Why isn't the the galois group of a polynomial with n distinct roots isomorphic to Sn?
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
add a comment |
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
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
add a comment |
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
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
galois-theory
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
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 $E$.
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
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 $E$.
add a comment |
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 $E$.
add a comment |
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 $E$.
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 $E$.
edited Nov 29 '18 at 16:17
answered Nov 29 '18 at 15:56
ServaesServaes
22.4k33793
22.4k33793
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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