12
$\begingroup$

Let $F$ be an extension field of $K$. let $L$ and $M$ be intermediate fields, with both finite algebraic extensions of $K$. Suppose {$a_1,...,a_n$} is a basis for $L$ over $K$ and {$b_1, ...,b_m$} is a basis for $M$ over $K$. Show that {$a_ib_j$} is a spanning set for the field $LM$ ($LM$ is the smallest field between $K$ and $F$ containing both $L$ and $M$) as a vector space over $K$.

What I have done so far is this: Let $x$ $\in$ $L$. Then $x$ can be written as a linear combination of $a_i$. Also $y$ $\in$ $M$ implies that $y$ can be written as a linear combination of $b_j$. This is where I'm stuck.

  • 0
    What is your definition of $LM$?2011-02-08
  • 0
    $LM$ is the smallest subfield containing both $L$ and $M$.2011-02-08
  • 0
    The smallest subfield of *what*? Presumably, some fixed algebraic closure of $K$ (this is standard).2011-02-08
  • 0
    @Arturo: I meant to say the smallest field between $K$ and $F$ containing both $L$ and $M$.2011-02-08
  • 0
    Oh, sorry; somehow, I missed the $F$...2011-02-08

2 Answers 2

10

Consider the field $L(b_1,\ldots,b_m)=L[b_1,\ldots,b_m]$ (the equality because we are dealing with finite algebraic extensions). Suppose you can prove that it is equal to $LM$.

Then every element of $LM$ can be written as an $L$-linear combination of $b_1,\ldots,b_m$ (there may be a bit of work to be done here if it is not clear; certainly, you can write it as an $L$-linear combination of products of powers of the $b_i$, but since each of those lies in $M$, you can write them as $K$-linear combinations of the $b_i$; take it from there).

And every coefficient in that linear combination can be written as a $K$-linear combination of $a_1,\ldots,a_n$. See where that leads you (assuming you can prove $L[b_1,\ldots,b_m]=LM$, of course).

Corrected. In comments you ask about showing that if $[LM:K]=[L:K][M:K]$, then $L\cap M=K$. I messed up my first attempt in a rather silly way (feel free to look at the edit history to see the screw-up!). Sorry about that.

Again, let $E=L\cap M$ for simplicity. Then: \begin{align*} [L:K][M:K] = [LM:K] &= [LM:E][E:K]\\ &\leq [L:E][M:E][E:K]\\ &= [L:E][M:K]. \end{align*} Can you take it from here?

  • 0
    @Arturo:This solution is based on being able to show that $L[b_1,...,b_m]$ = $LM$. Is there another approach which doesn't make use of that fact?2011-02-08
  • 0
    @Nana, It should not be very hard to show. One inclusion follows from the fact that $L[b_1, ..., b_m]$ is a field contained in $F$ that contains both $L$ and $M$. For the other inclusion, notice that any field that contains $L$ and $M$, must in particular contain $b_1, ..., b_m$ and all $L$-linear combinations of them.2011-02-08
  • 1
    @Nana: I don't know if there is another approach, but as Vitaly says, this should follow simply from the definition of $LM$ as the "smallest" field that contains both $L$ and $M$, the fact that $b_1,\ldots,b_n$ are in $M$, and that $K[b_1,\ldots,b_n]\subseteq L[b_1,\ldots,b_n]$.2011-02-08
  • 0
    @Arturo: Thanks. Does the answer to the question also proves the statement: $[L:K]$ , $[M:K]$ are finite implies that $[LM:K]$ is finite?2011-02-08
  • 1
    @Nina: Yes: you know that $[LM:L]\leq m$ (since $b_1,\ldots,b_m$ are a spanning set, so the dimension is at most $m$), so $[LM:L]\leq [M:K]$ (you also get $[LM:L]\leq[L:K]$ by a symmetric argument). So $[LM:K]=[LM:L][L:K]\leq [M:K][L:K]$. Now try proving that if $\gcd(n,m)=1$, then $[LM:K] = mn$.2011-02-08
  • 0
    @Arturo: Awesome! I'm really grateful. Thanks.2011-02-08
  • 0
    @Arturo: So I was able to show that $[LM:K]= [L:K][M:K]$ if the gcd$(n,m) =1$ . Now I want to show that if the equality holds then $L \cap M = K$. I know I have to show that $[L \cap M : K] = 1$ and the result will follow. but I don't know how?2011-02-13
  • 0
    @Nana: Added to the answer.2011-02-13
  • 0
    @Arturo: Thanks once again. I really am grateful.2011-02-14
  • 0
    @Arturo: I believe we get $[E:K]\geq 1$ and what we want is $[E:K] = 1$.2011-02-15
  • 1
    @Nan: Ah, quite so; rather silly of me. I got you started above, this time on the right trail.2011-02-15
  • 0
    @Arturo: I see that we get $[L:K] \leq [L:E]$. I know equality proves the result. If I can get $[L:K] \geq [L:E]$ then we are done, right?2011-02-15
  • 1
    @Nana: But that inequality is *trivial*. $K\subseteq E\subseteq L$, after all.2011-02-15
  • 0
    @Arturo: I get it now. It is indeed **trivial!** haha. Thanks.2011-02-15
2

Comme l'a signalé Arturo Magidin, $LM$ est en fait l'anneau engendré par $L$ et $b_1, \ldots, b_m$. Pour montrer que tout élément de cet anneau est combinaison linéaire des $b_i$, il suffit de voir que $A = \sum Lb_i$ est un anneau. On se ramène donc à prouver que chaque produit $b_i b_j$ (et 1) est dans $A$. Mais en fait, $b_i b_j \in \sum Kb_i$ (et 1 aussi) par l'hypothèse que les $b_i$ forment une base de $M$ sur $K$.

  • 2
    R.: If you can read English, one may suppose that you can also write English, then can you save me from the French which I cannot understand? Thanks.2011-02-25
  • 0
    @awllower that not always holds true actually, I can read and understand French (this answer in particular) though I have very limited abilities in answering in French.2016-02-23