The example given by Alon is not only a finite extension without a primitive element, but it's the simplest example of a substitute for Galois theory when the field extensions are purely inseparable. In the example, the top field is L=mathbfFp(a,b) and the base field is Lp=mathbfFp(ap,bp), where a and b are algebraically independent. Since the extension L/Lp is purely inseparable, we can't describe the intermediate fields using Galois theory. Jacobson found a way to describe them using Lie algebras of differential operators: fixed points of field automorphisms are replaced by kernels of differential operators.
Theorem (Jacobson). Let K be a field of characteristic p and mathrmDer(K) be the space of derivations KrightarrowK, which is a Lie algebra under the bracket operation on derivations. To each field F lying between K and Kp, let mathrmDerF(K) be the subspace of derivations on K which vanish on F (the F-linear derivations on K). Then mathrmDerF(K) is a restricted Lie subalgebra of mathrmDer(K) (the label "restricted" means the pth power of each element in the subalgebra is also in there).
If [K:F] is finite then mathrmDerF(K) is finite-dimensional as a (left) F-vector space. Sending F to mathrmDerF(K) is an inclusion-reversing bijection from the fields between K and Kp over which K is finite-dimensional and the restricted Lie subalgebras of mathrmDerF(K) which are finite-dimensional over K, with [K:F]=pdimK(mathrmDerF(K)). The inverse map associates to any restricted Lie subalgebra of mathrmDer(K) which is finite-dimensional over K the elements of K on which the entire subalgebra vanishes.
Let's see how this theorem manifests itself in the example K=mathbfFp(u,v), where u and v are algebraically independent. Here Kp=mathbfFp(up,vp) and [K:Kp]=p2. (In other examples, [K:Kp] could be infinite.) The partial derivative operators partialu=partial/partialu and partialv=partial/partialv are a basis for mathrmDer(K) as a left K-vector space:
mathrmDer(K)=Kpartialu+Kpartialv.
An example of a field between K and Kp is Kp(um+vn) for positive integers m and n. If m and n are both multiples of p then Kp(um+vn)=Kp, which is dull and all derivations are 0 on it: it corresponds to mathrmDer(K)=mathrmDerKp(K). If at least one of m or n is not a multiple of p then the set of derivations that vanish on Kp(um+vn) is K(nvn−1partialu−mum−1partialv). If we insist now that m and n are both not multiples of p, then changing m or n changes that line of derivations, so the corresponding fields Kp(um+vn) are not the same (you don't need Jacobson's bijection to see that: if one field is killed by a certain differential operator and another isn't, they are not the same field).
We haven't seen the restricted Lie algebra aspect playing an essential role here. In fact all one-dimensional K-subspaces of this two-dimensional space mathrmDer(K) are restricted. To see this, pick a one-dimensional K-subspace Kdelta in mathrmDer(K). Set F to be the common kernel of the operators in Kdelta, which is just the same thing as ker(delta), so F is a field between K and Kp.
Clearly
KdeltasubsetmathrmDerF(K)subsetmathrmDer(K)
and the top space is 2-dimensional over K. Thus mathrmDerF(K) is either Kdelta or mathrmDer(K). If Kdelta=mathrmDerF(K) then Kdelta is restricted since the space of derivations on K vanishing on a subfield is restricted and then we're done. So assume instead that Kdeltanot=mathrmDerF(K), and then for dimensional reasons we must have mathrmDerF(K)=mathrmDer(K), which by Jacobson's correspondence implies F=Kp, so ker(delta)=Kp. But this is impossible: any nonzero delta in mathrmDer(K) is nonvanishing at either u or v (if delta(u)=0 and delta(v)=0 then delta vanishes on Kp(u,v)=K), so ker(delta) is not Kp and thus we have a contradiction, which wraps up this little argument.
That all 1-dimensional K-subspaces of mathrmDer(K) in this particular example are restricted Lie subalgebras sounds analogous to the fact that all one-dimensional subspaces of a Lie algebra are Lie subalgebras, although note mathrmDer(K) is not a Lie algebra over K, only over Kp. Still, if anyone who knows about restricted Lie algebras can indicate in a comment if there is some general theorem about certain subspaces automatically being restricted subspaces, please speak up.
It is a theorem of Gerstenhaber (1964) that the Lie algebra aspect in Jacobson's theorem is always automatic from the restricted aspect: for any field K of characteristic p, any K-subspace of mathrmDer(K) which is closed under pth powers is closed under the Lie bracket on derivations.
This approach to a Galois theory for inseparable extensions has been extended to the case of inseparable K/F where KprsubsetF some some r>1, using higher derivations.
See "Higher derivation Galois theory of inseparable extensions" pp. 187--220 of Handbook [sic] of Algebra, Volume 1. (An account just of Jacobson's case r=1 is in his Basic Algebra II, and in somewhat more detail -- including Gerstenhaber's result -- in Chapter 4 of Karpilovsky's Topics in Field Theory.)
New topic! RK asked, as a comment to Alon's answer, if there is a finite extension of mathbfFp(x) which is not primitive. No.
Theorem: If K is a field of characteristic p such that [K:Kp]=p, then every finite extension of K has a primitive element.
We can apply this theorem to any rational function field over a perfect field of characteristic p. The conclusion of the theorem is stable under passage to finite extensions, so it applies to any function field over a perfect field of characteristic p.
Proof: Let L/K be a finite extension. From the hypothesis that [K:Kp]=p, [K:Kpm]=pm for all mgeq0. Then [K1/pm:K]=pm, so if K1/pmsubsetL we get pm|[L:K], which means m is bounded. Taking mgeq0 maximal such that K1/pmsubsetL, it can be shown that L/K1/pm is separable.
Let F be any field such that KsubsetFsubsetL. Letting ngeq0 be maximal such that K1/pnsubsetF, we have nleqm and F/K1/pn is separable.
Thus every field between K and L is a separable extension of one of the finitely many fields K1/pn for n=0,1,dots,m. Note the tower FsupsetK1/pnsupsetK, which is a separable extension on top of a purely inseparable extension, is backwards compared to what general field theory tells us: any finite extension can be expressed as a purely inseparable extension on top of a separable extension. We will now bring in that general field theory point of view, in a more precise form.
Any finite extension of fields admits a maximal separable subextension (containing all other separable extensions of the base field in the top field). Moreover, a separable extension of fields has only finitely many intermediate fields (say, by Galois theory). Therefore each K1/pn, for n=0,1,dots,m has only finitely many separable extensions inside L. Since every field between K and L is a separable extension of K1/pn for some n from 0 to m, there are only finitely many fields between K and L. Therefore by Steinitz's theorem on primitive elements, L is a primitive extension of K.
QED
No comments:
Post a Comment