3
$\begingroup$

Let $f$ and $g$ be irreducible polynomials over a field $K$ with $\deg f=\deg g =3$ and let the discriminant of $f$ be positive and the discriminant of $g$ negative.

Does it follow that the splitting fields of $f$ and $g$ are linearly disjoint? If yes, why?

(Def.: Two intermediate fields $M_1, M_2$ of an algebraic field extension $L|K$ are called linearly disjoint, if every set of elements of $M_1$, that is linearly independent over $K$, is also linearly independent over $M_2$. Here, this is equivalent to $M_1 \cap M_2 = K.$)

  • 0
    This is why the splitting fields $F_f$ of $f$ and $F_g$ of $g$ over $K$ are finite galois extensions by assumption. And therefore linear disjointness is equivalent to $F_f \cap F_g = K$.2012-05-23

1 Answers 1

1

Let me do the case where $K={\bf Q}$. Let $L_f,L_g$ be the splitting fields. Then $L_f\cap L_g$ must be a subfield of both $L_f$ and $L_g$. So, what are the subfields of those splitting fields?

Well, $L_f$ has three real cubic subfields and one real quadratic; $L_g$ has one real cubic subfield, two imaginary cubic subfields, and an imaginary quadratic subfield. So if the intersection isn't $\bf Q$, it must be the real cubic subfield. But then we have a single cubic subfield that has three real embeddings and also two complex embeddings, and that's absurd. QED.

I don't think I made much use of the hypothesis $K={\bf Q}$; this argument ought to work more generally.

EDIT: More generally, if $L$ and $M$ are splitting fields of irreducible cubics over $K$ and are not equal then their intersection can't be of degree 3 over $K$; it can only be $K$ or the quadratic extension given by adjoining the square root of the discriminant (assuming the discriminant is not a square in $K$). That quadratic case can happen, as non-isomorphic cubic fields can be generated by polynommials with the same discriminant. Over the rationals, there are two non-isomorphic cubics with discriminant -1836, also three with discriminant 22356.

  • 0
    Dear Gerry, yes, you and Lisa are right. Indeed, linear disjointness even obtains as soon as one of the extensions is finite and Galois, the other being finite but arbitrary . As usual, the more general statement is easier, and I let myself be distracted by the particulars of the question !2012-05-23