2

I guess the following statement should be true, but I can not prove it, I can just prove the reverse implication. 

$\star$ Condition: Let $2\leq m$ be a natural number. Let's denote the multiplicative group of rational numbers by $\mathbb{Q}^{\ast^{}}$, and consider the subgroup of perfect $m^{\rm th}$-perfect powers $\mathbb{Q}^{\ast^{m}}$.

Let $t, t'$ be two elements in the quotient group $\dfrac{\mathbb{Q}^{\ast^{}}}{\mathbb{Q}^{\ast^{m}}}$ such that: the order of $t$ and $t'$ in the group $\dfrac{\mathbb{Q}^{\ast^{}}}{\mathbb{Q}^{\ast^{m}}}$ are equal to $m$, i.e. $m$ is the least positive integer such that $t^m \in \mathbb{Q}^{\ast^{m}}$.

(2): If The two sets $\{t, t^2, \cdots, t^{m}\}\neq\{t', t'^2, \cdots, t'^{m}\}$ are not the same in the group $\dfrac{\mathbb{Q}^{\ast^{}}}{\mathbb{Q}^{\ast^{m}}}$, Then

(3) the two extensions $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt[m]{t})$ and $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt[m]{t'})$ are non-isomorphic. 

We can reformulate it in the following way: Under the $\star$ Condition, [(2) implies (3)].

If $m=2$, or $m=3$, I can prove the statement. (For example see the answer by @ArturoMagidin to this question: Is $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2}) \cong \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{3})$? )

Wild version of my Question: What are some ideas to show that two given fields are non-isomorphic?


Irrelevant attempt:

I can just prove the reverse implication: Under the $\star$ Condition, [(3) implies (2)]. Instead of proving this, I will prove the contraposition, i.e. I will prove [$\neg(2)$ implies $\neg(3)$].

[$\neg(2)$ implies $\neg(3)$]: If the two sets $\{t, t^2, \cdots, t^{m}\}=\{t', t'^2, \cdots, t'^{m}\}$ are the same in the group $\dfrac{\mathbb{Q}^{\ast^{}}}{\mathbb{Q}^{\ast^{m}}}$, then the two fields extensions $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt[m]{t})$ and $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt[m]{t'})$ are isomorphic. 

Proof: If $\{t, t^2, \cdots, t^{m}\} = \{t', t'^2, \cdots, t'^{m}\}$, then there is an integer $1\leq k \leq m$ with $\gcd(k,m)=1$, such that $t^k= t' (\mod \mathbb{Q}^{\ast^{m}})$. Then clearly $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt[m]{t}) = \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt[m]{t^k}) =\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt[m]{t'})$, and we are done.

amWhy
  • 209,954

1 Answers1

1

$x^m-t$ is irreducible over $\Bbb{Q}$, when it stays irreducible over $\Bbb{Q}(\zeta_m)$ it works easily, for example when $\gcd(m,\phi(m))=1$.

If $\mathbb{Q}(t'^{1/m})\cong \mathbb{Q}(t^{1/m})$ then $\mathbb{Q}(t'^{1/m})= \mathbb{Q}(\beta)$ for some root $\beta$ of $t^{1/m}$'s minimal polynomial, ie. $\mathbb{Q}(t'^{1/m})= \mathbb{Q}(\zeta_m^r t^{1/m})$ for some $r$ and since it is real iff $r=0$ we get $\mathbb{Q}(t'^{1/m})=\mathbb{Q}(t^{1/m})$.

Next $t'^{1/m}=\sum_{l=0}^{m-1} a_l t^{l/m}\in \mathbb{Q}(t^{1/m})\cap \mathbb{Q}^{1/m}$ iff $\sum_{l=0}^{m-1} a_l \zeta_m^l t^{l/m}=\zeta_m^s\sum_{l=0}^{m-1} a_l t^{l/m}$ for some $s$ coprime with $m$, since the assumption at the beginning means that $t^{l/m},l\in 0\ldots m-1$ is a $\mathbb{Q}(\zeta_m)$-basis of $\mathbb{Q}(t^{1/m},\zeta_m)$, this implies that each $a_l \zeta_m^l - \zeta_m^s a_l=0$ ie. $t'^{1/m} =a_s t^{s/m}$.

reuns
  • 77,999
  • I have some questions about your answer.
    • (1): Why this statement is true? "In the case of $\gcd(m,\phi(m))=1$ and $t\ne \pm 1$ then $x^m-t$ stays irreducible over $\Bbb{Q}(\zeta_m)$."

