Galois Theory

University of
Cambridge
Mathematics Tripos
Part II
Galois Theory
Michaelmas, 2017
Lectures by
C. Brookes
Notes by
Qiangru Kuang
Contents
Contents
0 History 2
1 Field Extensions 3
1.1 Field Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Digression on (non-)constructability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2 Separable, Normal and Galois Extensions 15

2.1 Separable Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.2 Trace & Norm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.3 Normal Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3 Fundamental Theorem of Galois Theory 25

3.1 Galois Group of Polynomials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.2 Galois Theory of Finite Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4 Cyclotomic and Kummer Extensions, Cubics and Quartics, So-

lution by Radicals 33
4.1 Cyclotomic Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.2 Kummer Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.3 Cubics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.4 Quartics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.5 Solubility by Radicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5 Final Thoughts 50
5.1 Algebraic Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.2 Symmetric Polynomials & Invariant Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
1
0 History
0 History
The primary motivation of this course is to study polynomial equations in one
variable and to consider whether there is a formula involving roots, i.e. solution
by radicals.
Quadratics have been well understood since long long time ago and we have
already studied them at school. For cubics and quartics, it took long time before
people discovered how to solve them by radicals. In 1770 Lagrange studied why
it worked. However, In 1799 Ruffini claimed that there were some quintics that
can’t be solved by radicals, i.e. there is no general formula, although his proof
had gaps.
In 1824, Abel (1802 – 1829) first accepted proof of insolubility using existing
ideas about permutations of roots. In 1831, Galois (1811 – 1832) first explained
why some polynomials are soluble by radicals and others are not. He made
use of a group of permutations of the roots and he realised in particular the
importance of normal subgroups.
Galois’ work was not known in his lifetime — it was only published by
Liouville in 1846 who realised that it fit in well with the work of Cauchy on
permutations.
Galois had submitted his work for various competitions and for entry into
the École Polytechnique. He died in a duel, leaving a 6 12 page letter indicating
his thoughts about future development.
Most of this course is Galois Theory but it is presented in a slightly more
modern way in terms of field extensions.
Recall from IB Groups, Rings and Modules that if f (t) is an irreducible
polynomial in K[t] for some field K then K[t]/(f (t)) is a field where f (t) is the
ideal generated by f (t). This is the starting point of this course.
This course requires quite a lot of IB Groups, Rings and Modules but no
content about module is required except in one place where it is useful to know
the Structural Theorem of Finitely Generated Abelian Groups.
2
1 Field Extensions
1 Field Extensions
1.1 Field Extensions
Definition (field extension). A field extension K ≤ L is the inclusion of a

field K into another field L, with the same 0 and 1 and the restriction of +
and · in L to K gives + and · in K.
√ √
Example. Q ≤ R, R ≤ C, Q ≤ Q( 2) = {λ + µ 2 : λ, µ ∈ Q} and Q(i) =
{λ + µi : λ, µ ∈ Q} ≤ C are all field extensions.
Suppose K ≤ L is a field extension. Then L is a K-vector space with
addition given by the field and scalar multiplication given by the multiplication
in the field L.
Definition (degree of extension). The degree of L over K is dimk L, the

dimension of the K-vector space L. It is denoted by |L : K|. It may or may
not be finite.
Definition (finite extension). If |L : K| < ∞ the extension is finite. Oth-

erwise it is infinite.
Example.
1. |C : R| = 2 since {1, i} is a basis.
2. Similarly |Q(i) : Q| = 2.
3. Q ≤ R is an infinite extension.
Theorem 1.1 (Tower Law). Suppose K ≤ L ≤ M are field extensions.

Then
|M : K| = |M : L||L : K|.
Proof. Assume |M : L| < ∞, |L : K| < ∞. Then we take an L-basis {fi }bi=1

and a K-basis {ej }aj=1 .
Now take m ∈ M . m = i=1 µi fi for some µi ∈ L. For each µi , we can
Pb
write µi = j=1 λij ej for some λij ∈ K. Thus
P∞
b X
X a
m= λij fi ej
i=1 j=1
so {fi ej } span M .
To show linear independence, it suffices to show that if m = 0 then each of
the λij is zero. When m = 0, the linear independence of fi forces each µi to be
zero. Then the linear independence of ei forces λij to be zero as required.
The proof for infinite extensions is omitted. Observe (not very rigorously)
that if M is an infinite extension of L then it is an infinite extension of K, and
if L is an infinite extension of K then the larger field M must also be an infinite
extension of K.
3
1 Field Extensions
Example. Consider √ √
Q ≤ Q( 2) ≤ Q( 2, i).
√ √ √ √
Q(√2) has {1, 2} as√a Q-basis. √ Q( 2, i) has {1, i} as a Q( 2)-basis. Now
Q( 2, i) has basis {1, 2, i, i 2} over Q. Thus
√ √ √ √
|Q( 2, i) : Q| = 4 = 2 · 2 = |Q( 2, i) : Q( 2)||Q( 2) : Q|.
√
What √ are the intermediate
√ fields between Q and Q(i, 2)? Obviously we
have Q( 2), Q(i) and Q(i 2). Are there any more?
To answer, this, the Galois correspondence arising in the Fundamental The-
orem of Galois Theory gives an order-reversing bijection between the lattice of
intermediate subfields and √ the subgroups of a group of ring automorphisms of
the extension field (Q(i, 2) here) √ that fix the smaller field element-wise.√
√ Ring automorphisms of Q(i, 2) that
√ fixes√Q include the identity e : 2 7→
2, i 7→ i and complex conjugation g√: 2 7→ 2, i 7→ −i. Notice that i and −i
play the same role in the field Q(i, 2) — they are both roots of t2 + 1 = 0.
There is another automorphism
√ √
h : 2 7→ − 2
i 7→ i
which switches the roots of t2 − 2 = 0. Notice that the composition
√ √
gh : 2 7→ − 2
i 7→ −i
√
These form a group of order 4, which equals to |Q(i, 2) : Q|.
√
Q(i, 2) {e}
2 2
2 2 2
2
√ √
Q( 2) Q(i) Q(i 2) {e, g} {e, h} {e, gh}
2
2 2 2
2
2
Q {e, g, h, gh}
The recipe for producing

√ an intermediate subfield from a subgroup is to
take the elements √of Q(i, 2) which are fixed by all elements of the subgroup.
For example, Q(i 2) is the field of elements fixed by both e and gh. This
correspondence doesn’t always work for all finite field extensions: it only works
for Galois extensions.
In the correspondence, normal extensions correspond to normal subgroups.
In this example all subgroups are normal and hence the extensions are normal.
We will also prove Primitive Element Theorem, which in the context of finite
extensions of Q tells
√ us that they
√ are necessarily of the form Q(α) for some α.
For example, Q(i, 2) = Q(i + 2).
We now do a review of IB Groups, Rings and Modules. Suppose K ≤ L is
a field extension. Take α ∈ L. Define
Iα = {f ∈ K[t] : f (α) = 0}.
4
1 Field Extensions
Definition (algebraic, transcendental). α is algebraic over K if Iα 6= {0}.

Otherwise α is transcendental over K.
Definition (algebraic extension). L is algebraic over K if for all α ∈ L, α

is algebraic over K.
Remark. Iα is the kernel of the ring homomorphism
K[t] → L
f 7→ f (α)
evaluation at α. It follows that Iα is an ideal of K[t].

Example.
√
1. 2 is algebraic over Q since it is a root of t2 − 2.
2. π is transendental over Q.
Lemma 1.2. Let K ≤ L be a finite field extension. Then L is algebraic

over K.
Proof. Let |L : K| = n. Take α ∈ L. Consider 1, α, α2 , . . . , αn . These must be
linearly dependent in the n-dimensional K-vector space L so
n
X
λi α i = 0
i=0
for some λi ∈ K not all zero. Then α is a root of f (t) = λi ti . Thus α is

Pn
i=0
algebraic over K.
The non-zero ideal Iα (where α is algebraic over K) is principal since K[t]
is a PID. Then
Definition (minimal polynomial). Iα = (fα (t)) and fα (t) can be assumed

to be monic. Such a monic fα (t) is the minimal polynomial of α over K.
Remark. Multiplication by α within the field L gives a K-linear map L → L,

an automorphism of L if α 6= 0.
In IB Groups, Rings and Modules, we proved that the minimal polynomial
of a linear map is unique.
Example.
√
1. The minimal polynomial of 2 over Q is t2 − 2.
√ √
2. The minimal polynomial of 2 over R is t − 2.
Lemma 1.3. Suppose K ≤ L is a field extension, α ∈ L and α is algebraic

over K. Then the minimal polynomial fα (t) of α over K is irreducible in
K[t] and so Iα is a prime ideal.
5
1 Field Extensions
Proof. Suppose not and fα (t) = p(t)q(t). We must show that either p(t) or
q(t) is a unit in K[t]. Note that 0 = f (α) = p(α)q(α) and so p(α) = 0 or
q(α) = 0. Assume wlog p(α) = 0. Thus p(t) ∈ Iα and so p(t) = fα (t)r(t) since
Iα = (fα (t)). Thus fα (t) = fα (t)r(t)q(t) and so r(t)q(t) = 1 in K[t]. Thus q(t)
is a unit as required.
Recall that irreducible elements in an integral domain are prime and generate
prime ideals of K[t]. Thus Iα is a prime ideal.
Definition (generated field). Suppose K ≤ L is a field extension and α ∈ L.

K(α) is defined to be the smallest subfield of L containing K and α. It is
called the field generated by K and α.
Definition (simple extension). L is a simple extension if L = K(β) for

some β ∈ L.
Given α1 , . . . , αn ∈ L, K ≤ L, K(α1 , . . . , αn ) is the smallest intermediate

field containing α1 , . . . , αn . It is the field generated by K and α1 , . . . , αn . On
the other hand, K[α] = im(K[t] → L, f 7→ f (α)) is the ring generated by K
and α.
Theorem 1.4. Suppose K ≤ L is a field extension and α ∈ L is algebraic.

Then
1. K(α) = K[α] = im(f 7→ f (α)).

2. |K(α) : K| = deg fα (f ) where fα (t) is the minimal polynomial of α
over K.
Proof.
1. Clearly K[α] ≤ K(α). We need to show that if 0 6= β ∈ K[α] then it is
a unit in K[α] and so K[α] is a field. Let β = g(α) for some g(t) ∈ K[t].
Since β = g(α) 6= 0, g(t) ∈ / Iα = (fα (t)). Therefore fα (t) - g(t). Since
fα (t) is irreducible and K[t] is a PID, there exists r(t), s(t) ∈ K[t] with
r(t)fα (t) + s(t)g(t) = 1 ∈ K[t].
Thus s(α)g(α) = 1 ∈ K[α] and thus β = g(α) is a unit as required.

2. Let n = deg fα (t). We will show that {1, α, . . . , αn−1 } is a K-vector space
basis of K[α].
• spanning: suppose
fα (t) = tn + an−1 tn−1 + · · · + a0
with ai ∈ K. Then
αn = −an−1 αn−1 − · · · − a0 .
This implies that αn is a linear combination of {αi }n−1

0 . An easy
induction shows that am for m ≥ n is likewise a linear combination
of {αi }n−1
0 . Spanning thus follows.
6
1 Field Extensions
• linear independence: suppose there is a relation i=0 λi αi = 0. Let

Pn−1
i=0 λi t . Since g(α) = 0, we have g(t) ∈ Iα = (fα (t)).

Pn−1 i
g(t) =
Thus g(t) = 0 or fα (t) | g(t). The latter is not possible by degree
consideration. Thus g(t) = 0 ∈ K[α] and all the λi ’s are zero.
Corollary 1.5. If K ≤ L is a field extension and α ∈ L then α is algebraic

over K if and only if K ≤ K(α) is finite.
Proof. Straightforward by combining previous results.
Corollary 1.6. Let K ≤ L be a field extension with |L : K| = n and α ∈ L.

Then deg fα (t) | n.
Proof. By Tower Law on K ≤ K(α) ≤ L, we deduce that |K(α) : K| divides

|L : K|. The result follows from the corollary above.
1.2 Digression on (non-)constructability

In schedules it mentions “other classical problems” and we are in a position to
tackle some of these using Corollary 1.6.
A classical problem from Greek geometry concerns the existence or otherwise
of constructions using ruler and compasses. Here “ruler” means single unmarked
straightedge. If you’re an expert you can divide a line between two points into
arbitrarily many equal segments, bisect an angle and produce parallel lines. In
addition, given a polygon, you can produce a square of the same area or double
the area. However, you cannot
1. duplicate the cube (i.e. given a cube you cannot produce a cube of double
the volume);
2. trisect the angle π/3;
3. square a circle (i.e. given a circle you cannot construct a square of the
same area).
Assume we are given a set P0 of points in R2 ,
• ruler operation draws a straight line through any points in P0 ,
• compass operation draws a circle with centre being a point in P0 and radius
being distance between a pair of points in P0 .
Definition (constructible number). The points of intersection of any two

distinct lines or circles drawn using these operations are constructible in one
step from P0 .
A point r ∈ R2 is constructible from P0 if there is a finite sequence
r1 , r2 , . . . , rn = r such that ri is constructible in one step from P0 ∪{r1 , . . . , ri−1 }.
Exercise. Construct the midpoint of a line between two points.
7
1 Field Extensions
Let K0 be the subfield of R generated by Q and the coordinates of points in

P0 . Let r0 = (xi , yi ). Set Ki = Ki−1 (xi , yi ). Then
K0 ≤ K1 ≤ · · · ≤ Kn ≤ R.
Lemma 1.7. xi , yi are both roots in Ki of quadratic polynomials in Ki−1 [t].

Proof. There are three cases:
• line intersects line.
• circle intersects circle,
• circle intersects circle.
For the line intersecting circle case, the line passes through A = (p, q) and
B = (r, s) and the circle centres at C = (t, u) and has radius w. Then the
equation of line is
x−p y−q
=
r−p s−q
and the equation of circle is
(x − t)2 + (y − u)2 = w2 .
Solving gives coordinates of the intersection satisfying quadratic polynomials
over Ki−1 .
The other cases are similar.
Theorem 1.8. If r = (x, y) is constuctible from a set P0 of points in R2

and if K0 is the subfield of R generated by Q and the coordinates of the
points in P0 then the degrees |K0 (x) : K0 | and |K0 (y) : K0 | are powers of 2.
Proof. Use the previous notation Ki = Ki−1 (xi , yi ). By Tower Law,
|Ki : Ki−1 | = |Ki−1 (xi , yi ) : Ki−1 (xi )||Ki−1 (xi ) : Ki−1 |.
But the previous lemma tells us that |Ki−1 (xi ) : Ki−1 | = 1 or 2, depending
on whether the quadratic polynomial satisfied by the point of intersection is
irreducible or not. Similarly yi satisfies a quadratic polynomial over Ki−1 ,
and hence over Ki−1 (xi ) and so Ki−1 (xi , yi ) : Ki−1 (xi )| = 1 or 2. Therefore
|Ki : Ki−1 | = 1, 2 or 4 (but in fact 4 does not happen). Therefore by Tower
Law,
|Kn : K0 | = |Kn : Kn−1 | · · · |K1 : K0 |
is a power of 2.
If r = (x, y) is contrucible from P0 then x, y ∈ Pn for some n and therefore
K0 ≤ K0 (x) ≤ Kn
K0 ≤ K0 (y) ≤ Kn
and the Tower Law again gives that |K0 (x) : K0 | and |K0 (y) : K0 | are powers
of 2.
To use this for proofs about non-constructibility we need to be reasonably
expert at working out minimal polynomials. Recall from IB Groups, Rings and
Modules
8
1 Field Extensions
Theorem 1.9 (Gauss’ Lemma). Let f (t) be a primitive integral polynomial.

