I had to think for a while to understand Scott's answer (or at least, what I suspect he meant by his answer), and in the end there were enough details to sort out that I thought they were worth posting. It ended up being too long to post as a comment, so here it is as a separate answer. Unless it's all nonsense, of course....
Let {xalpha} be a transcendence basis of mathbbR over mathbbQ, and let L be the intermediate field that they generate, so that mathbbC is the algebraic closure of L in mathbbC. Take also a collection of open disks Dalpha in mathbbC such that any collection of points yalphainDalpha is dense in mathbbC in the usual topology. Now for each alpha, take xalpha and multiply it by an appropriate root of unity and a rational number so that the result yalpha lies in Dalpha. The collection {yalpha} is still algebraically independent over mathbbQ, because a dependence gives an algebraic dependence of {xalpha} over some finite extension of mathbbQ, which implies the existence of an algebraic dependence over mathbbQ as well.
So there exists sigma:LtomathbbC sending xalphamapstoyalpha. Now by the usual fact that field embeddings into algebraically closed fields can be extended across algebraic extensions, sigma extends to a map mathbbCtomathbbC. But note that by construction sigma is surjective! The image contains each yalpha, and it contains all the roots of unity, so it contains all the xalpha's; thus the image is an algebraic closure of L in mathbbC, hence all of mathbbC.
In particular mathbbC is a quadratic extension of sigma(mathbbR), obtained by adjoining sigma(i). But finally sigma(mathbbR) is dense in mathbbC since its image contains all the yalpha's, and so giving sigma(mathbbR) the norm induced from the usual norm on mathbbC, we get a normed field sigma(mathbbR) whose completion is exactly mathbbC, i.e., a quadratic extension of it. Thus the answer to your second question actually yes.
No comments:
Post a Comment