition
asked Jul 27 at 13:55
Brahadeesh
3,40831246
edited Jul 27 at 14:06
asked Jul 27 at 13:55
Brahadeesh
3,40831246
asked Jul 27 at 13:55
Brahadeesh
3,40831246
asked Jul 27 at 13:55
Brahadeesh
3,40831246
3,40831246
2
Probably typical Langish sloppiness. Perhaps he was thinking of direct limit of fields, rather than union, but I ought not presume…
– Lubin
Jul 27 at 14:28
1
It is hard to tell why Lang did something...
– xarles
Jul 27 at 21:57
Consider $a_1,a_2in E$ where $E$ is a set. You have $E'=cup_ain Ek(a)$. Why is $a_1+a_2$ inside $E'$. You can take ascending chain family of $E_n=K(a_1,dots, a_n)$ s.t. $E_nsubset E_n+1$ with $a_iin E$. This gives you the field containing elements of $E$.
– user45765
Jul 27 at 22:06
2
Maybe it’s because finitely generates fields is a nice family, while fields generated by one element; although smaller, is not as nice?
– Lior B-S
Jul 28 at 0:14
@Lubin Maybe there is trouble for separatedness. There are fields that cannot be principally generated if the extension is not finite separable.
– user45765
Jul 28 at 0:18
 |Â
show 2 more comments
2
Probably typical Langish sloppiness. Perhaps he was thinking of direct limit of fields, rather than union, but I ought not presume…
– Lubin
Jul 27 at 14:28
1
It is hard to tell why Lang did something...
– xarles
Jul 27 at 21:57
Consider $a_1,a_2in E$ where $E$ is a set. You have $E'=cup_ain Ek(a)$. Why is $a_1+a_2$ inside $E'$. You can take ascending chain family of $E_n=K(a_1,dots, a_n)$ s.t. $E_nsubset E_n+1$ with $a_iin E$. This gives you the field containing elements of $E$.
– user45765
Jul 27 at 22:06
2
Maybe it’s because finitely generates fields is a nice family, while fields generated by one element; although smaller, is not as nice?
– Lior B-S
Jul 28 at 0:14
@Lubin Maybe there is trouble for separatedness. There are fields that cannot be principally generated if the extension is not finite separable.
– user45765
Jul 28 at 0:18
2
2
Probably typical Langish sloppiness. Perhaps he was thinking of direct limit of fields, rather than union, but I ought not presume…
– Lubin
Jul 27 at 14:28
Probably typical Langish sloppiness. Perhaps he was thinking of direct limit of fields, rather than union, but I ought not presume…
– Lubin
Jul 27 at 14:28
1
1
It is hard to tell why Lang did something...
– xarles
Jul 27 at 21:57
It is hard to tell why Lang did something...
– xarles
Jul 27 at 21:57
Consider $a_1,a_2in E$ where $E$ is a set. You have $E'=cup_ain Ek(a)$. Why is $a_1+a_2$ inside $E'$. You can take ascending chain family of $E_n=K(a_1,dots, a_n)$ s.t. $E_nsubset E_n+1$ with $a_iin E$. This gives you the field containing elements of $E$.
– user45765
Jul 27 at 22:06
Consider $a_1,a_2in E$ where $E$ is a set. You have $E'=cup_ain Ek(a)$. Why is $a_1+a_2$ inside $E'$. You can take ascending chain family of $E_n=K(a_1,dots, a_n)$ s.t. $E_nsubset E_n+1$ with $a_iin E$. This gives you the field containing elements of $E$.
– user45765
Jul 27 at 22:06
2
2
Maybe it’s because finitely generates fields is a nice family, while fields generated by one element; although smaller, is not as nice?
– Lior B-S
Jul 28 at 0:14
Maybe it’s because finitely generates fields is a nice family, while fields generated by one element; although smaller, is not as nice?
– Lior B-S
Jul 28 at 0:14
@Lubin Maybe there is trouble for separatedness. There are fields that cannot be principally generated if the extension is not finite separable.
– user45765
Jul 28 at 0:18
@Lubin Maybe there is trouble for separatedness. There are fields that cannot be principally generated if the extension is not finite separable.
– user45765
Jul 28 at 0:18
 |Â
show 2 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
I try to summarize some of the comments: The problem with considering simple subextensions of $E/k$, so of the form $k(a)$ for some $ain E$, is that they do not form an filtered set: it is not true that given two simple extensions, say $k(a)$ and $k(b)$, there exists a $cin E$ such that $k(a),k(b)subset k(c)$.
