Why isn't the the galois group of a polynomial with n distinct roots isomorphic to Sn?












2














If we consider the polynomial $f(x)=x^3-3x-1 in mathbb{Q}[x]$ which has 3 real roots ${x_1,x_2,x_3}$. I read that its galois group is isomorphic to $A_3$ and not to $S_3$. I don't really understand this.
If I consider the map (Here $E$ is the splitting field of $f$ over $mathbb{Q})$:
begin{align*}
sigma colon E to E\
x_1 mapsto x_2\
x_3 mapsto x_3\
mathbb{Q} mapsto mathbb{Q}
end{align*}



This would correspond to a transposition $(12)$ which is not in the alternating group.

But isn't this a $mathbb{Q}$-automorphism? I actually don't really grasp why the Galois group isn't in general isomorphic to Sn (for n distinct roots).










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    What do you mean by $E$?
    – Servaes
    Nov 29 '18 at 15:24










  • $E$ is the splitting field of $f$ over $mathbb{Q}$. Thanks for the comment, I edited.
    – roi_saumon
    Nov 29 '18 at 15:41








  • 3




    There may be hidden relations among the roots. Your cubic is a case in point. If $r=x_1$ is one of the zeros, then the other zeros are $x_2=2-r^2$ and $x_3=r^2-r-2$. So the splitting field is $Bbb{Q}(r)$. If you know $sigma(x_1)=sigma(r)$ then $$sigma(x_2)=sigma(2-r^2)=2-sigma(r)^2$$ is uniquely determined. In other words, you cannot choose $sigma(x_1)$ and $sigma(x_2)$ independently from each other in the case of this polynomial. Looking at the discriminant as in Servaes' answer is a more common constraint, I simply wanted to shed more light to this.
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Nov 30 '18 at 4:10












  • @JyrkiLahtonen Oh, I see, but how did you find this hidden relation?
    – roi_saumon
    Nov 30 '18 at 11:09












  • The polynomial is kinda "famous". The zeros are $x_1=-2cos(2pi/9)$, $x_2=-2cos(4pi/9)$ and $x_3=-2cos(8pi/9)$. The implication $r$ is a root $implies$ $2-r^2$ is a root, is simple the double angle cosine formula $cos2alpha=2cos^2alpha-1$ in disguise. More generally, adjoining a single zero $r$ may allow us to factor the polynomial more than just splitting off a factor $x-r$ of $f(x)$, and such factorizations reduce the extension degree of the splitting field (and hence also the number of automorphisms).
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Nov 30 '18 at 11:36


















2














If we consider the polynomial $f(x)=x^3-3x-1 in mathbb{Q}[x]$ which has 3 real roots ${x_1,x_2,x_3}$. I read that its galois group is isomorphic to $A_3$ and not to $S_3$. I don't really understand this.
If I consider the map (Here $E$ is the splitting field of $f$ over $mathbb{Q})$:
begin{align*}
sigma colon E to E\
x_1 mapsto x_2\
x_3 mapsto x_3\
mathbb{Q} mapsto mathbb{Q}
end{align*}



This would correspond to a transposition $(12)$ which is not in the alternating group.

But isn't this a $mathbb{Q}$-automorphism? I actually don't really grasp why the Galois group isn't in general isomorphic to Sn (for n distinct roots).










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    What do you mean by $E$?
    – Servaes
    Nov 29 '18 at 15:24










  • $E$ is the splitting field of $f$ over $mathbb{Q}$. Thanks for the comment, I edited.
    – roi_saumon
    Nov 29 '18 at 15:41








  • 3




    There may be hidden relations among the roots. Your cubic is a case in point. If $r=x_1$ is one of the zeros, then the other zeros are $x_2=2-r^2$ and $x_3=r^2-r-2$. So the splitting field is $Bbb{Q}(r)$. If you know $sigma(x_1)=sigma(r)$ then $$sigma(x_2)=sigma(2-r^2)=2-sigma(r)^2$$ is uniquely determined. In other words, you cannot choose $sigma(x_1)$ and $sigma(x_2)$ independently from each other in the case of this polynomial. Looking at the discriminant as in Servaes' answer is a more common constraint, I simply wanted to shed more light to this.
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Nov 30 '18 at 4:10