Then f (t) is irreducible in Q[t] if and only if it is irreducible in Z[t].
Theorem 1.10 (Eisenstein’s criterion). Let f (t) = an tn + an−1 tn−1 + · · · +

a0 ∈ Z[t]. Suppose there is a prime p such that
• p - an ,
• p | an−1 , p | an−2 , . . . , p | a0 ,
• p2 - a0 ,
then f (t) is irreducible in Z[t].
Example. Suppose p is prime. Then
f (t) = tp−1 + tp−2 + · · · + 1
is irreducible over Q by considering f (t + 1) and using p as the prime in Eisen-

stein.
Another method to determine reducibility is to consider an integral polyno-
mials f (t) (mod p). If f (t) is reducible in Z[t] then it is reducible over Z/pZ. So
if we find a prime p such that f (t) (mod p) is irreducible then f (t) is irreducible
in Z[t].
Example. t3 + t + 1 is irreducible mod 2: if it were reducible it would have a
linear factor and so the polynomial would have a root mod 2, but 0, 1 are not
roots. So t3 + t + 1 is irreducible in Z[t] and hence irreducible in Q[t].
Remark. On example sheet we will meet an irreducible polynomials in Z[t]
which is reducible mod p for all primes p.
Now back to construcibility.
Theorem 1.11. The cube cannot be duplicated by rulers and compasses.
Proof. The problem amounts to whether given a unit distance one can construct
points distance α apart where α satisfies t3 − 2 = 0. Starting with points
P0 = {(0, 0), (1, 0)}. Can we produce (α, 0)? No. If we could, |Q(α) : Q| would
be a power of 2. We show |Q(α) : Q| = 3: since α satisfies t3 − 2, which
by Eisenstein is irreducible over Z and hence over Q. Thus it is the minimal
polynomials of α over Q.
Theorem 1.12. The circle cannot be squared using ruler and compasses.
√
Proof. Starting with (0,√
0) and (1, 0), can we construct ( π, 0) so that we have
a square of side length π, and hence the area of the square equals to the are
of the unit circle? √
The answer is no since π and hence π is transcendental over Q.
Now return to further theory develpment.
9
1 Field Extensions
Lemma 1.13. Let K ≤ L be a field extension. Then
1. α1 , . . . , αn ∈ L are algebraic over K if and only if K ≤ K(α1 , . . . , αn )

is a finite extension.
2. If K ≤ M ≤ L is such that K ≤ M is finite, then there exists
α1 , . . . , αn ∈ L such that K(α1 , . . . , αn ) = M .
Proof.
1. We know α is algebraic over K if and only if K ≤ K(a) is a finite extension.
Suppose for each i, αi is algebraic over K, hence over K(α1 , . . . , αi−1 ) and
so |K(α1 , . . . , αi ) : K(α1 , . . . , αi−1 )| < ∞. By Tower Law applied to
K ≤ K(α1 ) ≤ · · · ≤ K(α1 , . . . αn ),
we get |K(α1 , . . . , αn ) : K| < ∞.

Conversely, consider
K ≤ K(αi ) ≤ K(α1 , . . . , αn ).
Then the Tower Law says that if |K(α1 , . . . , αn ) : K| < ∞ then |K(αi ) :
K| < ∞ and so αi is algebraic over K.
2. If |M : K| = n then M is an n-dimensional K-vector space so there
exists a K-basis {α1 , . . . , αn } of M . Then K(α1 , . . . , αn ) ≤ M . However,
any elements of M is a K-linear combination of α1 , . . . , αn and so lies in
K(α1 , . . . , αn ) so equality.
Definition (K-homomorphism). Suppose K ≤ L, K ≤ L0 are field exten-

sions. A K-homomorphism φ : L → L0 is a ring homomorphism such that
φ|K = id.
Notation. Let
HomK (L, L0 ) = {K-homomorphisms L → L0 }.
A K-homomorphism φ : L → L0 is a K-isomorphism if it is a ring isomorphism.

Notation. AutK (L) = {K-isomorphism L → L0 } which has a group structure.
Lemma 1.14. Suppose K ≤ L, K ≤ L0 are field extensions. Then
1. any K-homomorphism φ : L → L0 is injective and K ≤ φ(L) is a field

extension;
2. if |L : K| = |L0 : K| < ∞, then a K-homomorphism φ : L → L0 is a
K-isomorphism.
Proof.
10
1 Field Extensions
1. L is a field and ker φ is an ideal of L. Note 1 7→ 1 and so ker φ 6= L, so

ker φ = 0. Therefore φ(L) is a field and K ≤ φ(L) is a field extension.
2. φ is an injective K-linear map and so |φ(L) : K| = |L : K|, which, by
considering the dimensions of K-vector spaces, is smaller than |L0 : K| =
|L : K| by assumption. Thus φ : L → L0 is a K-isomorphism. In particular
if L = L0 then φ is a K-automorphism of L.
Notation. If K ≤ L is a field extension and if f (t) ∈ K[t], we denote the set

of roots of f in L by Rootf (L).
Definition (splitting polynomial, splitting field). Let K ≤ L be a field

extension and f (t) ∈ K[t]. We say f splits over L if
f (t) = a(t − α1 )(t − α2 ) · · · (t − αn )
where a ∈ K, α1 , . . . , αn ∈ L.
We say L is a splitting field for f over K if L = K(α1 , . . . , αn ).
Remark. This is equivalent to saying that L is a splitting field for f over K if

and only if
1. f splits over L,
2. if K ≤ M ≤ L and f splits over M then M = L.
Example.
√ √ √ √
1. f (t) = t3 −2 over Q: Q( 3 2) is not a splitting field over Q but Q( 3 2, ω 3 2, ω 2 3 2)
is where ω is a√primitive√cubic root of unity, e.g. ω = e 3 i . Note that
2π
√ √
Q( 3 2, ω 3 2, ω 2 3 2) = Q( 3 2, ω).
√ √
As 3 2 satisfies t3 − 2 over Q and hence over Q(ω), we have √ |Q( 3 2, ω) :
Q(ω)|
√ ≤ 3. ω √ satisfies t2 + t + 1 over Q and hence over Q( 3 2) and so
|Q( 2,√ω) : Q( 3 2)| ≤ 2. Since t3 − 2 and t2 + t + 1 are irredcuible over
3
Q, |Q( 3 2) : Q| = 3 and √ |Q(ω) : Q| = 2 so by tower √ law we conclude

√ that
equality holds, i.e. |Q( 3 2, ω) : Q(ω)| = 3 and |Q( 3 2, ω) : Q( 3 2)| = 2.
√
Q( 3 2, ω)
≤3
≤2
√
Q( 3 2) Q(ω)
3
2
Q
2. f (t) = (t2 − 3)(t3 − 1) over Q: the splitting field is

√ √ √ √
Q( 3, −3, ω, ω 2 , 1) = Q( 3, ω) = Q( 3, i)
√
as ω = −1+i 3
2 .
11
1 Field Extensions
√
3. t2 − 3 and t2 − 2t − 2 both have Q( 3) as the splitting field over Q.
4. f (t) = t2 + t + 1 over F2 [t]: f (t) is irreducible over F2 since it has no
roots and hence no linear factors. Thus F2 [t]/(t2 + t + 1) is a field. Set
α = t + (t2 + t + 1) ∈ F2 [t]/(t2 + t + 1), Then F2 [t]/(t2 + t + 1) = F2 (α).
The elements are 0, 1, α and 1 + α. Note that α2 = α + 1 since F2 has
characteristic 2. Now f (t) splits over F2 (α) as
f (t) = (t − α)(t − 1 − α)
so F2 (α) is a splitting field of f over F2 .

We use the following construction to produce splitting field in general.
Theorem 1.15 (existence of splitting field). Let K be a field and f (t) ∈

K[t]. Then there exists a splitting field for f over K.
Proof. Induction of deg f . If deg f = 1 then K is the splitting field of f over

K. Suppose deg f > 1 and pick an irreducible factor g(t) of f (t) over K. Note
that K ≤ K[t]/(g(t)) is a field extension. Let α1 = t + (g(t)) ∈ K[t]/(g(t))
so K[t]/(g(t)) = K(α1 ) and g(α1 ) = 0 in K(α1 ). Therefore f (α1 ) = 0 in
K(α1 ) and we can write f (t) = (t − α1 )h(t) in K(α1 )[t]. Repeat, note that
deg h < deg f , and we get
f (t) = (t − α1 )(t − α2 ) . . . (t − αn )a
where a is a constant which is in K (by considering the top coefficient of f ).

Thus we have a factorisation of f (t) in K(α1 , . . . , αn )[t]. K(α1 , . . . , αn ) is a
splitting field for f over K.
Theorem 1.16 (uniqueness of splitting field). If K is a field and f (t) ∈

K[t], then the splitting field for f over K is unique up to K-isomorphism, i.e.
if there are two such splitting fields L and L0 then there is a K-isomorphism
φ : L → L0 .
Proof. Suppose L and L0 are splitting fields for f (t) ∈ K[t] over K. We need to
show that there is a K-isomorphism L → L0 . Suppose K ≤ M ≤ L and there
exists K ≤ M 0 ≤ L0 and a K-isomorphism ψ : M → M 0 . Clearly we can take
M = K so such intermediate fields exist. Pick M so that |M : K| is maximal
among such M, M 0 and ψ.
Now we want to show that M = L and M 0 = L0 . Note that if M = L then
f (t) splits over M , say
f (t) = a(t − α1 ) . . . (t − αm ) ∈ M [t].
Apply ψ we get an induced map M [t] → M 0 [t] which maps f (t) to
ψ(f )(t) = ψ(a)(t − ψ(α1 ) . . . (t − ψ(αm ))
so f (t) splits over ψ(M ) = M 0 . But L0 is a splitting field and L0 ≤ M 0 so we

have equality.
12
1 Field Extensions
Now suppose M 6= L and we’ll arrive at a contradition of maximality of

M . Since M 6= L, there is a root α of f (t) in L which isn’t in M . Factorise
f (t) = g(t)h(t) ∈ M [t] so that g(t) ∈ M [t] is irreducible and g(α) = 0 in L.
Then there exists a K-homomorphism
M [t]/(g(t)) → L
t + (g(t)) 7→ α
The image of the map is M (α). The K-isomorphism M [t] → M 0 [t] induced by
ψ maps g(t) ∈ M [t] to some irreducible γ(t) ∈ M 0 [t] so
f (t) = g(t)h(t) ∈ M [t]
yields
f (t) = γ(t)δ(t) ∈ M 0 [t].
We have a field extension M 0 ≤ M 0 [t]/(γ(t)) and there exists an M 0 -homomorphism
M 0 [t]/(γ(t)) → L0
t + (γ(t)) 7→ α0
by picking a root α0 of γ(t) in L0 . However γ(t) | f (t) in M 0 [t] and hence in

L0 [t] and so α0 is also a root of f (t) in L0 .
The M 0 -homomorphism gives a K-isomorphism M 0 [t]/(γ(t)) → M 0 (α0 ) and
we have a K-homomorphism M (α) → M 0 (α0 ), contradicting the maximality of
M.
Definition (normal extension). An algebraic field extension K ≤ L is nor-

mal if for every α ∈ L, the minimal polynomial fα (t) of α over K splits over
L.
Theorem 1.17. Let K ≤ L be a finite field extension, then K ≤ L is

normal if and only if L is the splitting field for some f (t) ∈ K[t].
Proof. Later.
Example. Let F be a finite field with |F| = m. F has characteristic p for some
prime p and Fp ≤ F. Therefore m = pr for some r.
The nonzero elements of F form the multiplicative group or orderQnn = m − 1
and they satisfy tn − 1 so they are roots of tn − 1. Thus tn − 1 = i=1 (t − αi )
where the αi ’s are the nonzero elements of F. Thus F is the splitting field for
tn − 1 over Fp .
By uniqueness of splitting field, any other field with m elements is Fp -
isomorphic to F. (We will later show that there exists a field of m elements.)
Theorem 1.18. Let G be a finite subgroup of the multiplicative group of a

field K. Then G is cyclic.
In particular the multiplicative group of a finite field is cyclic.
13
1 Field Extensions
Proof. Let |G| = n. By the structure theorem of finite abelian groups from IB
Group, Rings and Modules,
G∼
= Cq1m1 × Cq2m2 × · · · × Cqrmr
with qi ’s (not necessarily distinct) prime.

If q = qi = qj for some i 6= j then there are at least q 2 distinct solutions of
t − 1 in K (since Cq × Cq is isomorphic to a subgroup of G). However, in a
q
field, which is an integral domain, a polynomial of degree q has at most q roots,

contradiction.
Thus all the qi ’s are distinct and G is cyclic and is generated by g1 . . . gr
where each gi generates Cqmi .
i
14
2 Separable, Normal and Galois Extensions

2.1 Separable Extension
Definition (separable polynomial). Let K be a field and f (t) ∈ K[t]. Sup-

pose f (t) is irreducible in K[t] and L is a splitting field of f (t) over K. Then
f (t) is separable over K if f (t) has no repeated roots in L. For general f (t),
we say f (t) is separable over K if every irreducible factor in K[t] is separable
over K.
All constant polynomials are deemed to be separable.
Definition (formal differentiation). If K is a field, the formal differentiation

is the K-linear map
D : K[t] → K[t]
tn 7→ ntn−1
Notation. Denote D(f (t)) by f 0 (t).
Lemma 2.1. Let K be a field, f (t), g(t) ∈ K[t]. Then
(f (t)g(t))0 = f 0 (t)g(t) + f (t)g 0 (t)
and if f (t) 6= 0, f (t) has a repeated root in a splitting field if and only if
f (t) and f 0 (t) have a common irreducible factor in K[t].
Proof. D is a K-linear map so we only need to check for f (t) = tn . It is left as

an exercise.
Let α be a repeated root in a splitting field L. Then f (t) = (t−α)2 g(t) ∈ L[t]
so f 0 (t) = (t − α)2 g 0 (t) + 2(t − α)g(t) and f 0 (α) = 0. Therefore the minimal
polynomial fα (t) of α in K[t] divides both f (t) and f 0 (t), so it is a common
irreducible factor of f (t) and f 0 (t).
Conversely, let h(t) be a common irreducible factor of f (t) and f 0 (t) in K[t].
Pick a root α ∈ L of h(t). Then f (α) = f 0 (α) = 0. Then f (t) = (t−α)g(t) ∈ L[t]
and f 0 (t) = (t − α)g 0 (t) + g(t). Since f 0 (α) = 0, we have (t − α) | f 0 (t) so
(t − α) | g(t). Hence (t − α)2 | f (t).
Corollary 2.2. If K is a field and f (t) ∈ K[t] is irreducible, then