If the extension $E/k$ is finite but it contains infinitely many subextensions (so it is not separable), then it is not simple (by the primitive element theorem).
For example, if $E=L(t,s)$ and $k=L(t^p,s^p)$, and $L$ is of characteristic $p$. In this case, although $E=bigcup_ain E k(a)$, you need infinitely many elements in the union to get $E$. But $E$ is finitely generated, so with only one element you are done.
The same is true for transcendental extensions: if $E=k(t,s)$, and $t$ and $s$ are algebraically independent, then $E/k$ is not a simple extension.
Why do you need the set to be filtered? The reason is that then you can construct the direct limit abstractly. And then prove that this direct limit is the initial $E$. So it is possible that the result he had in mind was the following.
Result: For any extension $E/k$, consider the direct system of finitely generated subextensions of $E/k$. Then $E$ is isomorphic to the direct limit of this system.
So, even it is hard to tell why some people does something, and specially if this people is Serge Lang (who did some weird things), it seems natural to me that he liked the system of extensions to consider to be a filtered.
answered Jul 28 at 7:38
xarles
83558
A very nice summary of the comments, thank you!
– Brahadeesh
Jul 28 at 7:44
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
I try to summarize some of the comments: The problem with considering simple subextensions of $E/k$, so of the form $k(a)$ for some $ain E$, is that they do not form an filtered set: it is not true that given two simple extensions, say $k(a)$ and $k(b)$, there exists a $cin E$ such that $k(a),k(b)subset k(c)$.
If the extension $E/k$ is finite but it contains infinitely many subextensions (so it is not separable), then it is not simple (by the primitive element theorem).
For example, if $E=L(t,s)$ and $k=L(t^p,s^p)$, and $L$ is of characteristic $p$. In this case, although $E=bigcup_ain E k(a)$, you need infinitely many elements in the union to get $E$. But $E$ is finitely generated, so with only one element you are done.
The same is true for transcendental extensions: if $E=k(t,s)$, and $t$ and $s$ are algebraically independent, then $E/k$ is not a simple extension.
Why do you need the set to be filtered? The reason is that then you can construct the direct limit abstractly. And then prove that this direct limit is the initial $E$. So it is possible that the result he had in mind was the following.
Result: For any extension $E/k$, consider the direct system of finitely generated subextensions of $E/k$. Then $E$ is isomorphic to the direct limit of this system.
So, even it is hard to tell why some people does something, and specially if this people is Serge Lang (who did some weird things), it seems natural to me that he liked the system of extensions to consider to be a filtered.
answered Jul 28 at 7:38
xarles
83558
A very nice summary of the comments, thank you!
– Brahadeesh
Jul 28 at 7:44
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
I try to summarize some of the comments: The problem with considering simple subextensions of $E/k$, so of the form $k(a)$ for some $ain E$, is that they do not form an filtered set: it is not true that given two simple extensions, say $k(a)$ and $k(b)$, there exists a $cin E$ such that $k(a),k(b)subset k(c)$.
If the extension $E/k$ is finite but it contains infinitely many subextensions (so it is not separable), then it is not simple (by the primitive element theorem).
For example, if $E=L(t,s)$ and $k=L(t^p,s^p)$, and $L$ is of characteristic $p$. In this case, although $E=bigcup_ain E k(a)$, you need infinitely many elements in the union to get $E$. But $E$ is finitely generated, so with only one element you are done.
The same is true for transcendental extensions: if $E=k(t,s)$, and $t$ and $s$ are algebraically independent, then $E/k$ is not a simple extension.
Why do you need the set to be filtered? The reason is that then you can construct the direct limit abstractly. And then prove that this direct limit is the initial $E$. So it is possible that the result he had in mind was the following.
Result: For any extension $E/k$, consider the direct system of finitely generated subextensions of $E/k$. Then $E$ is isomorphic to the direct limit of this system.
So, even it is hard to tell why some people does something, and specially if this people is Serge Lang (who did some weird things), it seems natural to me that he liked the system of extensions to consider to be a filtered.
answered Jul 28 at 7:38
xarles
83558
A very nice summary of the comments, thank you!