  • @JyrkiLahtonen Oh, I see, but how did you find this hidden relation?
    – roi_saumon
    Nov 30 '18 at 11:09












  • The polynomial is kinda "famous". The zeros are $x_1=-2cos(2pi/9)$, $x_2=-2cos(4pi/9)$ and $x_3=-2cos(8pi/9)$. The implication $r$ is a root $implies$ $2-r^2$ is a root, is simple the double angle cosine formula $cos2alpha=2cos^2alpha-1$ in disguise. More generally, adjoining a single zero $r$ may allow us to factor the polynomial more than just splitting off a factor $x-r$ of $f(x)$, and such factorizations reduce the extension degree of the splitting field (and hence also the number of automorphisms).
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Nov 30 '18 at 11:36
















2












2








2







If we consider the polynomial $f(x)=x^3-3x-1 in mathbb{Q}[x]$ which has 3 real roots ${x_1,x_2,x_3}$. I read that its galois group is isomorphic to $A_3$ and not to $S_3$. I don't really understand this.
If I consider the map (Here $E$ is the splitting field of $f$ over $mathbb{Q})$:
begin{align*}
sigma colon E to E\
x_1 mapsto x_2\
x_3 mapsto x_3\
mathbb{Q} mapsto mathbb{Q}
end{align*}



This would correspond to a transposition $(12)$ which is not in the alternating group.

But isn't this a $mathbb{Q}$-automorphism? I actually don't really grasp why the Galois group isn't in general isomorphic to Sn (for n distinct roots).










share|cite|improve this question















If we consider the polynomial $f(x)=x^3-3x-1 in mathbb{Q}[x]$ which has 3 real roots ${x_1,x_2,x_3}$. I read that its galois group is isomorphic to $A_3$ and not to $S_3$. I don't really understand this.
If I consider the map (Here $E$ is the splitting field of $f$ over $mathbb{Q})$:
begin{align*}
sigma colon E to E\
x_1 mapsto x_2\
x_3 mapsto x_3\
mathbb{Q} mapsto mathbb{Q}
end{align*}



This would correspond to a transposition $(12)$ which is not in the alternating group.

But isn't this a $mathbb{Q}$-automorphism? I actually don't really grasp why the Galois group isn't in general isomorphic to Sn (for n distinct roots).







galois-theory






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 29 '18 at 15:40







roi_saumon

















asked Nov 29 '18 at 15:21









roi_saumonroi_saumon

43528




43528








  • 1




    What do you mean by $E$?
    – Servaes
    Nov 29 '18 at 15:24










  • $E$ is the splitting field of $f$ over $mathbb{Q}$. Thanks for the comment, I edited.
    – roi_saumon
    Nov 29 '18 at 15:41








  • 3




    There may be hidden relations among the roots. Your cubic is a case in point. If $r=x_1$ is one of the zeros, then the other zeros are $x_2=2-r^2$ and $x_3=r^2-r-2$. So the splitting field is $Bbb{Q}(r)$. If you know $sigma(x_1)=sigma(r)$ then $$sigma(x_2)=sigma(2-r^2)=2-sigma(r)^2$$ is uniquely determined. In other words, you cannot choose $sigma(x_1)$ and $sigma(x_2)$ independently from each other in the case of this polynomial. Looking at the discriminant as in Servaes' answer is a more common constraint, I simply wanted to shed more light to this.
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Nov 30 '18 at 4:10












  • @JyrkiLahtonen Oh, I see, but how did you find this hidden relation?
    – roi_saumon
    Nov 30 '18 at 11:09












