Show that Q[π] is not a subset of Q(π)

  • MHB
  • Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date
In summary: Wondering)In summary, we discussed a theorem stating that for a field and an irreducible polynomial, there exists a subfield where the polynomial has a root. We also showed that $\mathbb{Q}[\pi]$ is a proper subset of $\mathbb{Q}(\pi)$ and that $\pi$ is not a root of a polynomial with rational coefficients. We then discussed a proof using the transcendence of $\pi$ and showed that $x$ is not invertible in $F[x]$. We also discussed the need to show that $f$ is a ring isomorphism, as it helps us determine if an element is invertible.
  • #1
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
5,049
7
Hey! :eek:

We have the following theorem:
Let $F$ be a field and $p(x)\in F[x]$ irreducible. Then there is a field $K$, of which $F$ is a subfield with the following properties:
  1. $\exists u\in K$ with $p(u)=0$, i.e., $p$ has a root in $K$.
  2. $K=F$


I want to show that $\mathbb{Q}[\pi]\subsetneqq \mathbb{Q}(\pi)$.

The elements of $\mathbb{Q}(\pi)$ are of the form $\frac{f(\pi)}{g(\pi)}$, where $f(\pi), g(\pi)\in \mathbb{Q}[\pi]$ and $g(\pi)\neq 0$.
The elements of $\mathbb{Q}[\pi]$ are the polynomials of $\pi$ with coefficients in $\mathbb{Q}$.
So, we have that $\mathbb{Q}[\pi]\subseteq \mathbb{Q}(\pi)$ for $g(\pi)=1$, right?

We have that $\pi$ is not a root of a polynomial with rational coefficients, right?
How could we prove this? (Wondering)

That means that the first property of the above theorem is not satisfied. Do we conclude from that that $\mathbb{Q}[\pi]$ is not a field, and so $\mathbb{Q}[\pi]\subsetneqq \mathbb{Q}(\pi)$ ? (Wondering)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
mathmari said:
Hey! :eek:

We have the following theorem:
Let $F$ be a field and $p(x)\in F[x]$ irreducible. Then there is a field $K$, of which $F$ is a subfield with the following properties:
  1. $\exists u\in K$ with $p(u)=0$, i.e., $p$ has a root in $K$.
  2. $K=F$


I want to show that $\mathbb{Q}[\pi]\subsetneqq \mathbb{Q}(\pi)$.

The elements of $\mathbb{Q}(\pi)$ are of the form $\frac{f(\pi)}{g(\pi)}$, where $f(\pi), g(\pi)\in \mathbb{Q}[\pi]$ and $g(\pi)\neq 0$.
The elements of $\mathbb{Q}[\pi]$ are the polynomials of $\pi$ with coefficients in $\mathbb{Q}$.
So, we have that $\mathbb{Q}[\pi]\subseteq \mathbb{Q}(\pi)$ for $g(\pi)=1$, right?

We have that $\pi$ is not a root of a polynomial with rational coefficients, right?
How could we prove this? (Wondering)

That means that the first property of the above theorem is not satisfied. Do we conclude from that that $\mathbb{Q}[\pi]$ is not a field, and so $\mathbb{Q}[\pi]\subsetneqq \mathbb{Q}(\pi)$ ? (Wondering)


Let $F=\mathbf Q$. Let $f:F[x]\to F[\pi]$ be the map which is identity on $F$ and sends $x$ to $\pi$. Using the transcendence of $\pi$ show that $f$ is a ring isomorphism. Then note that $F[x]\subsetneq F(x)$. This is because $x$ is not invertible in $F[x]$.
 
  • #3
caffeinemachine said:
Let $F=\mathbf Q$. Let $f:F[x]\to F[\pi]$ be the map which is identity on $F$ and sends $x$ to $\pi$. Using the transcendence of $\pi$ show that $f$ is a ring isomorphism. Then note that $F[x]\subsetneq F(x)$. This is because $x$ is not invertible in $F[x]$.

$$f(a(x)+b(x))=f((a+b)(x))=(a+b)(\pi)=a(\pi)+b(\pi)=f(a(x))+f(b(x)) \\ f(a(x)\cdot b(x))=f((a\cdot b)(x))=(a\cdot b)(\pi)=a(\pi)\cdot b(\pi)=f(a(x))\cdot f(b(x))$$
So, $f$ is a ring homomorphism.

For all $c(\pi)=\sum_{i=0}^nq_i\pi^i \in F[\pi]$ we have that $c(\pi)=\sum_{i=0}^nq_i\pi^i =\sum_{i=0}^nf(q_i)f(x)^i =f(\sum_{i=0}^nq_ix^i)=:f(b(x))$.
So, $f$ is surjective.

If $f(a(x))=f(b(x))$ then we have that $a(\pi)=b(\pi)\Rightarrow (a-b)(\pi)=0$. SInce $\pi$ is transcedent we conclude that $a-b\equiv 0\Rightarrow a(x)=b(x)$.
So, $f$ is injective.

Therefore, $f$ is a ring isomorphism.

