Homepage › Solution manuals › David A. Cox › Galois Theory › Exercise 9.1.8
Exercise 9.1.8
This exercise will present an alternate proof of (9.8) that doesn’t use symmetric polynomials.
(9.8) If is a root of f, then so is .
where is an irreducible factor of , and a prime number such that .
Assume that is a root of such that . As in the text, maps to the polynomial . Let be as in (9.7), i.e. .
- (a)
- Prove that is a root of , and conclude that .
- (b)
- Use Gauss’s Lemma to explain why divides in , and conclude that divides in .
- (c)
- Use Exercise 7 to prove that , and conclude that divides .
- (d)
- Now let be an irreducible factor of . Show that divides , so that divides .
- (e)
- Conclude that divides .
- (f)
- Use separability to obtain a contradiction.
Answers
Proof. As in the proof of Theorem 9.1.9, the Gauss’s Lemma in the form of Corollary 4.2.1 allows us to assume that there exists a polynomial of such that , where is monic and irreducible over . Let be a prime number such that .
Reasoning by contradiction, we suppose that is a root of such that .
- (a)
-
As
is the root of
, where
divides
,
is a
th primitive root of unity. Since
, hence
is also a
th primitive root of unity by Exercise 7(a), therefore
. As
,
, so
is a root of .
As is irreducible, is the minimal polynomial of over , and is a root of , hence
- (b)
-
As
is monic, the refined division algorithm of Exercise 4 show that the quotient
of
by
lies in
, so
divides
in
.
The projection homomorphism on gives , thus divides in .
- (c)
-
As the characteristic of is , writing , then (as in Exercise 7)
Therefore divides in .
- (d)
-
Let
an irreducible factor of
. Then
. Since
is irreducible (hence prime) in
, then
.
, so .
- (e)
- Therefore , and , thus .
- (f)
-
As
, every root of
in the splitting root of
is not a simple root, thus
would not be separable.
But is relatively prime to , so is relatively prime to , and so is separable: this is a contradiction, therefore.
We conclude that is irreducible as in the conclusion of the proof of Theorem 9.1.9.