  • The polynomial is kinda "famous". The zeros are $x_1=-2cos(2pi/9)$, $x_2=-2cos(4pi/9)$ and $x_3=-2cos(8pi/9)$. The implication $r$ is a root $implies$ $2-r^2$ is a root, is simple the double angle cosine formula $cos2alpha=2cos^2alpha-1$ in disguise. More generally, adjoining a single zero $r$ may allow us to factor the polynomial more than just splitting off a factor $x-r$ of $f(x)$, and such factorizations reduce the extension degree of the splitting field (and hence also the number of automorphisms).
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Nov 30 '18 at 11:36
















  • 1




    What do you mean by $E$?
    – Servaes
    Nov 29 '18 at 15:24










  • $E$ is the splitting field of $f$ over $mathbb{Q}$. Thanks for the comment, I edited.
    – roi_saumon
    Nov 29 '18 at 15:41








  • 3




    There may be hidden relations among the roots. Your cubic is a case in point. If $r=x_1$ is one of the zeros, then the other zeros are $x_2=2-r^2$ and $x_3=r^2-r-2$. So the splitting field is $Bbb{Q}(r)$. If you know $sigma(x_1)=sigma(r)$ then $$sigma(x_2)=sigma(2-r^2)=2-sigma(r)^2$$ is uniquely determined. In other words, you cannot choose $sigma(x_1)$ and $sigma(x_2)$ independently from each other in the case of this polynomial. Looking at the discriminant as in Servaes' answer is a more common constraint, I simply wanted to shed more light to this.
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Nov 30 '18 at 4:10












  • @JyrkiLahtonen Oh, I see, but how did you find this hidden relation?
    – roi_saumon
    Nov 30 '18 at 11:09












  • The polynomial is kinda "famous". The zeros are $x_1=-2cos(2pi/9)$, $x_2=-2cos(4pi/9)$ and $x_3=-2cos(8pi/9)$. The implication $r$ is a root $implies$ $2-r^2$ is a root, is simple the double angle cosine formula $cos2alpha=2cos^2alpha-1$ in disguise. More generally, adjoining a single zero $r$ may allow us to factor the polynomial more than just splitting off a factor $x-r$ of $f(x)$, and such factorizations reduce the extension degree of the splitting field (and hence also the number of automorphisms).
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Nov 30 '18 at 11:36










1




1




What do you mean by $E$?
– Servaes
Nov 29 '18 at 15:24




What do you mean by $E$?
– Servaes
Nov 29 '18 at 15:24












$E$ is the splitting field of $f$ over $mathbb{Q}$. Thanks for the comment, I edited.
– roi_saumon
Nov 29 '18 at 15:41






$E$ is the splitting field of $f$ over $mathbb{Q}$. Thanks for the comment, I edited.
– roi_saumon
Nov 29 '18 at 15:41






3




3




There may be hidden relations among the roots. Your cubic is a case in point. If $r=x_1$ is one of the zeros, then the other zeros are $x_2=2-r^2$ and $x_3=r^2-r-2$. So the splitting field is $Bbb{Q}(r)$. If you know $sigma(x_1)=sigma(r)$ then $$sigma(x_2)=sigma(2-r^2)=2-sigma(r)^2$$ is uniquely determined. In other words, you cannot choose $sigma(x_1)$ and $sigma(x_2)$ independently from each other in the case of this polynomial. Looking at the discriminant as in Servaes' answer is a more common constraint, I simply wanted to shed more light to this.
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Nov 30 '18 at 4:10






There may be hidden relations among the roots. Your cubic is a case in point. If $r=x_1$ is one of the zeros, then the other zeros are $x_2=2-r^2$ and $x_3=r^2-r-2$. So the splitting field is $Bbb{Q}(r)$. If you know $sigma(x_1)=sigma(r)$ then $$sigma(x_2)=sigma(2-r^2)=2-sigma(r)^2$$ is uniquely determined. In other words, you cannot choose $sigma(x_1)$ and $sigma(x_2)$ independently from each other in the case of this polynomial. Looking at the discriminant as in Servaes' answer is a more common constraint, I simply wanted to shed more light to this.
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Nov 30 '18 at 4:10