– Brahadeesh
Jul 28 at 7:44
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
I try to summarize some of the comments: The problem with considering simple subextensions of $E/k$, so of the form $k(a)$ for some $ain E$, is that they do not form an filtered set: it is not true that given two simple extensions, say $k(a)$ and $k(b)$, there exists a $cin E$ such that $k(a),k(b)subset k(c)$.
If the extension $E/k$ is finite but it contains infinitely many subextensions (so it is not separable), then it is not simple (by the primitive element theorem).
For example, if $E=L(t,s)$ and $k=L(t^p,s^p)$, and $L$ is of characteristic $p$. In this case, although $E=bigcup_ain E k(a)$, you need infinitely many elements in the union to get $E$. But $E$ is finitely generated, so with only one element you are done.
The same is true for transcendental extensions: if $E=k(t,s)$, and $t$ and $s$ are algebraically independent, then $E/k$ is not a simple extension.
Why do you need the set to be filtered? The reason is that then you can construct the direct limit abstractly. And then prove that this direct limit is the initial $E$. So it is possible that the result he had in mind was the following.
Result: For any extension $E/k$, consider the direct system of finitely generated subextensions of $E/k$. Then $E$ is isomorphic to the direct limit of this system.
So, even it is hard to tell why some people does something, and specially if this people is Serge Lang (who did some weird things), it seems natural to me that he liked the system of extensions to consider to be a filtered.
answered Jul 28 at 7:38
xarles
83558
I try to summarize some of the comments: The problem with considering simple subextensions of $E/k$, so of the form $k(a)$ for some $ain E$, is that they do not form an filtered set: it is not true that given two simple extensions, say $k(a)$ and $k(b)$, there exists a $cin E$ such that $k(a),k(b)subset k(c)$.
If the extension $E/k$ is finite but it contains infinitely many subextensions (so it is not separable), then it is not simple (by the primitive element theorem).
For example, if $E=L(t,s)$ and $k=L(t^p,s^p)$, and $L$ is of characteristic $p$. In this case, although $E=bigcup_ain E k(a)$, you need infinitely many elements in the union to get $E$. But $E$ is finitely generated, so with only one element you are done.
The same is true for transcendental extensions: if $E=k(t,s)$, and $t$ and $s$ are algebraically independent, then $E/k$ is not a simple extension.
Why do you need the set to be filtered? The reason is that then you can construct the direct limit abstractly. And then prove that this direct limit is the initial $E$. So it is possible that the result he had in mind was the following.
Result: For any extension $E/k$, consider the direct system of finitely generated subextensions of $E/k$. Then $E$ is isomorphic to the direct limit of this system.
So, even it is hard to tell why some people does something, and specially if this people is Serge Lang (who did some weird things), it seems natural to me that he liked the system of extensions to consider to be a filtered.
answered Jul 28 at 7:38
xarles
83558
answered Jul 28 at 7:38
xarles
83558
answered Jul 28 at 7:38
xarles
83558
answered Jul 28 at 7:38
xarles
83558
83558
A very nice summary of the comments, thank you!
– Brahadeesh
Jul 28 at 7:44
add a comment |Â
A very nice summary of the comments, thank you!
– Brahadeesh
Jul 28 at 7:44
A very nice summary of the comments, thank you!
– Brahadeesh
Jul 28 at 7:44
A very nice summary of the comments, thank you!
– Brahadeesh
Jul 28 at 7:44
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2864412%2fwhy-does-lang-describe-a-field-as-a-union-and-compositum-of-its-subfields-in-thi%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
2
Probably typical Langish sloppiness. Perhaps he was thinking of direct limit of fields, rather than union, but I ought not presume…
– Lubin
Jul 27 at 14:28
1
It is hard to tell why Lang did something...
– xarles
Jul 27 at 21:57
Consider $a_1,a_2in E$ where $E$ is a set. You have $E'=cup_ain Ek(a)$. Why is $a_1+a_2$ inside $E'$. You can take ascending chain family of $E_n=K(a_1,dots, a_n)$ s.t. $E_nsubset E_n+1$ with $a_iin E$. This gives you the field containing elements of $E$.
– user45765
Jul 27 at 22:06
2
Maybe it’s because finitely generates fields is a nice family, while fields generated by one element; although smaller, is not as nice?
– Lior B-S
Jul 28 at 0:14
@Lubin Maybe there is trouble for separatedness. There are fields that cannot be principally generated if the extension is not finite separable.
– user45765
Jul 28 at 0:18