    • (2): I can see that if that two fields are isomorphic, then $t'^{1/m}=\sum_{l=0}^{m-1} a_l t^{l/m}$ should belongs to $\mathbb{Q}(t^{1/m})$. But why $t'^{1/m}=\sum_{l=0}^{m-1} a_l t^{l/m}$ should belongs to $\mathbb{Q}^{1/m}$?

    • (3): I think by $\mathbb{Q}(t^{1/m})$ you mean the $m^{\rm th}$-cyclotomic field, and maybe you meant the compositum of fields, not their intersection. Am I right?

    – Tireless and hardworking Oct 24 '20 at 07:29
  • (4) If that proof is considered to be true, then this phraase $t'^{1/m} =a_n t^{n/m}$. should have two extra conditions: $a_n \in \mathbb{Q}^{\ast^{m}}$ and $\gcd(n,m)=1$. Otherwise it does not implies that two sets are the same. Am I right?
  • – Tireless and hardworking Oct 24 '20 at 07:29
  • 1
    $x^m-t$ is irreducible over $\Bbb{Q}$, I'm saying that when it stays irreducible over $\Bbb{Q}(\zeta_m)$ (the cyclotomic field) it works easily, for example when $\gcd(m,\phi(m))=1$. Next $\mathbb{Q}(t^{1/m},\zeta_m)$ is the splitting field of $x^m-t$. The irreducibility of $x^m-t$ implies that $\sum_{l=0}^{m-1} a_l \zeta_m^l t^{l/m}$ is conjugate to $\sum_{l=0}^{m-1} a_l t^{l/m}$, ie. it must be another root of $x^m-t'$. From $t'^{1/m} =a_n t^{n/m}$ we are done. @NeoTheComputer – reuns Oct 24 '20 at 07:47
  • I agree with you about your comment. Thanks for your very kind explanations, dear Reuns. But yet I think the $4^{\rm th}$ question is crucial. I was mistaken about the condition $a_n \in \mathbb{Q}^{\ast^{m}}$, but I think the phrase "$t'^{1/m} =a_n t^{n/m}$" should have the extra condition that $\gcd(n,m)=1$. Yet I have a difficulty with my $2^{\rm nd}$ question: Why $t'^{1/m}=\sum_{l=0}^{m-1} a_l t^{l/m}\in \mathbb{Q}^{1/m}$? – Tireless and hardworking Oct 24 '20 at 08:08
  • 1
    It does iff $\sum_{l=0}^{m-1} a_l \zeta_m^l t^{l/m}=\zeta_m^s\sum_{l=0}^{m-1} a_l t^{l/m}$ for some $s$, which must be coprime with $m$. – reuns Oct 24 '20 at 08:10
  • Dear @reuns Yet I am not convinced why $t'^{1/m}=\sum_{l=0}^{m-1} a_l t^{l/m}\in \mathbb{Q}^{1/m}$? If we have this then we can conclude in a simpler way: Since the intersection of $\mathbb{Q}(t^{1/m})$ and $\mathbb{Q}^{1/m}$ is $\mathbb{Q}$, then we can conclude that $t'^{1/m} \in \mathbb{Q}$, so the order of $t'$ in the group $\dfrac{\mathbb{Q}^{\ast^{}}}{\mathbb{Q}^{\ast^{m}}}$ is equal to $1$, but this is a contradiction, and we are done. – Tireless and hardworking Oct 25 '20 at 14:17
  • 1
    $t'^{1/m}\in \Bbb{Q}^{1/m}$. With your isomorphic-field assumption we have $t'^{1/m} \in \mathbb{Q}(t^{1/m})$. The intersection contains $t^{1/m}$, it is not $\Bbb{Q}$. – reuns Oct 25 '20 at 21:58
  • Dear @reuns I agree with this, and I can see that "$t'^{1/m}\in \mathbb{Q}(t^{1/m})$". My question refers to the reason for the phrase "$t'^{1/m}\in \mathbb{Q}^{1/m}$". I can not understand why we should have "$t'^{1/m}\in \mathbb{Q}^{1/m}$"? What do you mean by "$\mathbb{Q}^{1/m}$"? Do you mean "$\mathbb{Q}(\zeta_m)$"? – Tireless and hardworking Oct 25 '20 at 22:04
  • 1
    The set of $m$-th roots of rationals – reuns Oct 25 '20 at 22:17