1. if char K = 0 then f (t) is separable over K,
2. if char K = p > 0 then f (t) is not separable if and only if f (t) ∈ K[tp ].
Proof. By Lemma 2.1, f (t) is not separable if and only if f (t) and f 0 (t) have
a common irreducible factor. But since f (t) is irreducible, the only possible
factor isPf (t) itself, i.e. f (t) | f 0P
(t). f 0 (t) = 0 as it has a smaller degree. But if
f (t) = i=0 ai t then f (t) = i=1 iai ti−1 so f 0 (t) = 0 if and only if iai = 0
n i 0 n
for all i ≥ 1. Thus
15
1. if char K = 0, f 0 (t) 6= 0 for non-constant f (t) so f (t) is separable over K,

2. if char K = p > 0, then if f 0 (t) = 0 we must have iai = 0 for all i ≥ 1, i.e.
f (t) is not separable if and only if f (t) ∈ K[tp ].
Definition (separable element). If K ≤ L is a field extension, we say α ∈ L

is separable over K if its minimal polynomial is separable over K.
Definition (purely inseparable). If the minimal polynomial of α is fα (t) =

(t − α)n = tn − αn where n is a power of char K, α is said to be purely
inseparable over K.
Definition (separable extension). Given K ≤ L, L is separable over K if

all elements of L are separable over K.
Example.
1. Let Q ≤ L be an algebraic extension. Then L is separable over Q.
2. Let L = Fp (X), the field of rational functions in X over Fp . It has
K = Fp (X p ) as a subfield. Then K ≤ L is not separable:
Proof. Observe that if f (t) = tp − X p ∈ K[t] then f 0 (t) = 0. But tp −

X p = (t − X)p ∈ L[t]. However, f (t) ∈ K[t] is irreducible: suppose
f (t) = g(t)h(t) ∈ K[t] ⊆ L[t], we get g(t) = (t − X)r for some 0 < r < p
if the factorisation is non-trivial. But this would mean X r ∈ K. However
r and p are coprime so there exist a, b ∈ Z such that ar + bp = 1, so
X = (X r )a (X p )b ∈ K. Thus we would have X = u(X p )/v(X p ), absurd.
Thus f (t) = tp − X p is the minimal polynomial of X over K. α is purely
inseparable over K and it follows that K ≤ L is not separable.
3. Let F be a finite field with |F| = m, a power of char F, and f (t) = tn − 1

where n = m − 1. We know this is separable over Fp since we saw that
f (t) has distinct linear factors in F[t].
Remark. It is useful to have an alternative approach to separability of field
extensions without having to check separability of minimal polynomials for
all elements of the larger field. This is where we start thinking about K-
homomorphisms.
Lemma 2.3. Let M = K(α) where α is algebraic over K. Let fα (t) be

the minimal polynomial of α over K. For any field extension K ≤ L, the
number of K-homomorphisms M → L is equal to the number of distinct
roots of fα (t) in L. Thus
| HomK (M, L)| ≤ deg fα (t) = |K(α) : K| = |M : K|.
16
Proof. We know that any K-homomorphism M → L is injective. Since K(α) ∼ =

K[t]/(fα (t)), for any root β of fα (t) in L, we can define a K-homomorphism
K[t]/(fα (t)) → L
t + (fα (t)) 7→ β
Conversely, for any K-homomorphism φ : M → L, the image φ(α) must

satisfy fα (φ(α)) = 0. These two maps are inverses to each other. Thus there is
a one-to-one correspondence
{K-homomorphism M → L} ↔ {root of fα (t) in L}.
√ √
Example. Let K = Q, L = Q( 3 2). Then α = 3 2 has minimal polynomial
√
fα (t) = t3 − 2 over Q. There is only one K-homomorphism M = K( 3 2) → L,
i.e. the identity map.
Corollary 2.4. In the previous lemma, the number of K-homomorphisms

K(α) → L equals to deg fα (t) if and only if L is large enough (so that it
contains a splitting field for fα (t)) and α is separable over K.
Proof. Trivial from Lemma 2.3.
Lemma 2.5. Let K ≤ M be a field extension and M1 = M (α), where α is

algebraic over M . Let f (t) be the minimal polynomial of α over M and let
K ≤ L. Let φ : M → L be a K-homomorphism. Then there is a one-to-one
correspondence
{extension φ1 : M1 → L of φ} ↔ {root of φ(f (t)) in L}.
Remark. Lemma 2.3 is a special case where M = K and φ = idK .

Proof. f (t) ∈ M [t] is irreducible so φ(f (t)) ∈ φ(M )[t] is irreducible. Any exten-
sion φ1 : M1 → L of φ produces a root φ1 (α) of φ(f (t)).
Conversely, given a root γ of φ(f (t)) in L,
M1 = M (α) ∼
= M [t]/(f (t)) ∼
= φ(M )[t]/(φ(f (t))) ∼
= φ(M )(γ) ≤ L
so we get an extension φ1 of φ as required.
Corollary 2.6. Given L contains a splitting field of f (t), the number of φ1

extending φ equals to the number of distinct roots of f (t) in L.
This equals to |M1 : M | if and only if α is separable over M .
Corollary 2.7. Let K ≤ M ≤ N be finite field extensions and K ≤ L. Let

φ : M → L be a K-homomorphism. Then the number of extensions of φ to
maps θ : N → L is less than or equal to |N : M |.
Moreover, such θ exists if L is large enough.
17
Proof. Pick α1 , . . . αn so that N = M (α1 , . . . , αr ) and set Mi = M (α1 , . . . , αi ).

Thus we have got
M ≤ M1 ≤ · · · ≤ Mr = N.
Use Lemma 2.5 repeatedly, there are at most |M1 : M | extensions φ1 : M1 → L
of φ and |Mi+1 : M | extensions φi+1 : Mi+1 → L of φi for 1 ≤ i < r so by Tower
Law the number of extensions θ : N → L of φ is less than or equal to
|Mr : Mr−1 ||Mr−1 : Mr−2 | · · · |M1 : M | = |N : M |.
The last bit come from the proof of Lemma 2.5 since we need L to contain
a root.
Remark. The proof shows that the number of extensions θ of φ is |N : M | if
and only if L is large enough and αi is separable over M (α1 , . . . , αi−1 ) for all i.
Theorem 2.8. Let K ≤ N be a field extension with |N : K| = n and

N = K(α1 , . . . , αi ), say. Then TFAE:
1. K ≤ N is separable.
2. Each αi is separable over K(α1 , . . . , αi−1 ).
3. If L is large enough then there are exactly n distinct K-homomorphisms
N → L.
Proof.
• 1 ⇒ 2: If K ≤ N is separable then each αi is separable over K. As
K ≤ K(α1 , . . . , αi−1 ), the minimal polynomial of αi over K(α1 , . . . , αi−1 )
divides that over K. So if the latter has distinct roots in a splitting field
then the former does as well.
• 2 ⇒ 3: Corollary 2.7.
• 3 ⇒ 1: Suppose 3 is true and 1 is false, we shall get a contradiction.
Suppose there exists β ∈ N that is not separable over K. Then there are
strictly less than |K(β) : K| K-homomorphisms φ : K(β) → L. Each φ
extends to at most |N : K(β)| extensions θ : N → L. Thus there are
stricly less than |N : K(β)||K(β) : K| = |N : K| = n K-homomorphisms
N → L. Absurd.
Corollary 2.9. A finite extension is separable if and only if it is separably

generated.
Proof. 1 ⇔ 2 above.
18
Lemma 2.10. If K ≤ M ≤ L are finite extensions then M ≤ L and K ≤ M

are both separable if and only if K ≤ L is separable.
Proof. Example sheet.

Example. Let F be a finite field with |F| = m. Then the multiplicative group
of order n = m − 1 is cyclic. Take a generator α, then F = F(α). Since αn = 1,
the minimal polynomial of α divides tn − 1.
Since tn − 1 has distinct roots (all the non-zero elements of F), the minimal
polynomial of α is separable so F = F(α) is separable over F.
Theorem 2.11 (Primitive Element Theorem). Any finite separable exten-

sion K ≤ M is simple, i.e. M = K(α) for some α, which is called the
primitive element.
Proof. If K is a finite field then M is also finite. So we can take α to be generator

of the multiplicative group of M , which is cyclic.
Now assume K is an infinite field. Since K ≤ M is a finite extension,
M = K(α1 , . . . , αn ) for some αi . It suffices to show that any field M = K(α, β)
with β separable over K is of the form K(γ).
Take f (t) and g(t) to be the minimal polynomials of α and β over K respec-
tively. Let L be the splitting field for f (t)g(t) over K(α, β). The distinct zeros
of f (t) in L are α1 = α, α2 , . . . , αa and those of g(t) are β1 = β, β2 , . . . , βb . By
separability we know b = deg g(t). Choose λ ∈ K such that all αi + λβj are
distinct (this is possible since K is infinite). Now we set γ = α + λβ (remember
α is α1 and β is β1 ). Let F (t) = f (γ − λt) ∈ K(γ)[t]. We have g(β) = 0 and
F (β) = f (α) = 0. Thus F (t) and g(t) have a common zero. Any other common
zero would have to be βj for some j > 1. But then F (βj ) = f (α + λ(β − βj )).
By assumption α + γ(β − βj ) is never an αi so f (βj ) 6= 0.
Now separability of g(t) says that the linear factors are all disinct. So t − β
is a highest common factor of F (t) and g(t) in L[t]. However, the minimal
polynomial h(t) of β over K(γ) divides F (t) and g(t) in K(γ)[t], and hence in
L[t]. This imples h(t) = t − β, and so β ∈ K(γ). Therefore α = γ − λβ ∈ K(γ).
So K(α, β) ≤ K(γ). The other direction is obvious.
√
Exercise. In our√example on page√4 we have Q ≤ Q( 2, i). We had interme-
diate subfields Q( 2),√ Q(i) and Q(i 2). If we follow the procedure of the proof
of
√ Theorem 2.11, α
√ = 2, β = i, f (t) = t2 − 2 and g(t) = t2 + 1. Consider some
2 + λi√where ± √ 2 ± λi are all distinct, for example λ = 1. The proof show
that Q( 2, i) = Q( 2 + i).
2.2 Trace & Norm

These will also be used in IID Number Fields.
Definition (trace, norm). Let K ≤ M be a finite field extension and α ∈ M .

Multiplication by a is a K-linear map θα : M → M . The trace of α over K
is
TrM/K (α) = Tr θα ∈ K
19
and the norm of α over K is
NM/K (α) = det θα ∈ K.

Note. Trace and norm depend on the ground field.
Theorem 2.12. Suppose fα (t) = ts + as−1 ts−1 + · · · + a0 is the minimal

polynomial of α over K. Let r = |M : K(α)|. Then the characteristic
polynomial of θα is (fα (t))r and
TrM/K (α) = −ras−1

NM/K (α) = ((−1)s a0 )r
Proof. Regard M as a K(α)-vector space with basis β1 = 1, β2 , . . . , βr . Now

take the K-vecotr space basis 1, α, α2 , . . . , αs−1 of K(α). Then {αi βj }i<s,j≤r is
a K-vector space basis for M . Multiplication by α in K(α) is represented by
the matrix  
0 ··· −a0
1 0
 ··· −a1 
0 1 0 · · · −a2 
A=
 .. . . .. 

. . . 
0 0 ··· 1 −as−1
so multiplication by α in M is represented by the rs × rs matrix
 
A 0 ··· 0
0 A · · · 0
 .. .. .
. .. 
 
.
0 0 ··· A
whose characteristic polynomial is (fα (t))r . By inspecting the coefficients of the

characteristic polynomial we get the trace and norm.
Theorem 2.13. Let K ≤ M be a finite separable field extension and |M :

K| = n. Let α ∈ M and K ≤ L large enough so that there are n distinct
K-homomorphisms σ1 , . . . , σn : M → L. Then the characteristic polynomial
of θα : M → M is
Y n
(t − σi (α)).
i=1
Thus
n
X
TrM/K (α) = σi (α)
i=1
Yn
NM/K (α) = σi (α)
i=1
20
Proof. Let
s
Y
fα (t) = (t − αi ) = ts + as−1 ts−1 + · · · + a0
i=1
be the minimal polynomial of α over K in L[t] where L is large enough that

fα (t) splits in L. There are s K-homomorphisms K(α) → L, corresponding
to maps sending α to αi . Each of these extends in r = |M : K(α)| ways to
give K(α)-homomorphisms M → L. However, each of such extension mapping
α 7→ αi still does so. So there are r maps sending α → αi for each i. Thus if
the n = rs distinct K-homomorphism M → L are σ1 , . . . , σn then
n
X
σi (α) = r(α1 + · · · + αs ) = −ras−1 = TrM/K (α)
i=1
since the sum of roots of fα (t) is −as−1 , and

n
Y
σi (α) = ((−1)s a0 )r = NM/K (α).
i=1
Recall from Theorem 2.12 that the characteristic polynomial of θα is (fα (t))r
where fα (t) is the minimal polynomial of α over K and r = |M : K(α)|.
The characteristic polynomial is n=1 (t − αi )r where αi are the roots of fα (t)
Qs
in a splitting field. We also saw that those root are σ1 (α), . . . , σn (α) so the
characteristic polynomial is
Yn
(t − σi (α)).
i=1
Theorem 2.14. Let K ≤ M be a finite separable extension. We define a

K-bilinear form
T :M ×M →K
(x, y) 7→ TrM/K (xy)
where xy is the product in M . Then this is non-degenerate. In particular,

the K-linear map TrM/K : M → K is non-zero. Thus it is surjective.
Remark. If K ≤ M is a finite extension which is not separable then TrM/K is

always zero. It follows that T is degnerate. See example sheet.
Proof. By Primitive Element Theorem, separability implies that M = K(α)
for some α. We have a K-basis {αi }n−1i=0 of K(α) where n = |M : K|. The
K-bilinear form T is represented by the matrix
 
TrM/K (1) TrM/K (α) · · ·
A = TrM/K (α) TrM/K (α2 ) · · ·
··· ··· ···
Let L beQa splitting field of the minimal polynomial f (t) of α over K. Then
fα (t) = i=1 (t − αi ) with α1 , . . . , αn ∈ L. The entries in A are of the form
n
TrM/K (α ) which is α1` + · · · + αn` by Theorem 2.13.

`
21
Now consider ∆ = i<j (αi − αj ), the Vandermonde determinant, is the

Q
determinant of the Vandermonde matrix
 
1 1 ··· 1
 α1
 2 α2 ··· αn 
2
αn2 

V =
 α1 α 2 · · ·
 .. .. .. 