Is this correct? (Wondering)

How do we show that $x$ is not invertible in $F[x]$ ? (Wondering)
 
  • #4
mathmari said:
$$f(a(x)+b(x))=f((a+b)(x))=(a+b)(\pi)=a(\pi)+b(\pi)=f(a(x))+f(b(x)) \\ f(a(x)\cdot b(x))=f((a\cdot b)(x))=(a\cdot b)(\pi)=a(\pi)\cdot b(\pi)=f(a(x))\cdot f(b(x))$$
So, $f$ is a ring homomorphism.

For all $c(\pi)=\sum_{i=0}^nq_i\pi^i \in F[\pi]$ we have that $c(\pi)=\sum_{i=0}^nq_i\pi^i =\sum_{i=0}^nf(q_i)f(x)^i =f(\sum_{i=0}^nq_ix^i)=:f(b(x))$.
So, $f$ is surjective.

If $f(a(x))=f(b(x))$ then we have that $a(\pi)=b(\pi)\Rightarrow (a-b)(\pi)=0$. SInce $\pi$ is transcedent we conclude that $a-b\equiv 0\Rightarrow a(x)=b(x)$.
So, $f$ is injective.

Therefore, $f$ is a ring isomorphism.

Is this correct? (Wondering)

How do we show that $x$ is not invertible in $F[x]$ ? (Wondering)
That's correct. To see $x$ is not invertible in $F[x]$, assume on the contrary that it is. Then we can find a polynomial $p(x)\in F[x]$ such that $xp(x)=1$. Now compare the degrees on both the sides.
 
  • #5
caffeinemachine said:
To see $x$ is not invertible in $F[x]$, assume on the contrary that it is. Then we can find a polynomial $p(x)\in F[x]$ such that $xp(x)=1$. Now compare the degrees on both the sides.

We assume that $x$ is invertible in $F[x]$, so there is a polynomial $p(x)\in F[x]$ such that $xp(x)=1$.
We have that $\deg (xp(x))=\deg (1) \Rightarrow \deg (x)+\deg (p(x))=\deg (1) \Rightarrow 1+\deg (p(x))=0$, a contradiction, since $\deg (p(x))\geq 0$.
Is this correct? (Wondering)

Why did we need to show that $f$ is a ring isomorphism? (Wondering)
 
  • #6
mathmari said:
We assume that $x$ is invertible in $F[x]$, so there is a polynomial $p(x)\in F[x]$ such that $xp(x)=1$.
We have that $\deg (xp(x))=\deg (1) \Rightarrow \deg (x)+\deg (p(x))=\deg (1) \Rightarrow 1+\deg (p(x))=0$, a contradiction, since $\deg (p(x))\geq 0$.
Is this correct? (Wondering)

Why did we need to show that $f$ is a ring isomorphism? (Wondering)
If $f:R\to S$ is a ring isomorphism between two rings, then an element $r\in R$ is invertible in $R$ iff $f(r)$ is invertible in $S$. Since $x$ is not invertible in $F[x]$, as you have just shown, we have $\pi$ is not invertible in $\mathbf Q[\pi]$. Is it clear now?
 
  • #7
caffeinemachine said:
If $f:R\to S$ is a ring isomorphism between two rings, then an element $r\in R$ is invertible in $R$ iff $f(r)$ is invertible in $S$.

When an element $r\in R$ is invertible in $R$ then $\exists r^{-1} : rr^{-1}=1$.
Then $f(rr^{-1})=f(1) \Leftrightarrow f(r)f(r^{-1})=f(1) \Leftrightarrow f(r)(f(r))^{-1}=f(1)=$, since $f$ is an homomorphism.
Therefore, $f(r)$ is invertible in $S$.

Is this correct? (Wondering)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
mathmari said:
When an element $r\in R$ is invertible in $R$ then $\exists r^{-1} : rr^{-1}=1$.
Then $f(rr^{-1})=f(1) \Leftrightarrow f(r)f(r^{-1})=f(1) \Leftrightarrow f(r)(f(r))^{-1}=f(1)=$, since $f$ is an homomorphism.
Therefore, $f(r)$ is invertible in $S$.

Is this correct? (Wondering)
Yes this is fine.
 
  • #9
caffeinemachine said:
Yes this is fine.

Thank you very much! (Sun)
 

Related to Show that Q[π] is not a subset of Q(π)

1. What does Q[π] represent in this statement?

Q[π] represents the set of rational numbers multiplied by the irrational number π.

2. How is Q(π) different from Q[π]?

Q(π) represents the set of rational numbers divided by the irrational number π, while Q[π] represents the set of rational numbers multiplied by π.

3. Why is Q[π] not a subset of Q(π)?

This is because the two sets have different elements and operations. Q[π] includes all rational numbers multiplied by π, while Q(π) only includes rational numbers divided by π.

4. Can you provide an example to illustrate this statement?

Yes, an example would be π/2. This number is a member of Q(π) as it can be written as a rational number (22/7) divided by π. However, π/2 is not a member of Q[π] as it cannot be written as a rational number multiplied by π.

5. How does this statement relate to the concept of algebraic numbers?

This statement relates to the concept of algebraic numbers as Q[π] and Q(π) both represent sets of algebraic numbers. However, Q[π] specifically represents a subset of algebraic numbers that cannot be simplified further, while Q(π) represents a subset of algebraic numbers that can be simplified.

Similar threads

  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
24
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
417
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
584
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
4
Views
1K
Back
Top