@JyrkiLahtonen Oh, I see, but how did you find this hidden relation?
– roi_saumon
Nov 30 '18 at 11:09






@JyrkiLahtonen Oh, I see, but how did you find this hidden relation?
– roi_saumon
Nov 30 '18 at 11:09














The polynomial is kinda "famous". The zeros are $x_1=-2cos(2pi/9)$, $x_2=-2cos(4pi/9)$ and $x_3=-2cos(8pi/9)$. The implication $r$ is a root $implies$ $2-r^2$ is a root, is simple the double angle cosine formula $cos2alpha=2cos^2alpha-1$ in disguise. More generally, adjoining a single zero $r$ may allow us to factor the polynomial more than just splitting off a factor $x-r$ of $f(x)$, and such factorizations reduce the extension degree of the splitting field (and hence also the number of automorphisms).
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Nov 30 '18 at 11:36






The polynomial is kinda "famous". The zeros are $x_1=-2cos(2pi/9)$, $x_2=-2cos(4pi/9)$ and $x_3=-2cos(8pi/9)$. The implication $r$ is a root $implies$ $2-r^2$ is a root, is simple the double angle cosine formula $cos2alpha=2cos^2alpha-1$ in disguise. More generally, adjoining a single zero $r$ may allow us to factor the polynomial more than just splitting off a factor $x-r$ of $f(x)$, and such factorizations reduce the extension degree of the splitting field (and hence also the number of automorphisms).
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Nov 30 '18 at 11:36












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















3














TL;DR The element $(x_1-x_2)(x_1-x_3)(x_2-x_3)$ is contained in $Bbb{Q}$ but not fixed by $sigma$.





The following theorem tells us when the Galois group of a polynomial over $Bbb{Q}$ is contained in $A_n$:




Let $finBbb{Q}[x]$ be irreducible of degree $n$, and let $E$ be a splitting field of $f$. Identify $operatorname{Gal}(E/Bbb{Q})$ with a subgroup of $S_n$ by enumerating the roots of $f$ in $E$. If $Delta(f)inBbb{Q}$ is a square in $Bbb{Q}$ then $operatorname{Gal}(E/Bbb{Q})$ is contained in $A_n$.




The proof shows in particular why your map is not a field automorphism of $E$:



Let $x_1,ldots,x_nin E$ be the roots of $f$ and let $S_n$ act on $E$ by its action on the indices of the roots, i.e. $sigma(x_i):=x_{sigma(i)}$ for all $i$. Consider the element
$$delta:=prod_{1leq i<jleq n}(x_i-x_j)in E.$$
Note that for all $sigmain S_n$ we have $sigma(delta)=operatorname{sgn}(sigma)delta$ and that $delta^2=Delta(f)$.



If $Delta(f)$ is a square in $Bbb{Q}$ then it $deltainBbb{Q}$. It follows that $sigma(delta)=delta$ for all $sigmainoperatorname{Gal}(EBbb{Q})$ and hence that $operatorname{sgn}(sigma)=1$ for all $sigmainoperatorname{Gal}(EBbb{Q})$. This means precisely that $operatorname{Gal}(EBbb{Q})$ is contained in $A_n$.





In this particular case we see that $Delta(x^3-3x-1)=81$, so the element
$$delta=(x_1-x_2)(x_1-x_3)(x_2-x_3)=pm9,$$
is not fixed by your map $sigma$, so $sigma$ cannot be a field automorphism of $E$.






share|cite|improve this answer























    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3018764%2fwhy-isnt-the-the-galois-group-of-a-polynomial-with-n-distinct-roots-isomorphic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    3














    TL;DR The element $(x_1-x_2)(x_1-x_3)(x_2-x_3)$ is contained in $Bbb{Q}$ but not fixed by $sigma$.