 . . . 
n−1 n−1 n−1
α1 α2 . . . αn
Observe that Aij = αni+j−2 , Vij = αji−1 so

P
n
(V V T )ik = Vij Vkj

= αji−1 αjk−1
X
= αni+k−2
n
= Aik
so V V T = A. Thus 0 6= D = ∆2 = |V V T | = |A|. Thus A is non-singular and

therfore the bilinear form T is non-degenerate.
Remark. We will meet D again shortly. It is the discriminant of the polynomial
fα (t).
2.3 Normal Extensions

We met this definition before:
Definition (normal extension). An extension K ≤ M is normal if for every

α ∈ M , the minimal polynomial fα (t) of α over K splits over M .
Theorem 2.15. Let K ≤ M be a finite field extension. Then K ≤ M is

normal if and only if M is the splitting field for some f (t) ∈ K[t].
Proof.
• ⇒: suppose K ≤ M is normal. Pick α1 , . . . , αr ∈ M such that M =

K(α1 , . . . , αk ). Let fαi (t) be the minimal polynomial of αi over K. Let
Qk
f (t) = n=1 fαi (t).
By normality, each fαi (t) splits over M and so is f (t). M is the splitting
field of f (t) over K since if β1 , . . . , βm are the roots of f (t) then M =
K(β1 , . . . , βm ).
• ⇐: suppose M is a splitting field for f (t) over K. Then M = K(β1 , . . . , βm )

where βj are the roots of f (t) over M . Take α ∈ M . Let fα (t) be the
minimal polynomial of α over K. Let M ≤ L be large enough so that
fα (t) splits over L.
Now consider a K-homomorphism φ : M → L: φ(βj ) is also a root of f (t)
and is therefore one of the βj . Injectivity of K-homomorphisms implies
22
that φ permutes βj . However, M = K(β1 , . . . , βm ) and so φ is determined

by the images of βj , thus φ(M ) = M .
However, if αi is a root of fα (t) in L, then there is a K-homomorphism
K(α) → K(αi )
α 7→ αi
This extends by 2.7 to a K-homomorphism φ : M → L. But φ(M ) = M

so αi ∈ M . Thus M is normal over K.
Remark. As the same for separability, being normal is equivalent to being

normally generated. We will show in example sheet that K ≤ L is a normal and
finite extension if and only if L = K(α1 , . . . , αr ) with the minimal polynomial
of each adjoined element splitting over L.
Definition (K-automorphism group). Let K ≤ M be a finite extension.

Its K-automorphism group is
AutK (M ) = HomK (M, M ).
From before we know that such K-automorphisms are isomorphisms and

thus have inverses (well, it name says so).
Lemma 2.16.
| AutK (M )| ≤ |M : K|.
Proof. Corollary 2.7.
Theorem 2.17. Let K ≤ M be a finite field extension, then
| AutK (M )| = |M : K|
if and only if the extension is both normal and separable.
Definition (Galois extension). A finite field extension that is normal and

separable is a Galois extension.
Definition (Galois group). Let K ≤ M be a Galois extension. Then the

K-automorphism group of M is the Galois group of M over K, denoted by
Gal(M/K).
Remark. Some authors use the term “Galois group” as a synonym for auto-
morphism group even when the extension is not Galois.
23
Proof of Theorem 2.17. Suppose | AutK (M )| = |M : K| = n. Let M ≤ L be

large enough. The n distinct K-automorphisms φ : M → M extend to n K-
homomorphisms φ : M → L and Theorem 2.8 says that M is separable over
K.
For normality, pick α ∈ M with minimal polynomial fα (t) over K. Take
M = K(α1 , . . . , αm ) as in the proof of Corollary 2.7 with α = α1 and L = M .
We only get |M : K| extensions of the inclusion K ,→ M if each inequality in the
proof is an equality. In particular, we need the number of K-homomorphisms
K(α1 ) → M to be |K(α1 ) : K|. But then root correspondence says we have
|K(α) : K| distinct roots of fα (t) in M . Thus fα (t) splits over M .
Conversely, suppose K ≤ M is separable and normal. Then for K ≤ M ≤ L
with L large enough, separability implies there are |M : K| K-homomorphisms
φ : M → L by Theorem 2.8. However, K ≤ M is normal implies that it is the
splitting field Q
for some polynomial f (t) ∈ K[t] and thus M = K(α1 , . . . , αn )
where f (t) = i=1 (t − αi ). Note that φ(αj ) is also a root of φ(f (t)) = f (t), and
n
is therefore one of the αj . Thus φ(M ) = M . Thus | AutK (M )| = |M : K|.

Remark. In the previous proof we have shown that if K ≤ M ≤ L, φ ∈
HomK (M, L) and K ≤ M is normal then φ(M ) = M .
Example.
√
1. Consider Q ≤ Q( 2, i), which is Galois:
√ √ √
Gal(Q( 2, i)/Q) = hσ : 2 7→ − 2, τ : i 7→ −ii ∼
= C2 × C2 .
All non-identity elements have order 2.

√
2. Let f (t) = t3 − 2. The splitting field of f (t) over √
Q is Q( 3 2, ω) where
ω is a primitive
√ cubic root√ of unity. Thus Q ≤ Q( 3 2, ω) is Galois with
| Gal(Q( 2, ω)/Q|) = |Q( 2, ω) : Q| = 6. The Galois group contains
3 3
√
3
√
3
σ : 2 7→ ω 2, ω 7→ ω
√ √
τ : 2 7→ 2, ω 7→ ω 2 (complex conjugation)
3 3
and is generated
√ by these two elements. It is an exercise to show that
Gal(Q( 3 2, ω)/Q) ∼ = S3 .
= D6 ∼
24
3 Fundamental Theorem of Galois Theory
Definition (fixed field). Let K ≤ L be a field extension and H ≤ AutK (L).

The fixed field of H is
LH = {α ∈ L : σ(α) = α for all σ ∈ H}.
The fixed field is a field and K ≤ LH ≤ L.
Theorem 3.1 (Fundamental Theorem of Galois Theory). Let K ≤ L be a

finite Galois extension. Then
1. There is a one-to-one correspondence
intermediate subfield subgroup

←→
K≤M ≤L H ≤ Gal(L/K)
M 7→ AutM (L)
LH ←[ H
2. H is a normal subgroup of Gal(L/K) if and only if K ≤ LH is normal

if and only if K ≤ LH is Galois.
3. If H E Gal(L/K) then the map
θ : Gal(L/K) → Gal(LH /K)
given by restriction to LH is a surjective group homomorphism with

kernel H.
Remark.
1. Observe that M ≤ L is Galois and so we could have written Gal(L/M )

instead of AutM (L). To see this,
• separability: follows from Lemma 2.10.
• normality: if α ∈ L then the minimal polynomial of α over M divides
the minimal polynomial of α over K. But the latter splits over L (see
example sheet).
2. If K ≤ M is normal then the remark after proof of Theorem 2.17 says if
σ : L → L then σ(M ) = M and so we can talk about the restriction of α
to M giving an automorphism of M .
Example.
√
1. Q ≤ Q( 2, i). We saw in example√ on page 4 the lattices of intermediate
subfields and subgroups Gal(Q( 2, i)/Q) ∼ = C2 × C2 which is abelian.
Thus all subgroups are normal and all intermediate subfields are normal
extensions of Q.
25
√
2. Q ≤ Q( 3 2, ω).
√
Q( 3 2, ω)
2 2
2
3
√ √ √
Q(ω) Q( 3 2) Q(ω 3 2) Q(ω 2 3 2)
2 3
3 3
Q
1
2 2
2
3
hσi hτ i hσ 2 τ i hστ i
2
3 3
3
hσ, τ i ∼
= D6
The subgroup H√of order 3 is normal but those of order 2 are not so
the map Gal(Q( 3 2, ω)/Q) → Gal(Q(ω)/Q), i.e. D6 → C2 , generated by
conjugation has kernel hσi.
Theorem 3.2 (Artin). Let K ≤ L be a field extension and H ≤ AutK (L)

be a finite subgroup. Let M = LH . Then M ≤ L is a finite Galois extension
and H = Gal(L/M ).
Remark. This implies one way of Galois correspondence:
H 7→ LH 7→ Gal(L/LH ) = H.
Proof. Take α ∈ L. We first show that |M (α) : M | ≤ |H|. Let {α1 , . . . , αn }

be
Qn the distinct images of α under H, i.e. {φ(α) : φ ∈ H}. Define g(t) =
i=1 (t − αi ). Each φ induces an endomorphism on L[t] under which g(t) is
invariant since φ permutes the αi . Thus the coefficients lie in LH = M and so
g(t) ∈ M [t]. By definition g(α) = 0 since α is one of the αi . Hence the minimal
polynomial fα (t) of α over M divides g(t). Thus
|M (α) : M | = deg fα (t) ≤ deg g(t) ≤ |H|.
This step shows that α is algebraic over M and fα (t) is separable since g(t) is.
Thus M ≤ L is a separable extension.
Next we show that M ≤ L is a simple extension. Pick α ∈ L with |M (α) : M |
maximal. We will show that L = M (α) for this α. Suppose β ∈ L. Then
M ≤ M (α, β) is finite and separably generated and hence is a finite separable
extension. By Primitive Element Theorem M (α, β) = M (γ) for some γ. But
then
M ≤ M (α) ≤ M (γ)
so by the maximality of |M (α) : M |, M (α) = M (γ). Thus β ∈ M (γ) = M (α)
so L = M (α).
It follows that |L : M | ≤ |H|.
26
Finally, H ≤ AutM (L) so
|L : M | = |M (α) : M | ≤ |H| ≤ | AutM (L)| ≤ |L : M |
so we must have equality throughtout, i.e. |L : M | = | AutM (L)| = |H| so

M ≤ L is a finite Galois extension and H = Gal(L/M ).
Theorem 3.3. Let K ≤ L be a finite field extension. TFAE:

1. K ≤ L is Galois,
2. LH = K where H = AutK (L).
Remark. The theorem allows some authors to give yet another definition of a
Galois extension.
Proof.
1. 1 ⇒ 2: Let M = LH where H = AutK (L). By Artin M ≤ L is a Galois
extension. Now we have two Galois extensions, giving the equalities
|H| = | Gal(L/K)| = |L : K|
= | Gal(L/M )| = |L : M |
As K ≤ LH = M , equality.
2. 2 ⇒ 1: Artin.
Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Galois Theory.

1. Composing the maps
H 7→ LH
M 7→ Gal(L/M )
gives H → H by Artin. Composition the other way M 7→ Gal(L/M ) 7→

LH where H = Gal(L/M ) gives M by Theorem 3.3.
2. Take H ≤ Gal(L/K). Then for φ ∈ Gal(L/K), LφHφ = φ(LH ) so by 1

−1
H E Gal(L/K) if and only if φ(LH ) = LH . Let M = LH . We will show

that K ≤ M is normal if and only if φ(M ) = M for every φ ∈ Gal(L/K):
• ⇒: remark 2 after Theorem 3.1.
• ⇐: suppose φ(M ) = M for all φ ∈ Gal(L/K). Pick α ∈ M and
let fα (t) be its minimal polynomial over K. We take β as a root
for fα (t) in L (which is possible by normality). Then there is a
K-homomorphism
K(α) → K(β)
α 7→ β
This extends to a K-homomorphism φ : L → L. Since we assume

φ(M ) = M , φ(α) = β ∈ M . Thus K ≤ M is normal.
27
Note that K ≤ M is separable since K ≤ M ≤ L and K ≤ L is separable.

Thus K ≤ M is Galois.
3. By remark 2 after Theorem 3.1, the restriction map θ : Gal(L/K) →
Gal(LH /K) is well-defined. Surjectivity follows from being able to extend
a K-homomorphism LH → LH ≤ L to a K-homomorphism L → L.
Clearly H ≤ ker θ. However
|L : K| | Gal(L/K)|
=
| ker θ| | ker θ|
= | Gal(LH /K)| by surjectivity of θ
= |LH : K| since K ≤ LH is Galois
|L : K|
= by Tower Law
|L : LH |
Then
| ker θ| = |L : LH | = | Gal(L/LH )| = |H|
by Artin. Thus ker θ = H.
3.1 Galois Group of Polynomials
Definition (Galois group). Let f (t) ∈ K[t] be a separable polynomial and

K ≤ L with L a splitting field for f (t). Then the Galois group of f (t) over
K is
Gal(f ) = Gal(L/K).
Since L is a splitting field for f (t), L = K(α1 , . . . , αn ) where α1 , . . . , αn are
the roots of f (t) in L. Observe that if φ ∈ Gal(L/K) it maps bijectively roots
of f (t) to itself. Thus φ permutes the αi .
Moreover if φ fixes each αi it also fixes all elements of L and so it is the
identity map. Thus Gal(f ) may be regarded as a permutation group of the n
roots, so in particular admitting a permutation representation in Sn .
Lemma 3.4. Suppose separable f (t) = g1 (t) · · · gs (t) with gi (t) irreducible
in K[t] is a factorisation in K[t]. Then the orbits of Gal(f ) acting on the
roots of f (t) correspond to the factors gj (t): two roots are in the same orbit
if and only if they are roots of the same gi (t).
In particular if f (t) ∈ K[t] is irreducible, there is only one orbit, i.e.
Gal(f ) acts transitively on the roots of f (t).
Proof. Let αk and α` be in the same orbit under Gal(f ). Thus there is φ ∈
Gal(f ) with α` = φ(αk ). But if αk is a root of gj (t) then φ(αk ) is also a root of
gj (t).
Conversely if αk and α` are roots of gj (t), then
K(αk ) ∼
= K[t]/(gj (t)) ∼
= K(α` ) ≤ L
Denote by φ0 the isomorphsim K(αk ) → K(α` ). φ0 extends to φ ∈ Gal(L/K).
Thus αk and α` are in the same orbit.
28
Lemma 3.5. The transitive subgroups of Sn for n ≤ 5 are
n
2 S2 ∼= C2
3 A3 ∼= C3 , S 3
4 C4 , V 4 , D 8 , A 4 , S 4
5 C5 , D10 , H20 , A5 , S5
where H20 is generated by a 5-cycle and a 4-cycle.
Theorem 3.6. Let p be a prime and f (t) ∈ Q[t] irreducible of degree p.

Suppose f (t) has exactly 2 non-real roots in C. Then
Gal(f ) ∼
= Sp .
Proof. Gal(f ) acts on the p distinct roots of f (t) in a splitting field L of f (t) (in
C). By Lemma 3.4 the irreducibility of f (t) implies that Gal(f ) acts transitively
on p roots so by orbit-stabiliser p | | Gal(f )| but
| Gal(f )| ≤ |Sp | = p!
and so Gal(f ) has a Sylow p-subgroup of order p, necessarily cyclic. Thus
Gal(f ) contains a p-cycle. Supposition that there are exactly 2 non-real roots
gives that complex conjugation yields a transposition in Gal(f ). The p-cycle
and the transposition generate Sp .
Example. Let f (t) = t5 − 6t + 3 ∈ Q[t], then claim Gal(f ) ∼
= S5 :
Proof. f (t) is irreducible by Eisenstein with p = 3. We want to show that f (t)
has 3 real roots (so 2 non-real roots) and apply the previous theorem.
Now we apply knowledge from analysis:
f (−2) = −17, f (−1) = 8, f (1) = −2, f (2) = 23
and f 0 (t) = 5t4 − 6 which has two real roots. Thus by Intermediate Value
Theorem there are 3 real roots while by Rolle’s Theorem there are at most 3
real roots.
Definition (discriminant). Let f (t) ∈ K[t] have distinct roots Q α1 , . . . , αn

(in a splitting field) (f (t) need not be irreducible). Set ∆ = i<j (αi − αj ).
Then the discriminant of f is
Y n(n−1) Y
D(f ) = ∆2 = (αi − αj )2 = (−1) 2 (αi − αj ).
i<j i6=j
Remark. We have already met this in the proof of Theorem 2.14.
Lemma 3.7. Let f (t) ∈ K[t] be separable of degree n with char K 6= 2.

Then
Gal(f ) ≤ An ⇔ D(f ) is a square in K.
29
Proof. Let L be a splitting field of f (t) over K. Then D(f ) 6= 0 and is fixed by
all elements of G = Gal(L/K) as the latter permutes the roots. Thus D ∈ K
since LG = K by Galois correspondence.
If σ ∈ G then σ(∆) = (sgn σ)∆ where we are regarding G as a subgroup of
Sn and sgn is the signature (this is where we need char K 6= 2). Thus if G ≤ An
we got that ∆ is fixed by all σ ∈ G. Thus ∆ ∈ K = LG .
On the other hand if G An we get σ(∆) = −∆ if σ is odd and so ∆ ∈ /
K = LG . Finally note that if D has square roots they must be ±∆.
Example.
1. n = 2: f (t) = t2 + bt + c = (t − α1 )(t − α2 ) has discriminant
D(f ) = (α1 − α2 )2 − (α1 + α2 )2 − 4α1 α2 = b2 − 4c
2. n = 3: f (t) = t3 + ct + d has discriminant
D(t) = −4c3 − 27d2
Remark. Any general monic cubic g(t) can be put into this form by a
suitable substitution f (t) = g(t1 + λ) for suitable λ. Note D(f ) = D(g).
Example.
• f (t) = t3 − t − 1 ∈ Q[t] irreducible in Z[t] since irreducible mod 2. D(f ) =
−23 which is not a square in Q. Thus Gal(f ) ∼ = S3 .
• f (t) = t3 − 3t − 1 ∈ Q[t] irredicible since irreducible mod 2. D(f ) = 81
which is a square so Gal(f ) ∼= A3 .
Now we move on to irreducible quartics. We saw that the possible Galois
groups are
V4 , A4 , C4 , D8 , S4
with the first two being subgroups of A4 . From looking at the discriminant one
gets information as whether the group is one of V4 , A4 or one of C4 , D8 , S4 . We
need further methods to pin down which group we are dealing with.
Theorem 3.8 (mod p reduction). Let f (t) ∈ Z[t] be monic of degree n

with n distinct roots in a splitting field. Let p be a prime such that f (t),
the reduction of f (t) mod p, also has n distinct roots in a splitting field.
Let f (t) = g1 (t) . . . gs (t) be the factorisation into irreducible in Fp [t] with
nj = deg gj (t). Then
Gal(f ) ,→ Gal(f )
and has an element of cycle type (n1 , n2 , . . . , ns ).
Proof. See Remark after discussion about Galois groups over finite fields. The
fact that Gal(f¯) ,→ Gal(f ) is from IID Number Fields. Look at Tony Scholl’s
teaching page on Galois Theory.
30
Example. Given a quartic of the form f (t) = t4 + dt + e, its discriminant is

D(t) = −27d4 + 256e3 . Consider f (t) = t4 − t − 1, irreducible since irreducible
mod 2 and D(f ) = −283 which is not a square.
Consider mod 7,
f (t) = t4 − t − 1 = (t + 4)(t3 + 3t2 + 2t + 5)
the second factor is irreducible over F7 since it has no roots in F7 . By Theo-

rem 3.8 Gal(f ) contains an element of cycle type (1, 3), i.e. a 3-cycle. We deduce
that Gal(f ) ∼
= S4 as it is the only transitive subgroup of S4 that contains an
odd permutation and a 3-cycle.
3.2 Galois Theory of Finite Fields

Recall what we already know from ??: a finite field F is of characteristic p > 0
where p is a prime and |F| = pr for some r. The multiplicative group of F
is cyclic. It is a splitting field for tn − 1 over Fp where n = pr − 1. By the
uniqueness of splitting fields this is unique. Observe we could also describe F
as the splitting field of tp − t over Fp .
r
What we haven’t shown yet is that for any pr there is a field with |F| = pr .
Definition (Frobenius automorphism). Let F be a finite field of character-

istic p. The Frobenius automorphism of F is
φp : F → F
α 7→ αp
Remark. (α + β)p = αp + β p since all terms in binomial expansion is divisible

by p. Also Fp is fixed under this so this is an Fp -automorphism.
Since tp − t splits as a product of linear factors (t − α) in F, we have that
r
Fp ≤ F is a Galois extension and so we consider G = Gal(F/Fp ). It has order r

since |F : Fp | = r.
Theorem 3.9 (Galois group of finite fields). Let F be a finite field with
|F| = pr . Then Fp ≤ F is a Galois extension with
Gal(F/Fp ) = hφp i ∼
= Cr .
Proof. It remains to show that the order of Frobenius automorphism is r. Sup-

pose φsp = id. Then αp = α for all α ∈ F. But tp − t has at most ps roots in
s s
F. So we conclude s ≥ r. Observe that φrp = id since αp = α for all α ∈ F.

r
Now apply Fundamental Theorem of Galois Theory,
{intermediate fields Fp ≤ M ≤ F} ↔ {subgroups H ≤ G}
where G = Gal(F/Fp ) is cyclic.

But we know all about subgroups of a cyclic group with generator φp with
order r. There is exactly one group of order s for each s | r generated by
φp . The corresponding intermediate subfields are the fixed fields Fhφp i and
r/s r/s
|F : Fhφp i | = s. By Tower Law |Fhφp i : Fp | = r/s.

r/s r/s
31
Observe that all subgroups of cyclic groups are normal and therefore all
our intermediate fields are normal extensions of Fp . Thus Gal(Fhφp i /Fp ) ∼
r/s
=
Gal(F/Fp )/H where H = hφp i.
r/s
Corollary 3.10. Let Fp ≤ M ≤ F be finite fields. Then Gal(F/M ) is cyclic,

generated by φnp where φp is the Frobenius map and |M | = pn and M is the
fixed field of hφnp i.
Proof. Set n = r/s.
Theorem 3.11 (existence of finite fields). Let p be a prime and n ≥ 1.

Then there is a field of order pn unique up to isomorphism.
Proof. Consider the splitting field L of f (t) = tp − t over Fp . Fp ≤ L is a finite

n
Galois extension. However the roots of f (t) form a field, the fixed field of φnp .
Set L = F and |F : Fp | = n.
Remark (mod p reduction). We will discuss in IID Number Fields that Gal(f ) ,→
Gal(f ) if f (t) ∈ Z[t]. We factorised f (t) = g1 (t) · · · gs (t) as a product of irre-
ducibles (actually gs (t) lives in p-adic integers). We knew from Lemma 3.4 that
the orbits of Gal(f ) correspond to the factorisation. We know Gal(f ) is cyclic
generated by the Frobenius map, which must have cyclic type (n1 , . . . , ns ) where
nj = deg gj (t).
32
4 Cyclotomic and Kummer Extensions, Cubics and Quartics, Solution by
Radicals
4 Cyclotomic and Kummer Extensions, Cubics

and Quartics, Solution by Radicals
4.1 Cyclotomic Extensions
Definition (cyclotomic extension). Suppose char K = 0 or p is prime where

p - m. The mth cyclotomic extension of K is the splitting field L of tm − 1.
Remark. f (t) = tm − 1 and f 0 (t) = mtm−1 have no common roots and so the
roots of f (t) are distinct, which are the mth roots of unity. They form a finite
subgroup µm of L× and hence by (1.28) ?? a cyclic group hζi. Thus L = K(ζ)
is a simple extension.
Definition (primitive root of unity). An element ζ ∈ µm is a primitive mth

root of unity if µm = hζi.
Choosing a primitive mth root of unity determines an isomorphism
µm → Z/mZ.
Note that ζ i is a generator of µm if and only if (i, m) = 1 and so the primitive

roots of unity correspond to elements of (Z/mZ)× , the unit group of Z/mZ.
Now consider Galois groups of cyclotomic extensions. We will see that they
must be abelian. Observe f (t) = tm −1 is separable and so the extension K ≤ L
is Galois. Let G = Gal(L/K). An element σ ∈ G sends a primitive mth root
of unity ζ to another mth root of unity ζ i where (i, m) = 1. Then ζ 7→ ζ i
determines a K-homomorphism
K(ζ) → K(ζ)
which is an injective map.
Definition. Define
θ : G → (Z/mZ)×
σ 7→ i where σ(ζ) = ζ i
It is a group homomorphism since if σ(ζ) = ζ i , φ(ζ) = ζ j then (σφ)(ζ) =

σ(ζ j ) = ζ ij .
Thus G is abelian and we regard G as a subgroup of (Z/mZ)× .
Definition (cyclotomic polynomial). The mth cyclotomic polynomial is

Y
Φm (t) = (t − ζ i ),
i∈(Z/mZ)×
the product of the linear factors of tm − 1 corresponding to the primitive

mth roots of unity.
33
Radicals
Remark.
f (t) = tm − 1
Y
= (t − ζ i )
i∈Z/mZ
Y
= Φd (t)
d|m
Example. Take K = Q, then
Φ1 (t) = t − 1
Φ2 (t) = t + 1
Φ3 (t) = t2 + t + 1
Φ4 (t) = t2 + 1
and from which we can deduce that
Φ8 (t) = t4 + 1
since t8 − 1 = (t − 1)(t + 1)(t2 + 1)(t4 + 1).
Lemma 4.1.
• Φm (t) ∈ Z[t] if char K = 0 (i.e. Q ,→ K).
• Φm (t) ∈ Fp [t] if char K = p (i.e. Fp ,→ K).
Proof. By induction on m. If m = 1 then done.

For m > 1, consider
Y
f (t) = tm − 1 = Φm (t) Φd (t)
d|m
d6=m
Note that Φd (t) is monic and is in Z[t] or Fp [t] by induction hypoth-

Q
d|m,d6=m
esis. Now
• if char K = 0 we deduce Φm (t) ∈ Q[t] by division of polynomials. By
Gauss’ Lemma it is in Z[t].
• if char K = p > 0 we deduce by division that Φm (t) ∈ Fp [t].
Lemma 4.2. The homomorphism θ : G → (Z/mZ)× defined above is an

isomorphism if and only if Φm (t) is irreducible.
Proof. We know from Lemma 3.4 that the orbits of G = Gal(L/K) correspond
to the factorisation of f (t) in K[t]. In particular the primitive mth roots of
unity form one orbit if and only if Φm (t) is irreducible. Then θ is surjective if
and only if Φm (t) is irreducible.
34
Radicals
Theorem 4.3. Let L be the mth cyclotomic extension of finite fields F = Fq

where q = pn . Then the Galois group G = Gal(L/F) is isomorphic to the
cyclic subgroup of (Z/mZ)× generated by q.
Proof. We know from Corollary 3.10 that G is generated by α 7→ αp so

n
n
θ(G) = θ(hα 7→ αp i) = hpn i = hqi ≤ (Z/mZ)× .
Remark. If (Z/mZ)× is not cyclic then θ is not surjective for any finite field
and Φm (t) is reducible over F.
Example. Let F = F3 . Then
Φ8 (t) = t4 + 1 = (t2 + t − 1)(t2 − t − 1)
so t8 − 1 factorises as a product of linear and quadratic polynomials mod 3. So

L = F9 , the unique field of order 9, whose multiplicative group is isomorphic to
C8 . As | Gal(L/F3 )| = 2, it is isomorphic to C2 . But
(Z/8Z)× = {1, 3, 5, 7} ∼
= C2 × C2
so θ is not surjective and Φ8 (t) is reducible.

So far we have worked exclusively with finite fields with non-zero character-
istic. The following theorem is a result regarding Q:
Theorem 4.4. For all m > 0, Φm (t) is irreducible in Z[t] and hence in
Q[t]. Thus θ is an isomorphism and
Gal(Q(ζ)/Q) ∼
= (Z/mZ)×
where ζ is a primitive mth root of unity.
Remark. We already knew this when m = p for p prime by substitution and

Eisenstein.
Proof. Gauss’ Lemma implies that irreducibility in Z[t] gives irreducibility in
Q[t]. Lemma 4.2 says that irreducibility corresponds to surjectivity of θ. Thus
it is left to show that Φm (t) is irreducible in Z[t].
Suppose not and Φm (t) = g(t)h(t) in Z[t], with g(t) irreducible and monic
with deg g(t) < deg Φm (t). Let Q ≤ L be the mth cyclotomic extension and ζ
be a primitive mth root and unity and also a root of g(t). Claim that if p - m
and p is prime then ζ p is also a root of g(t) in L:
Proof. Suppose not, then ζ p is also a primitive mth root of unity (since p - m)
and a root of Φm (t). The supposition implies that ζ p is a root of h(t). Define
r(t) = h(tp ),
then r(ζ) = 0. But g(t) is the minimal polynomial of ζ over Q and so g(t) | r(t)
in Q[t]. By Gauss’ Lemma r(t) = g(t)s(t) with s(t) ∈ Z[t]. Now reduce mod p,
r(t) = g(t)s(t).
35
Radicals
But r(t) − h(tp ) = (h(t))p . If a(t) is any irreducible factor of g(t) in Fp [t] then
a(t) | (h(t))p and so a(t) | h(t). But then (a(t))2 | g(t)h(T ) = Φm (t). So Φm (t)
has a repeated root and thus tm − 1 has repeated roots mod p. Absurd.
So the claim is true. Now consider a root γ of h(t). It is also a primitive
mth root of unity and γ = ζ i for some i coprime with m. Factorise it as
i = p1 · · · pk with pj prime and not necessarily distinct and pj - m. Apply the
claim repeatedly, we get that γ is also a root of g(t) and so Φm (t) has a repeated
root. Absurd. Thus Φm (t) is irreducible over Q.
Definition (cyclic extension). An extension K ≤ L is cyclic if the extension

is Galois and Gal(L/K) is cyclic.
Definition (abelian extension). An extension K ≤ L is abelian if the ex-

tension is Galois and Gal(L/K) is abelian.
Example.
1. We saw in Corollary 3.10 that for finite fields F ≤ L is cyclic.
2. Cyclotomic extensions are abelian.
3. Theorem 4.4 says Gal(Q(ζ)/Q) ∼ = (Z/mZ)× and so if m = 8, Q ≤ Q(ζ) is

a non-cyclic abelian extension.
4.2 Kummer Theory

Rather than consider the mth root of unity, in this section we consider Galois
extensions K ≤ L where L is the splitting field of a polynomial of the form
tm − λ where λ ∈ K.
Theorem 4.5. Let f (t) = tm − λ ∈ K[t] and char K - m. Then the

splitting field L of f (t) over K contains a primitive mth root of unity ζ and
Gal(L/K(ζ)) is cyclic of order dividing m. Moreover f (t) is irreducible over
K(ζ) if and only if |L : K(ζ)| = m.
Remark. We have the following Galois correspondence


 L 1
cyclic | |
K(ζ) Gal(L/K(ζ))

| |
K Gal(L/K)
with Gal(L/K(ζ)) E Gal(L/K). By Fundamental Theorem of Galois Theory
Gal(L/K)/ Gal(L/K(ζ)) ∼
= Gal(K(ζ)/K)
which is abelian.
36
Radicals
Proof. Since tm − λ and mtm−1 are coprime, we know that tm − λ has distinct
roots, say α1 , . . . αm in the splitting field L. Thus K ≤ L is Galois. Since
(αi αj−1 )m = λλ−1 = 1, the elements
α1 α1−1 = 1, α2 α1−1 , . . . , αm α1−1
are m distinct mth roots of unity in L and so
tm − λ = (t − β)(t − ζβ)(t − ζ 2 β) · · · (t − ζ n−1 β) ∈ L[t]
where β = α1 and ζ is a primitive mth root of unity. Thus
L = K(ζ, β).
Let σ ∈ Gal(L/K(ζ)). It is determined by its action on β. Note that

σ(β) is also a root of tm − λ so σ(β) = ζ j(σ) β where 0 ≤ j(σ) < m. Also if
σ, τ ∈ Gal(L/K(ζ)) then
τ σ(β) = τ (ζ j(σ) β) = ζ j(σ) τ (β) = ζ j(σ) ζ j(τ ) β
where the second inequality comes from the fact that ζ is fixed by τ . Thus there
is a group homomorphism
Θ : Gal(L/K(ζ)) → Z/mZ
σ 7→ j(σ)
Note that j(σ) = 0 only if σ is the identity and so Θ is injective. Thus

Gal(L/K(ζ)) is isomorphic to a subgroup of Z/mZ, so a cyclic group of or-
der dividing m.
Finally,
|L : K(ζ)| = | Gal(L/K(ζ))| ≤ m
with equality precisely when the action of Gal(L/K(ζ)) is transitive on the roots
and that is when tm − λ is irreducible over K(ζ) by Lemma 3.4.
Example.
1. f (t) = t6 + 3 over Q. Let ζ = −ω be a primitive 6th root of unity where
ω is a primitive cubic root of unity. Then
1 √ √
Q(ζ) = Q(ω) = Q( (1 + −3)) = Q( −3).
2
√ is irreducible over Q by Eisenstein with 3. However over Q(ζ) =

f (t)
Q( −3) f (t) factorises as
√ √
f (t) = (t3 + −3)(t3 − −3)
so the Galois group of the splitting field L of f (t) over Q(ζ) is a proper
subgroup of Z/6Z. We have the following Galois correspondence:
L 1
| | 3
Q(ζ) Gal(L/Q(ζ))
| | 2
Q Gal(L/Q)
37
Radicals
Note that
Gal(L/Q(ζ)) ∼
= Z/3Z ,→ Z/6Z
∼ Z/2Z
Gal(Q(ζ)/Q) = hi 7→ −ii =
Let β be a root of f (t). Then the roots are
β ζβ ζ 2β ζ 3β ζ 4β ζ 5β
β ω2 β ωβ
−ωβ −β −ω 2 β
where a 3-cycle is given by permuting β, ω 2 β, ωβ and the orbits are shown

as the last two rows above. Denote the 3-cycle σ and complex conjugation
τ , since
τ στ −1 = σ −1 ,
we get dihedral relation so Gal(L/Q) is dihedral of order 6.
2. f (t) = t5 − 2 over Q. It is irreducible by Eisenstein. Let L be the splitting
field of f (t) over Q and ζ be a primitive 5th root of unity. We have the
following Galois correspondence:
L 1
| | 5
Q(ζ) Gal(L/Q(ζ))
| | 4
Q Gal(L/Q)
Let β be a root of f (t). Then Q ≤ Q(β) ≤ L so 5 | |L : Q| and thus

5 | | Gal(L/Q(ζ))|. Since we also have Gal(L/Q(ζ)) ,→ Z/5Z, it follows
that Gal(L/Q(ζ)) ∼ = Z/5Z.
We can thus deduce that f (t) remains irreducible over Q(ζ) and | Gal(L/Q)| =
20. By irreducibility of f (t) over Q, Gal(L/Q) is a transitive subgroup of
S5 . By Lemma 3.5, it is isomorphic to H20 , the subgroup generated by a
5-cycle and a 4-cycle. By Fundamental Theorem of Galois Theory,
Gal(L/Q)/ Gal(L/Q(ζ)) ∼
= Gal(Q(ζ)/Q) ∼
= (Z/5Z)×
which is cyclic and contains a 4-cycle. Thus without a priori knowledge

of H20 we know our subgroup of S5 contains a 4-cycle.
Theorem 4.5 tells us the property of the splitting field of tm − λ. The
following theorem gives its converse:
Theorem 4.6. Suppose K ≤ L is a cyclic extension with |L : K| = m

where char K - m and K contains a primitive mth root of unity. Then there
exists λ ∈ K such that tm − λ is irreducible over K, and L is the splitting
field of tm − λ over K. If β is a root of tm − λ in L then L = K(β).
Since we are going to restate the hypothesis in the theorem many times, we
give it a name
38
Radicals
Definition (Kummer extension). A cyclic extension K ≤ L with |L : K| =

m where char K - m and K contains a primitve mth root of unity is a
Kummer extension.
We need the following to prove the theorem:
Lemma 4.7 (linear independence of group characters). Let φ1 , . . . , φn be

embeddings of a field K into a field L. Then there do not exist λ1 , . . . , λn
not all zero such that
λ1 φ1 (x) + · · · + λn φn (x) = 0
for all x ∈ K.
Proof. Example sheet 2 Q10.

Proof of Theorem 4.6. Let Gal(G/K) = hσi which has order m. Observe that
i=0 are distinct maps L → L and we can apply linear independence of
{σ i }m−1
group characters: there exists α ∈ L such that
β = α + ζσ(α) + · · · + ζ m−1 σ m−1 (α) 6= 0
where ζ is a primitive mth root of unity.

Observe that σ(β) = ζ −1 β = β and so β ∈ K, the fixed field of Gal(L/K).
Also σ(β m ) = σ(β)m = β m . Let λ = β m ∈ K. Then
tm − λ = (t − β)(t − ζβ) · · · (t − ζ m−1 β) ∈ L[t]
so K(β) is the splitting field of tm − λ over K (recall ζ ∈ K).

Observe also that {σ i }m−1
i=0 are distinct K-automorphisms and so |K(β) :
K| ≥ m. Therefore
L = K(β) = K(ζβ).
tm − λ is the minimal polynomial of β over K and hence is irreducible.
Definition (radical extension). A field extension K ≤ L is an extension by

racidals if there exists
K = L0 ≤ L1 ≤ · · · ≤ Ln = L
such that each Li ≤ Li+1 is either cyclotomic or Kummer extension.
Definition (solubility by radicals). A polynomial f (t) ∈ K[t] is soluble by

radicals if its splitting field lies in an extension by radicals.
39
Radicals
4.3 Cubics
In this section and the following one we assume char K 6= 2 for discussion about
discriminant and char K 6= 3 for cubic Kummer extension.
We have already seen that if f (t) is a monic irreducible cubic in K[t] with
L its splitting field over K,
G = Gal(f ) = Gal(L/K)
is either A3 or S3 since irreducibility implies that the action on roots is transitive.

Thus we have the following correspondence:
L 1
| | 3
K(∆) G ∩ A3
| | 1 or 2
K G
where ∆2 = D(f ) is the discriminant of f . But to see if we can solve f by
radicals we want to make use of Theorem 4.6 and so we need to adjoin the
appropriate roots of unity. So we get a bigger picture:
L(ω)
1 or 2
K(∆, ω) L
1 or 2
3
K(∆)
1 or 2
where ω is a primitive cubic root of unity. From the Tower Law |L(ω) :
K(∆, ω)| = 3. Hence
Gal(L(ω)/K(∆, ω)) ∼= C3 .
We can now apply Theorem 4.6 to see that
L(ω) = K(∆, ω)(β)
where β is a root of an irreducible polynomial t3 − λ ∈ K(∆, ω)[t].

In fact from the proof of Theorem 4.6 we see that
β = α1 + ωα2 + ω 2 α3
where α1 , α2 , α3 are roots of f (t). Now all the extensions
K ≤ K(∆) ≤ K(∆, ω) ≤ L(ω)
are either cyclotomic or Kummer. Thus f (t) is soluble by radicals.

Let’s give a try to our theory. Given an irreducible cubic
f (t) = t3 + at2 + bt + c = (t − α1 )(t − α2 )(t − α3 ),
40
Radicals
we have α1 + α2 + α3 = −a. But we don’t actually need that many parameters:

let α0 = αi + a3 so that α10 + α20 + α30 = 0 and the α0 ’s are roots of the polynomial
g(t) = t3 + pt + q and most importantly,
K(α1 , α2 , α3 ) = K(α10 , α20 , α30 )
so the splitting field for g(t) is the same as that for f (t). Thus we could work
with g(t) instead. The discriminant of g(t) is D(g) = −4p3 − 27q 2 .
Set
β = α10 + ωα20 + ω 2 α30

γ = α10 + ω 2 α20 + ωα30
then
βγ = α102 + α202 + α303 + (ω + ω 2 )(α10 α20 + α10 α30 + α20 α30 )

= (α10 + α20 + α30 )2 − 3(α10 α20 + α10 α30 + α20 α30 )
= −3p
and so β 3 γ 3 = −27p3 . Also,
β 3 + γ 3 = (α10 + ωα20 + ω 2 α30 )3

+ (α10 + ω 2 α20 + ωα30 )3
+ (α10 + α20 + α30 )3
| {z }
=0
= 3(α103 + α203 + α303 ) + 18α10 α20 α30
= −27q
since α103 = −pα10 − q and so α103 + α203 + α303 = −3q.

Thus after some messy algebra, we find that β 3 and γ 3 are roots of a
quadratic
t2 + 27qt − 27p3
and so are
√ √
27 3 −3 p 2 3
27 3 −3 √
− q± −27q − 4p = − q ± D.
2 2 2 2
√ √
We can solve for β 3 and γ 3 in K( −3, D) = K(ω, ∆). From here we can get
β by adjoining a cubic root of β 3 and set γ = − 3p
β . Finally we solve in L(ω) for
0 0 0
α1 , α2 , α3
1
α10 = (β + γ)
3
1
α20 = (ω 2 β + ωγ)
3
0 1
α3 = (ωβ + ω 2 γ)
3
41
Radicals
4.4 Quartics
As with the cubics, by making a substitution of the form αi0 = αi + a4 we may
assume that the sum of the roots is zero and so the t3 term vanishes, leaving a
general quartic polynomial of the form
f (t) = t4 + bt2 + ct + d
= (t − α1 )(t − α2 )(t − α3 )(t − α4 )
which we assume to be monic and irreducible.

Let L = K(α1 , . . . , α4 ) be the splitting field of f (t) over K.
L 1
| |
M G ∩ V4 E G
| |
K(∆) G ∩ A4
| |
K G
where M is the fixed field of the normal subgroup G ∩ V4 E G, which is an

normal extension of K. By Fundamental Theorem of Galois Theory,
Gal(M/K) ∼
= G/(G ∩ V4 ).
To determine this group concretely, we use a little knowledge from group theory:
there is a group isomorphism
S4 /V4 ∼
= S3 .
Let θ : S4 → S3 denote the quotient map, which has kernel precisely V4 . There-
fore θ|G : G → S3 induces an isomorphism
G/ ker θ|G = G/(G ∩ V4 ) ∼

= im θ|G ≤ S3 .
We therefore seek a cubic for which M is the splitting field. We introduce

resolvent cubic: set
x = α1 + α2
y = α1 + α3
z = α1 + α4
and so
1
α1 = (x + y + z)
2
1
α2 = (x − y − z)
2
1
α3 = (−x + y − z)
2
1
α4 = (−x − y + z)
2
42
Radicals
Thus
K(α1 , . . . , α4 ) = K(x, y, z).
Remebering that α1 + α2 + α3 + α4 = 0,
x2 = (α1 + α2 )2 = −(α1 + α2 )(α3 + α4 )
y 2 = (α1 + α3 )2 = −(α1 + α3 )(α2 + α4 )
z 2 = (α1 + α4 )2 = −(α1 + α4 )(α3 + α3 )
These are all distinct since for example if y 2 = z 2 then y = ±z so α3 = α4 or
α1 = α2 .
Now consider the resolvent cubic
g(t) = (t − x2 )(t − y 2 )(t − z 2 ) ∈ K[t].
x2 , y 2 and z 2 are permuted by G and are fixed by G ∩ V4 . Thus
K(x2 , y 2 , z 2 ) ≤ M = LG∩V4 .
We claim that we actually have equality here:
Proof. Check D(f ) = D(g) — this will be addressed on example sheet — so
K(∆) ≤ K(x2 , y 2 , z 2 ).
Now observe that
Gal(L/(K(x2 , y 2 , z 2 )) = Gal(K(x, y, z)/K(x2 , y 2 , z 2 ))
and in
K(x2 , y 2 , z 2 ) ≤ K(x, y 2 , z 2 ) ≤ K(x, y, z 2 ) ≤ K(x, y, z),
each extension is of degree either 1 or 2 so |K(x, y, z) : K(x2 , y 2 , z 2 )| divides 8
so elements of Gal(L/K(x2 , y 2 , z 2 )) have order dividing 8. But since
Gal(L/K(x2 , y 2 , z 2 )) ≤ G ∩ A4 ,
by checking the order of elements in A4 we see that
Gal(L/K(x2 , y 2 , z 2 )) ≤ G ∩ V4 .
Therefore by Fundamental Theorem of Galois Theory
M = K(x2 , y 2 , z 2 ).
Consider the coefficients of g(t): its roots x2 , y 2 , z 2 are permuted by G and

so it has coefficients in K. We can actually write down these coefficients:
x2 + y 2 + z 2 = −2b
x2 y 2 + x2 z 2 + y 2 z 2 = b2 − 4d
xyz = −c
x y z = c2
2 2 2
so
g(t) = t3 + 2bt2 + (b2 − 4d)t − c2 .
We know how to solve cubics so we can solve for x2 , y 2 , z 2 , from which we can
solve for x, y, z. Finally we use formula α1 = 12 (x + y + z) etc to recover the
roots for the quartic. Whew, done!
43
Radicals
Remark. In our map

θ : S4 → S3 ,
we have restriction
θ|A4 : A4 → A3 ∼
= C3
and
θ|G∩A4 : G ∩ A4 → A3
so
G ∩ A4 /(G ∩ V4 ) ≤ A3
which is either 1 or A3 , corresponding to M/K(∆). If the resolvent cubic is
irreducible then it is isomorphic to A3 . Otherwise it is the trivial group.
Example. Let f (t) = t4 + 4t2 + 2. As an aside even if we didn’t study Galois
theory we could solve it. Then the resolvent cubic g(t) = t3 + 8t2 + 8t. Note
that c = 0 in f (t) so g(t) has no constant term and thus reducible. It follows
that M = K(∆).
4.5 Solubility by Radicals

Now suppose we have a Galois extension K ≤ L with
K = L0 ≤ L1 ≤ · · · ≤ Lm = L
such that each Li ≤ Li+1 is either cyclotomic or Kummer extension.

Let G = Gal(G/K). There is a corresponding chain of subgroups of G
G = G0 ≥ G1 ≥ · · · ≥ Gm = 1
with Gi = Gal(L/Ki ) and, by Fundamental Theorem of Galois Theory, Li =

LGi . However each extension Li ≤ Li+1 is Galois and we know
Gi+1 = Gal(L/Li+1 ) E Gal(L/Li ) = Gi
and
Gi /Gi+1 ∼
= Gal(Li+1 /Li )
which is abelian if Li ≤ Li+1 is cyclotomic and cyclic if Li ≤ Li+1 is Kummer.
It is the perfect time to introduce some group theory:
Definition (soluble group). A group is soluble if there is a chain of sub-

groups
1 E Gm E Gm−1 E · · · E G1 E G0 = G (∗)
with Gi /Gi+1 abelian.
Remark. Note that some authors use “cyclic” in the definition. While we will
prove shortly that they are equivalent for a finite group G, in general they are
different.
Example.
1. S3 is soluble since
1 E h(123)i E S3 .
44
Radicals
2. S4 is soluble since
1 E V4 E A4 E S4 .
and A4 /V4 ∼
= C3 , S4 /A4 ∼
= C2 .
3. A5 is not soluble: we have proved in IA Groups and again in IB Groups,
Rings and Modules that A5 is simple, and therefore any normal subgroup
is 1 or A5 . Then any chain of normal subgroups would have non-abelian
quotients and thus A5 is not soluble.
Lemma 4.8. A finite group G is soluble if and only if
1 = Gm E Gm−1 E · · · E G1 E G0 = G (†)
with Gi /Gi+1 cyclic.
This says that we only have to consider cyclic extensions.

Proof. The if part is easy. For the only if part, from Structural Theorem of
Finitely Generated Abelian Groups, if A is abelian then there is a chain
0 = Ar E Ar−1 E · · · E A0 = A
with Ar /Ar+1 cyclic. Thus if we have a chain (∗) with abelian factors Gi /Gi+1 ,
we can refine it to one of the form (†) by Third Isomorphism Theorem.
Definition (derived subgroup). The derived subgroup G0 of a group G is

the subgroup generated by all the commutators
g1 g2 g1−1 g2−1
for g1 , g2 ∈ G.
Note that it is the subgroup generated by all such elements since it is not
obvious that they are closed.
Lemma 4.9. Let K E G. Then G/K is abelian if and only if G0 ≤ K.
Proof. G/K is abelian if and only if
Kg1 Kg2 Kg1−1 Kg2−1 = K
for all g1 , g2 ∈ G, if and only if
g1 g2 g1−1 g2−1 ∈ K
if and only if G0 ≤ K.
Remark. Some interesting asides:
1. In IID Representation Theory we will prove Burnside’s Theorem: if |G| =
pa q b with p, q distinct primes then G is soluble.
45
Radicals
2. Feit-Thompson Theorem: if |G| is odd then G is soluble.

3. There is an analogue of Sylow’s Theorem due to Philip Hall: given a finite
group G, for every m and n coprime and |G| = mn, there is a subgroup
of order m if and only if G is soluble.
Definition (derived series). The derived series {G(m) } of G is defined in-

ductively as
G(0) = G
G(i+1) = (G(i) )0
Thus
· · · E G(2) E G(1) E G(0) = G
with G(i) /G(i+1) abelian.
Lemma 4.10. Given a finite group G, G is soluble if and only if G(m) = 1

for some m.
Proof. If G(m) = 1 then the derived series gives a chain of the form (∗) as in
the definition of solubility.
Conversely, if there is a chain of the form (∗)
1 E Gm E · · · E G1 E G
with Gi /Gi+1 abelian then induction shows that G(j) ≤ Gj and so G(m) = 1.
Remark. The derived series is the fastest descending chain with abelian factors.
Lemma 4.11.
1. Let H ≤ G. If G is soluble then H is soluble.
2. Let H E G. Then G is soluble if and only if H and G/H are both
soluble.
Proof.
1. G is soluble so there is some m such that G(m) = 1. But H (m) ≤ G(m)

and so H is soluble.
2. Let H E G. Suppose G is soluble. Then by the previous line H is soluble.
Let G(m) = 1, observed that
(G/H)0 = G0 H/H ≤ G/H
and inductively
(G/H)(j) = G(j) H/H ≤ G/H.
Thus (G/H)(m) = H/H = 1 so G/H is soluble.
46
Radicals
Conversely, suppose both H and G/H are soluble, i.e. H (r) = 1 and
(G/H)(s) = H/H. But from above (G/H)(s) = G(s) H/H so G(s) H = H
and thus G(s) ≤ H. Therefore
G(r+s) ≤ H (r) = 1
so G is soluble.
Example. S5 is not soluble since its subgroup A5 is not soluble.
Theorem 4.12. Let K be a field with char K = 0 and f (t) ∈ K[t]. Then
f (t) is soluble by radicals over K if and only if Gal(f ) over K is soluble.
Remark. We don’t need to restrict to char K = 0. What we need to do for

a particular f (t) is to avoid a finite number of bad characteristics (to avoid
characteristics smaller than deg f (t)).
Corollary 4.13. If f (t) is a monic irreducible polynomial in K[t] with

char K = 0 and Gal(f ) ∼
= A5 or S5 then f (t) is not soluble by radicals.
Example. In the example after Theorem 3.6 on page 29, f (t) = t5 −6t+3 ∈ Q[t]
has Galois group S5 over Q: recall that it has three real roots and so complex
conjugation gives a transposition. f (t) is irreducible and so 5 | | Gal(f )| and
so there is a 5-cycle. Together they generate S5 . Thus f (t) is not soluble by
radicals.
Proof of Theorem 4.12. Suppose f (t) is soluble by radicals. Then the splitting
field of f (t) over K, L, lies in an extension of K by radicals:
K = L0 ≤ L1 ≤ · · · ≤ Lm
with each Li ≤ Li+1 either cyclotomic or Kummer.
Lemma 4.14. If K ≤ N is an extension by radicals then there exists

N ≤ N 0 with K ≤ N 0 an extension of radicals and a Galois extension.
Proof. Suppose we have a sequence as above and want to extend this into a
Galois extension of the same form (assume char K = 0). By Primitive Element
Theorem Lm = K(α1 ) for some α1 . Let g(t) be the minimal polynomial of α1
over K with splitting field M . Thus M = K(α1 , α2 , . . . , αn ) where α1 , . . . , αn
are roots of g(t). There are K-homomorphisms φi : M → M, α1 7→ αi extending
K-homomorphisms K(α1 ) → K(αi ) ≤ M . The tower
K ≤ φ1 (K) ≤ φ2 (L1 ) ≤ · · · ≤ φ1 (Lm ) = K(α1 )
has cyclotomic or Kummer extensions at each step as before. Consider
Lm = K(α1 ) ≤ φ2 (L1 )(α1 ) ≤ φ2 (L2 )(α1 ) ≤ · · · ≤ φ2 (Lm )(α1 ) = K(α1 , α2 ).
Consider the extension φ2 (Lj )(α1 ) ≤ φ2 (Lj+1 )(α1 ) in this tower. There are two
cases:
47
Radicals
• if Lj ≤ Lj+1 is cyclotomic then all the roots of unity adjoined are now in
Lm = K(α1 ) and so φ2 (Lj )(αi ) = φ2 (Lj+1 )(α1 ).
• if Lj ≤ Lj+1 is Kummer then we obtain Lj+1 by adjoining roots of an
element of Lj and so we obtain φ2 (Lj+1 ) by adjoining roots of an element
in φ2 (Lj ). Hence we get from φ2 (Lj )(α1 ) to φ2 (Lj+1 )(α1 ) by adjoining
roots of an element of φ2 (Lj ). So this is a Kummer extension.
Now continue to get a suitable chain K(α1 , α2 ) ≤ · · · ≤ K(α1 , α2 , α3 ) etc.
Thus we get a suitable chain from K to K(α1 , . . . , αn ) = M . Observe that
K ≤ M is Galois.
Assuming this lemma and so we may assume K ≤ Lm is Galois. By Funda-
mental Theorem of Galois Theory there is a corresponding chain of subgroups
Gal(Lm /K). Previous discussion shows that Gal(Lm /K) is soluble. So to sum
up we have K ≤ L ≤ Lm with Lm Galois so by Fundamental Theorem of Galois
Theory
Gal(L/K) ∼ = Gal(Lm /K)/ Gal(Lm /L)
But quotients of soluble group are soluble so Gal(L/K) is soluble.
Conversely, assume char K = 0 and suppose G = Gal(f ) over K is soluble.
Let L be the splitting field of f (t) over K and so |G| = |L : K| = n. Set m = n!
and let ζ be a primitive mth root of unity and consider L(ζ).
L(ζ)
≤n
K(ζ) L
n
K
Our proof is similar to that used for cubics. Observe that |L(ζ) : K(ζ)| ≤ n:
by Primitive Element Theorem L = K(α) for some α with minimal polynomial
g(t) of degree n. Then L(ζ) = K(ζ)(α) and the minimal polynomial of α over
K(ζ) divides g(t) and so has degree less than or equal to n.
Note that Gal(L(ζ)/L) is abelian since the extension is cyclotomic. Then
Gal(L(ζ)/K) is soluble since the subgroup Gal(L(ζ)/L is soluble and the quo-
tient group Gal(L/K) ∼ = Gal(L(ζ)/K)/ Gal(L(ζ)/L) is also soluble. Then the
subgroup Gal(L(ζ)/K(ζ)) is soluble. Thus there is a chain of subgroups
1 = Gm E · · · E G1 E G0 E Gal(L(ζ)/K(ζ))
with Gi /Gi+1 cyclic (since for a finite group cyclic is equivalent to abelian in
the definition of a soluble group). Now use Fundamental Theorem of Galois
Theory to get a corresponding chain of fields
L(ζ) = Km ≥ · · · ≥ K1 ≥ K(ζ)
with each Ki ≤ Ki+1 Galois with cyclic Galois group.
By Theorem 4.6 all those extensions are Kummer (note all the extensions
are of degree less than or equal to n and so we have the appropriate roots of
unity, this is why we choose m = n!). Thus we have embedded L in an extension
of K by radicals.
48
Radicals
Example.
1. Recall previously we had f (t) = t4 + 4t2 + 2 which is irreducible by Eisen-

stein over Q. The resolvent√ cubic g(t) = t3 + 8t2 + 8t is reducible. It
actually has roots 0, −4 ± 2 2. We thus have
p √ p √
L=K −4 + 2 2, −4 − 2 2
4
√ √ √
K(−4 + 2 2, −4 − 2 2) = K( 2)
2
so |L : K| = 8. The Galois group is a transitive subgroup of S4 of order

8. It is the dihedral group.
√
In particular the roots ± −2 ± 2 are two conjugate pairs so complex
p
conjugation gives double transposition.
2. f (t) = t4 +2t+2 which is irreducible by Eisenstein over Q. A quick (hmm)

calculation shows that the discriminant is 101 · 42 which is not a square.
Thus the Galois group contains an odd permutation.
The resolvent cubic g(t) = t3 − 8t − 4 is irreducible mod 5. Therefore there
is a 3-cycle in the Galois group. We deduce that Gal(f ) = S4 .
3. Finally a quintic: f (t) = t5 −t−1 is irreducible over Q since it is irreducible

mod 5 and so the Galois group contains a 5-cycle and is a transitive sub-
group of S5 . Reduction mod 2, f (t) factorises as a product of irreducible
cubic and an irreducible quadractic
f (t) = (t3 + t2 + 1)(t2 + t + 1)
so Gal(f ) is generated by an element of cycle type (3, 2). Thus Gal(f )

also contains an element of cycle type (3, 2). Then g 3 is a transposition.
A subgroup of S5 containing a 5-cycle and a transposition must be S5 .
Therefore f (t) is not solvable by radicals.
49
5 Final Thoughts
5 Final Thoughts
5.1 Algebraic Closure
Definition (algebracially closed). A field L is algebraically closed if any

f (t) ∈ L[t] splits into a product of linear factors in L[t].
Remark. This is equivalent to saying that any f (t) ∈ L[t] has a root in L, or
that any algebraic extension of L is L itself.
Definition (algebraic closure). An extension K ≤ L is an algebraic closure

of K if K ≤ L is algebraic and L is algebraically closed.
Lemma 5.1. If K ≤ L is algebraic and every polynomial in K[t] splits

completely over L then L is an algebraic closure of K.
Proof. We need to show that L is algebraically closed. Suppose L ≤ L(α) is a

finite extension and fα (t) = tn + an−1 tn−1 + · · · + a0 is the minimal polynomial
of α over L. Let M = K(a0 , . . . , an−1 ). Then M ≤ M (α) is a finite extension.
But each ai is algebraic over K and so |M : K| < ∞. Hence |M (α) : K| < ∞
by Tower Law and so α is algebraic over K.
The minimal polynomial of α over K must split over L and so α ∈ L. Thus
any algebraic extension of L is L itself.
Example (algebraic number). Let A = {α ∈ C : α algebraic over Q}. It is
a subfield of C: if α and β are algebraic over Q then |Q(α, β) : Q| < ∞.
So if γ = α + β, α − β, αβ or α/β for β 6= 0 we get Q(γ) ≤ Q(α, β) and so
|Q(γ) : Q| < ∞ so γ is algebraic over Q and so γ ∈ A. Therefore A = Q is an
algebraic closure of Q.
Like construction of many other objects in this course, we want to prove the
existence and uniqueness of algebraic closures. In general we need to appeal to
Zorn’s Lemma. This will be covered in IID Logic and Set Theory, and it fact it
is equivalent to both Axiom of Choice and Well-ordering Principle.
We will do a quick ad hoc statement of Zorn’s Lemma here and relegate the
main discussion to IID Logic and Set Theory.
Definition (partial order). (ζ, ≤) is a partial order on a set ζ is
1. reflexive: x ≤ x for all x ∈ ζ.

2. transitive: x ≤ y and y ≤ z implies x ≤ z.
3. antisymmetric: if x ≤ y and y ≤ x then x = y.
Definition (total order). A partial order (ζ, ≤) is a total order if it is total:

for any x, y ∈ ζ, either x ≤ y or y ≤ x.
50
5 Final Thoughts
Definition (chain). A chain in a partially ordered set (ζ, ≤) is a totally

ordered subset.
Theorem 5.2 (Zorn’s Lemma). Let (ζ, ≤) be a non-empty partially ordered

set. Suppose that any chain has an upper bound. Then ζ has a maximal
element.
Recall a result derived from Zorn’s Lemma in IB Groups, Rings and Modules:
Lemma 5.3. Let R be a ring. Then R has a maximal ideal.
Proof. Let ζ be the set of proper ideals of R. {0} is a proper ideal so ζ is

non-empty. Let ζ be partially orderd by inclusion.
Note that an ideal I E R is proper if and only if 1 ∈
/ I. Any chain of proper
ideals has an upper bound in ζ, namely the union of the chain, so by Zorn’s
Lemma ζ has a maximal element, i.e. a maximal ideal of R.
Theorem 5.4 (existence of algebraic closure). Any field has an algebraic

closure.
Proof. Let
ζ = {(f (t), j) : f (t) irreducible monic in K[t], 1 ≤ j ≤ deg f }.
For each pair s = (f (t), j) ∈ ζ, introduce an indeterminate Xs = Xf,j . Consider

the polynomial ring K[Xs : s ∈ ζ] and set
deg
Yf
f˜(t) = f (t) − (t − Xf,j ) ∈ K[Xs : s ∈ ζ][t].
j=1
Let I E K[Xs : s ∈ ζ] be the ideal generated by coefficients of all the f˜(t)’s,

which we denote by af,` for 0 ≤ ` < deg f . Claim that I 6= K[Xs : s ∈ ζ]:
Proof. Suppose 1 ∈ I for contradiction. We thus have a relation
b1 af1 ,`1 + · · · + bN afN ,`N = 1 ∈ K[Xs : s ∈ ζ]. (∗)
Let L be a splitting field for the product f1 (t) · · · fN (t).For each i, fi splits over
L so write
deg
Yfi
fi (t) = (t − αij ).
j=1
Define a K-linear ring homomorphism which is identity on K
θ : K[Xs : s ∈ ζ] → L
Xfi ,j 7→ αij
Xs 7→ 0 otherwise
51
5 Final Thoughts
This induces a map θ : K[Xs : s ∈ ζ][t] → L[t]. Then

deg
Yfi
θ(f˜i (t)) = θ(fi (t)) − θ(t − Xfi ,j )
j=1
deg
Yfi
= fi (t) − (t − αij )
j=1
=0
so θ(afi ,j ) = 0 since afi ,j are the coefficients of f˜i (t). But applying θ to (∗)
shows 0 = 1. Absurd.
We have thus shown that I E K[Xs : s ∈ ζ] is proper. By Zorn’s Lemma,
there is a maximal ideal P E K[Xs : s ∈ ζ] containing I. Set
L1 = K[Xs : s ∈ ζ]/P,
which is a field. We thus have a field extension K ≤ L1 . Claim that L1 is an

algebraic closure of K:
Proof. We first show K ≤ L1 is algebraic. L1 is generated by the images xf,j
of the Xf,j . However f˜(t) has coefficients in I and so its image in L1 [t] is the
zero polynomial. Thus in L1 [t],
deg
Yf
f (t) = (t − xf,j ) (†)
j=1
and so f (xf,j ) = 0. Thus the xf,j ’s are algebraic. Any element of L1 involves
only finitely many of the xf,j ’s and so is algebraic over K.
Moreover, from (†) any f (t) ∈ K[t] splits completely over L1 . The claim
thus follows from Lemma 5.1.
Theorem 5.5. Suppose θ : K → L is a ring homomorphism and L is

algebraically closed. Suppose K ≤ M is an algebraic extension, then θ can
be extended to a homomorphism φ : M → L, i.e. φ|K = θ.
Proof. Let
ζ = {(N, φ) : K ≤ N ≤ M : φ : N → L homomorphism extending θ}
and define a partial order ≤ on it by

(
N1 ≤ N2
(N1 , φ1 ) ≤ (N2 , φ2 ) if
φ2 |N1 = φ1
(K, θ) ∈ ζ so it is non-empty. If there is an ascending chain
(N1 , φ1 ) ≤ (N2 , φ2 ) ≤ · · ·
52
5 Final Thoughts
then set N = λ Nλ , which is a subfield of M and we can define a homo-

S
morphism N → L as follow: if α ∈ N then α ∈ Nλ for some λ and we send
α 7→ φλ (α). This is well-defined. Thus this is an upper bound for the chain in
ζ. Zorn’s Lemma thus says that there is an maximal element of ζ, (N, φ).
We now show that N = M . Given α ∈ M , it is algebraic over K and hence
over N . Let fα (t) be its minimal polynomial over N . φ(fα (t)) ∈ L[t] and so
splits completely since L is algebraically closed. Write
φ(fα (t)) = (t − β1 ) · · · (t − βr ).
Since φ(fα (βj )) = 0 there is a map
N (α) ∼
= N [t]/(fα (t)) → L
α 7→ β1
extending φ. Maximality of (N, φ) implies that N (α) = N . Thus α ∈ N and

N = M.
With this theorem we can finally show
Theorem 5.6 (uniqueness of algebraic closure). If K ≤ L1 , K ≤ L2 are

two algebraic closures of K, there exists an isomorphism φ : L1 → L2 .
Proof. By the previous theorem there is a homomorphism φ : L1 → L2 extend-

ing the embedding of K in L2 . Since K ≤ L2 is algebraic, so is K ≤ φ(L1 ). But
L1 is algebraically closed and so φ(L1 ) is algebraically closed. Thus L2 = φ(L1 )
and φ is an isomorphism.
5.2 Symmetric Polynomials & Invariant Theory

In the build-up of Fundamental Theorem of Galois Theory we met Artin, which
says that if K ≤ L, H is a finite subgroup of AutK (L) and M = LH then
M ≤ L is a Galois extension and H = Gal(L/M ).
Example. Let L = K(X1 , . . . , Xn ). Let Sn be the permutation group on the
Xi ’s. These permutations induce K-automorphisms of L. By Artin, M =
LSn ≤ L is Galois and Gal(L/M ) = Sn . Thus Sn is a Galois group of some
field extension.
Since we can regard any finite group G as a subgroup of some Sn , any finite
group is a Galois group of some finite field extension
Q ≤ K.
Finding the field extension is the inverse Galois problem.

Using notation from the previous example, let
n
Y
f (t) = (t − Xi ) = tn − s1 tn−1 + s2 tn−2 + · · · + (−1)n sn ∈ M [t]
i=1
53
5 Final Thoughts
where
s1 = X1 + · · · + Xn
X
s1 = Xi Xj
i<j
..
.
sn = X1 X2 · · · Xn
Definition (elementary symmetric polynomial). The si ’s are the elemen-

tary symmetric polynomials.
Definition (algebraic independence). α1 , . . . , αn are algebraically indepen-

dent over K if the ring homomorphism
K[Y1 , . . . , Yn ] → K[α1 , . . . , αn ] ≤ L
Yi 7→ αi
is an isomorphism where K[Y1 , . . . , Yn ] is the polynomial ring in Y1 , . . . , Yn .
Theorem 5.7. The fixed field M = LSn equals to K(s1 , . . . , sn ) and the
si ’s are algebraically independent over K in L.
Proof. Certainly the si ’s are fixed by Sn Qso M1 = K(s1 , . . . , sn ) ≤ M . Observe

that L is the splitting field for f (t) = i=1 (t − Xi ) over M1 . But f (t) has
n
degree n and so by a proposition we proved in example sheet, the degree of the

splitting field over M1 is at most n!. Artin implies that |L : M | = |Sn | = n! so
M1 = M .
To show the algebraic independence of si ’s, we make use of the idea of tran-
scendence bases and transcendence degree: we may consider the algebraically
independent subsets of L and partially order them by inclusion. Note that the
union of a chain is algebraically independent and thus an upper bound of the
chain. By Zorn’s Lemma there is a maximal algebraically independent subset,
which is a transcendence basis. The transcendence degree of L over K is the
cardinality of such a set, which is well-defined by Steinitz Exchange Lemma for
infinite sets, and is denoted trdegK (L).
Since L is algebraic over M , we have trdegK (L) = trdegK (M ). If si ’s
were algebraically dependent then trdegK (M ) < n as M would be algebraic
over a subfield generated by fewer elements and trdegK K(α1 , . . . , αn ) ≤ n by
induction. Absurd.
Polynomial invariant theory studies K[X1 , . . . , Xn ]H for a finite subgroup
H ≤ Sn and as an aside, rather than confining ourselves to permutations of
the variables, we may also consider H ≤ GL(V ) where V is the K-vector space
generated by X1 , . . . , Xn .
Question.
1. Is K[X1 , . . . , Xn ]H finitely generated?
54
5 Final Thoughts
2. Is K[X1 , . . . , Xn ]H isomormphic to any polynomial algebra?

We have shown above that the fixed field of K(X1 , . . . , Xn ) is K(s1 , . . . , sn ).
A similar result holds for the ring:
Theorem 5.8.
K[X1 , . . . , Xn ]Sn = K[s1 , . . . , sn ].
Definition (symmetric polynomial). The elements of K[s1 , . . . , sn ] are the

symmetric polynomials.
Proof. Let f (X1 , . . . , Xn ) ∈ K[X1 , . . . , Xn ]Sn . The proof is by induction on the
total degree of f . If the total degree is 0 then f is a constant polynomial and
thus in K, so in K[s1 , . . . , sn ].
Suppose the total degree of f is positive. Let
θ : K[X1 , . . . , Xn ] → K[X1 , . . . , Xn−1 ]
g(X1 , . . . , Xn ) 7→ g(Xn , . . . , Xn−1 , 0)
i.e. the projection of the first n − 1 coordinates. Then ker θ = (Xn ). Since
f (X1 , . . . , Xn ) is fixed by Sn , by slight abuse of notation θ(f (X1 , . . . , Xn )) =
f (X1 , . . . , Xn−1 ) is fixed under the subgroup Sn−1 , i.e. the subgroup that fixes
n. Note that in particular
θ(sj (X1 , . . . , Xn )) = sj (X1 , . . . , Xn−1 )
for j ≤ n − 1 where sj is the jth elementary symmetric polynomial. Apply
induction,
θ(f (X1 , . . . , Xn )) = p(s1 (X1 , . . . , Xn−1 ), . . . , sn−1 (X1 , . . . , Xn−1 ))
where p is a polynomial. Rearrange,
θ(f (X1 , . . . , Xn ) − p(s1 (X1 , . . . , Xn ), . . . , sn−1 (X1 , . . . , Xn ))) = 0
so Xn divides the polynomial
f (X1 , . . . , Xn ) − p(s1 (X1 , . . . , Xn ), . . . , sn−1 (X1 , . . . , Xn )) (∗)
which is a symmetric polynomial since it is fixed under Sn . It follows that Xi
divides (∗) for all i. However, K[X1 , . . . , Xn ] is a UFD and the Xi ’s are coprime
so the product X1 · · · Xn divides (∗). Write
f (X1 , . . . , Xn ) = g(X1 , . . . , Xn )X1 · · · Xn +p(s1 (X1 , . . . , Xn ), . . . , sn−1 (X1 , . . . , Xn )).
Observe that the total degree of g(X1 , . . . , Xn ) is smaller that that of f (X1 , . . . , Xn )
and that g(X1 , . . . , Xn ) is fixed under Sn . Applying induction to g(X1 , . . . , Xn )
and so it is a polynomial in si ’s. Thus f (X1 , . . . , Xn ) ∈ K[s1 , . . . , sn ].
Example. K[X1 , . . . , Xn ]An is generated by si ’s and
Y
∆(X1 , . . . , Xn ) = (Xi − Xj ).
i<j
Emmy Noether in 1920s consider other subgroups of Sn and showed that

the invariant rings are Noetherian.
55
5 Final Thoughts
Theorem 5.9 (Chevalley-Shephard-Todd). C[X1 , . . . , Xn ]H where H ≤

GL(V ) finite is isomorphic to a polynomial algebra if and only if H is
generated by pesudoreflections, whose 1-eigenspace has codimension 1.
56
Index
K-homomorphism, 10 normal, 13, 22

radical, 39
algebraic closure, 50 separable, 16
algebraic independence, 54 simple, 6
algebraically closed, 50 fixed field, 25
Artin’s Theorem, 26 Frobenius automorphism, 31
constructible number, 7 Galois group, 23, 28

cyclotomic polynomial, 33
inverse Galois problem, 53
derived series, 46
differentiation, 15 minimal polynomial, 5
discriminant, 29
norm, 19
elementary symmetric polynomial, separable, 15, 16
54 solubility, 39
soluble group, 44
field extension, 3 splitting field, 11
abelian, 36 splitting polynomial, 11
algebraic, 5 symmetric polynomial, 55
cyclic, 36
cyclotomic, 33 trace, 19
finite, 3 transcendence basis, 54
Galois, 23
Kummer, 39 Zorn’s Lemma, 51
57

Galois Theory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Galois Theory

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Galois Theory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of

2 Separable, Normal and Galois Extensions 15

3 Fundamental Theorem of Galois Theory 25

4 Cyclotomic and Kummer Extensions, Cubics and Quartics, So-

Definition (field extension). A field extension K ≤ L is the inclusion of a

Definition (degree of extension). The degree of L over K is dimk L, the

Definition (finite extension). If |L : K| < ∞ the extension is finite. Oth-

Theorem 1.1 (Tower Law). Suppose K ≤ L ≤ M are field extensions.

Proof. Assume |M : L| < ∞, |L : K| < ∞. Then we take an L-basis {fi }bi=1

The recipe for producing

Definition (algebraic, transcendental). α is algebraic over K if Iα 6= {0}.

Definition (algebraic extension). L is algebraic over K if for all α ∈ L, α

Remark. Iα is the kernel of the ring homomorphism

evaluation at α. It follows that Iα is an ideal of K[t].

Lemma 1.2. Let K ≤ L be a finite field extension. Then L is algebraic

for some λi ∈ K not all zero. Then α is a root of f (t) = λi ti . Thus α is

Definition (minimal polynomial). Iα = (fα (t)) and fα (t) can be assumed

Remark. Multiplication by α within the field L gives a K-linear map L → L,

Lemma 1.3. Suppose K ≤ L is a field extension, α ∈ L and α is algebraic

Definition (generated field). Suppose K ≤ L is a field extension and α ∈ L.

Definition (simple extension). L is a simple extension if L = K(β) for

Given α1 , . . . , αn ∈ L, K ≤ L, K(α1 , . . . , αn ) is the smallest intermediate

Theorem 1.4. Suppose K ≤ L is a field extension and α ∈ L is algebraic.

1. K(α) = K[α] = im(f 7→ f (α)).

r(t)fα (t) + s(t)g(t) = 1 ∈ K[t].

Thus s(α)g(α) = 1 ∈ K[α] and thus β = g(α) is a unit as required.

fα (t) = tn + an−1 tn−1 + · · · + a0

This implies that αn is a linear combination of {αi }n−1

• linear independence: suppose there is a relation i=0 λi αi = 0. Let

i=0 λi t . Since g(α) = 0, we have g(t) ∈ Iα = (fα (t)).

Corollary 1.5. If K ≤ L is a field extension and α ∈ L then α is algebraic

Proof. Straightforward by combining previous results.

Corollary 1.6. Let K ≤ L be a field extension with |L : K| = n and α ∈ L.

Proof. By Tower Law on K ≤ K(α) ≤ L, we deduce that |K(α) : K| divides

1.2 Digression on (non-)constructability

Definition (constructible number). The points of intersection of any two

Exercise. Construct the midpoint of a line between two points.

Let K0 be the subfield of R generated by Q and the coordinates of points in

Lemma 1.7. xi , yi are both roots in Ki of quadratic polynomials in Ki−1 [t].

Theorem 1.8. If r = (x, y) is constuctible from a set P0 of points in R2

Theorem 1.9 (Gauss’ Lemma). Let f (t) be a primitive integral polynomial.

Theorem 1.10 (Eisenstein’s criterion). Let f (t) = an tn + an−1 tn−1 + · · · +

then f (t) is irreducible in Z[t].

Example. Suppose p is prime. Then

f (t) = tp−1 + tp−2 + · · · + 1

is irreducible over Q by considering f (t + 1) and using p as the prime in Eisen-

Theorem 1.11. The cube cannot be duplicated by rulers and compasses.

Lemma 1.13. Let K ≤ L be a field extension. Then

1. α1 , . . . , αn ∈ L are algebraic over K if and only if K ≤ K(α1 , . . . , αn )

we get |K(α1 , . . . , αn ) : K| < ∞.

Definition (K-homomorphism). Suppose K ≤ L, K ≤ L0 are field exten-

HomK (L, L0 ) = {K-homomorphisms L → L0 }.

A K-homomorphism φ : L → L0 is a K-isomorphism if it is a ring isomorphism.

Lemma 1.14. Suppose K ≤ L, K ≤ L0 are field extensions. Then

1. any K-homomorphism φ : L → L0 is injective and K ≤ φ(L) is a field

1. L is a field and ker φ is an ideal of L. Note 1 7→ 1 and so ker φ 6= L, so

Notation. If K ≤ L is a field extension and if f (t) ∈ K[t], we denote the set