    The following theorem tells us when the Galois group of a polynomial over $Bbb{Q}$ is contained in $A_n$:




    Let $finBbb{Q}[x]$ be irreducible of degree $n$, and let $E$ be a splitting field of $f$. Identify $operatorname{Gal}(E/Bbb{Q})$ with a subgroup of $S_n$ by enumerating the roots of $f$ in $E$. If $Delta(f)inBbb{Q}$ is a square in $Bbb{Q}$ then $operatorname{Gal}(E/Bbb{Q})$ is contained in $A_n$.




    The proof shows in particular why your map is not a field automorphism of $E$:



    Let $x_1,ldots,x_nin E$ be the roots of $f$ and let $S_n$ act on $E$ by its action on the indices of the roots, i.e. $sigma(x_i):=x_{sigma(i)}$ for all $i$. Consider the element
    $$delta:=prod_{1leq i<jleq n}(x_i-x_j)in E.$$
    Note that for all $sigmain S_n$ we have $sigma(delta)=operatorname{sgn}(sigma)delta$ and that $delta^2=Delta(f)$.



    If $Delta(f)$ is a square in $Bbb{Q}$ then it $deltainBbb{Q}$. It follows that $sigma(delta)=delta$ for all $sigmainoperatorname{Gal}(EBbb{Q})$ and hence that $operatorname{sgn}(sigma)=1$ for all $sigmainoperatorname{Gal}(EBbb{Q})$. This means precisely that $operatorname{Gal}(EBbb{Q})$ is contained in $A_n$.





    In this particular case we see that $Delta(x^3-3x-1)=81$, so the element
    $$delta=(x_1-x_2)(x_1-x_3)(x_2-x_3)=pm9,$$
    is not fixed by your map $sigma$, so $sigma$ cannot be a field automorphism of $E$.






    share|cite|improve this answer




























      3














      TL;DR The element $(x_1-x_2)(x_1-x_3)(x_2-x_3)$ is contained in $Bbb{Q}$ but not fixed by $sigma$.





      The following theorem tells us when the Galois group of a polynomial over $Bbb{Q}$ is contained in $A_n$:




      Let $finBbb{Q}[x]$ be irreducible of degree $n$, and let $E$ be a splitting field of $f$. Identify $operatorname{Gal}(E/Bbb{Q})$ with a subgroup of $S_n$ by enumerating the roots of $f$ in $E$. If $Delta(f)inBbb{Q}$ is a square in $Bbb{Q}$ then $operatorname{Gal}(E/Bbb{Q})$ is contained in $A_n$.




      The proof shows in particular why your map is not a field automorphism of $E$:



      Let $x_1,ldots,x_nin E$ be the roots of $f$ and let $S_n$ act on $E$ by its action on the indices of the roots, i.e. $sigma(x_i):=x_{sigma(i)}$ for all $i$. Consider the element
      $$delta:=prod_{1leq i<jleq n}(x_i-x_j)in E.$$
      Note that for all $sigmain S_n$ we have $sigma(delta)=operatorname{sgn}(sigma)delta$ and that $delta^2=Delta(f)$.



      If $Delta(f)$ is a square in $Bbb{Q}$ then it $deltainBbb{Q}$. It follows that $sigma(delta)=delta$ for all $sigmainoperatorname{Gal}(EBbb{Q})$ and hence that $operatorname{sgn}(sigma)=1$ for all $sigmainoperatorname{Gal}(EBbb{Q})$. This means precisely that $operatorname{Gal}(EBbb{Q})$ is contained in $A_n$.





      In this particular case we see that $Delta(x^3-3x-1)=81$, so the element
      $$delta=(x_1-x_2)(x_1-x_3)(x_2-x_3)=pm9,$$
      is not fixed by your map $sigma$, so $sigma$ cannot be a field automorphism of $E$.






      share|cite|improve this answer


























        3












        3








        3






        TL;DR The element $(x_1-x_2)(x_1-x_3)(x_2-x_3)$ is contained in $Bbb{Q}$ but not fixed by $sigma$.





        The following theorem tells us when the Galois group of a polynomial over $Bbb{Q}$ is contained in $A_n$:




        Let $finBbb{Q}[x]$ be irreducible of degree $n$, and let $E$ be a splitting field of $f$. Identify $operatorname{Gal}(E/Bbb{Q})$ with a subgroup of $S_n$ by enumerating the roots of $f$ in $E$. If $Delta(f)inBbb{Q}$ is a square in $Bbb{Q}$ then $operatorname{Gal}(E/Bbb{Q})$ is contained in $A_n$.




        The proof shows in particular why your map is not a field automorphism of $E$:



        Let $x_1,ldots,x_nin E$ be the roots of $f$ and let $S_n$ act on $E$ by its action on the indices of the roots, i.e. $sigma(x_i):=x_{sigma(i)}$ for all $i$. Consider the element
        $$delta:=prod_{1leq i<jleq n}(x_i-x_j)in E.$$
        Note that for all $sigmain S_n$ we have $sigma(delta)=operatorname{sgn}(sigma)delta$ and that $delta^2=Delta(f)$.



        If $Delta(f)$ is a square in $Bbb{Q}$ then it $deltainBbb{Q}$. It follows that $sigma(delta)=delta$ for all $sigmainoperatorname{Gal}(EBbb{Q})$ and hence that $operatorname{sgn}(sigma)=1$ for all $sigmainoperatorname{Gal}(EBbb{Q})$. This means precisely that $operatorname{Gal}(EBbb{Q})$ is contained in $A_n$.





        In this particular case we see that $Delta(x^3-3x-1)=81$, so the element
        $$delta=(x_1-x_2)(x_1-x_3)(x_2-x_3)=pm9,$$
        is not fixed by your map $sigma$, so $sigma$ cannot be a field automorphism of $E$.






        share|cite|improve this answer














        TL;DR The element $(x_1-x_2)(x_1-x_3)(x_2-x_3)$ is contained in $Bbb{Q}$ but not fixed by $sigma$.





        The following theorem tells us when the Galois group of a polynomial over $Bbb{Q}$ is contained in $A_n$:




        Let $finBbb{Q}[x]$ be irreducible of degree $n$, and let $E$ be a splitting field of $f$. Identify $operatorname{Gal}(E/Bbb{Q})$ with a subgroup of $S_n$ by enumerating the roots of $f$ in $E$. If $Delta(f)inBbb{Q}$ is a square in $Bbb{Q}$ then $operatorname{Gal}(E/Bbb{Q})$ is contained in $A_n$.




        The proof shows in particular why your map is not a field automorphism of $E$:



        Let $x_1,ldots,x_nin E$ be the roots of $f$ and let $S_n$ act on $E$ by its action on the indices of the roots, i.e. $sigma(x_i):=x_{sigma(i)}$ for all $i$. Consider the element
        $$delta:=prod_{1leq i<jleq n}(x_i-x_j)in E.$$
        Note that for all $sigmain S_n$ we have $sigma(delta)=operatorname{sgn}(sigma)delta$ and that $delta^2=Delta(f)$.



        If $Delta(f)$ is a square in $Bbb{Q}$ then it $deltainBbb{Q}$. It follows that $sigma(delta)=delta$ for all $sigmainoperatorname{Gal}(EBbb{Q})$ and hence that $operatorname{sgn}(sigma)=1$ for all $sigmainoperatorname{Gal}(EBbb{Q})$. This means precisely that $operatorname{Gal}(EBbb{Q})$ is contained in $A_n$.





        In this particular case we see that $Delta(x^3-3x-1)=81$, so the element
        $$delta=(x_1-x_2)(x_1-x_3)(x_2-x_3)=pm9,$$
        is not fixed by your map $sigma$, so $sigma$ cannot be a field automorphism of $E$.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Nov 29 '18 at 16:17

























        answered Nov 29 '18 at 15:56









        ServaesServaes

        22.4k33793




        22.4k33793






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3018764%2fwhy-isnt-the-the-galois-group-of-a-polynomial-with-n-distinct-roots-isomorphic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Bundesstraße 106

            Verónica Boquete

            Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten