$F$-Automorphism of $F(w)$ induces automorphism on ${1,w,w^2,…,w^{n-1} }$ only if $w$ primitive n-th root?












1












$begingroup$


I just stumble across a theorem in Galois theory, that says that if F is a field of characteristic p and $w$ is a primitive n-th root of unity with $p nmid n$ than if we take a $F$-automorphism $sigma$ of $F(w)$, then $sigma$ induces an automorphism $sigma_0$ of ${1,w,w^2,...,w^{n-1}}$ by restricting $sigma$ to this set. But I was wondering : What could go wrong if $w$ was just an algebraic element over $F$ and not a primitive root of unity?






galois-theory







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    The point is that ${1,w,w^2,ldots, w^{n-1}}$ is a group under multiplication. This clearly is not the case when $w$ is just algebraic.
    $endgroup$
    – freakish
    Dec 1 '18 at 17:21










  • $begingroup$
    @freakish: Surely the powers of any element of $F(w)$ form a group under multiplication irrespective of whether $w$ is a root of unity or not. I think this is more about the group of units of order dividing $n$ being unique, and hence fixed by $sigma$ (as a set).
    $endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Dec 1 '18 at 20:12






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    So what could wrong is that unless $w$ has finite order it may happen that $sigma(w)$ is not a power of $w$ at all. For example, let $F=Bbb{F}_2(x)$ be a field of rational functions, $x$ transcental over the prime field. Assume that $w$ satisfies the equation $w^2+w=x$. Then $w$ is algebraic over $F$ and the only non-trivial automorphism of $F(w)/F$ is determined by $sigma(w)=w+1$. We cannot have $w+1=w^k$ for any $kinBbb{Z}$ for then $w$ would be algebraic over the prime field.
    $endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Dec 1 '18 at 20:19










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks, but why the only non-trivial F-automorphism is $sigma(w)=w+1$? Shouldn't it send $w$ to a root of the minimal polynomial $y^2+y-x$?
    $endgroup$
    – roi_saumon
    Dec 1 '18 at 21:10






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The roots of $y^2+y-x$ are $w$ and $w+1$. Characteristic two is essential.
    $endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Dec 2 '18 at 5:30


















1












$begingroup$


I just stumble across a theorem in Galois theory, that says that if F is a field of characteristic p and $w$ is a primitive n-th root of unity with $p nmid n$ than if we take a $F$-automorphism $sigma$ of $F(w)$, then $sigma$ induces an automorphism $sigma_0$ of ${1,w,w^2,...,w^{n-1}}$ by restricting $sigma$ to this set. But I was wondering : What could go wrong if $w$ was just an algebraic element over $F$ and not a primitive root of unity?






galois-theory







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    The point is that ${1,w,w^2,ldots, w^{n-1}}$ is a group under multiplication. This clearly is not the case when $w$ is just algebraic.
    $endgroup$
    – freakish
    Dec 1 '18 at 17:21










  • $begingroup$
    @freakish: Surely the powers of any element of $F(w)$ form a group under multiplication irrespective of whether $w$ is a root of unity or not. I think this is more about the group of units of order dividing $n$ being unique, and hence fixed by $sigma$ (as a set).
    $endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Dec 1 '18 at 20:12






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    So what could wrong is that unless $w$ has finite order it may happen that $sigma(w)$ is not a power of $w$ at all. For example, let $F=Bbb{F}_2(x)$ be a field of rational functions, $x$ transcental over the prime field. Assume that $w$ satisfies the equation $w^2+w=x$. Then $w$ is algebraic over $F$ and the only non-trivial automorphism of $F(w)/F$ is determined by $sigma(w)=w+1$. We cannot have $w+1=w^k$ for any $kinBbb{Z}$ for then $w$ would be algebraic over the prime field.
    $endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Dec 1 '18 at 20:19










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks, but why the only non-trivial F-automorphism is $sigma(w)=w+1$? Shouldn't it send $w$ to a root of the minimal polynomial $y^2+y-x$?
    $endgroup$
    – roi_saumon
    Dec 1 '18 at 21:10






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The roots of $y^2+y-x$ are $w$ and $w+1$. Characteristic two is essential.
    $endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Dec 2 '18 at 5:30
















1












1








1





$begingroup$


I just stumble across a theorem in Galois theory, that says that if F is a field of characteristic p and $w$ is a primitive n-th root of unity with $p nmid n$ than if we take a $F$-automorphism $sigma$ of $F(w)$, then $sigma$ induces an automorphism $sigma_0$ of ${1,w,w^2,...,w^{n-1}}$ by restricting $sigma$ to this set. But I was wondering : What could go wrong if $w$ was just an algebraic element over $F$ and not a primitive root of unity?






galois-theory







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




I just stumble across a theorem in Galois theory, that says that if F is a field of characteristic p and $w$ is a primitive n-th root of unity with $p nmid n$ than if we take a $F$-automorphism $sigma$ of $F(w)$, then $sigma$ induces an automorphism $sigma_0$ of ${1,w,w^2,...,w^{n-1}}$ by restricting $sigma$ to this set. But I was wondering : What could go wrong if $w$ was just an algebraic element over $F$ and not a primitive root of unity?






galois-theory




galois-theory






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Dec 1 '18 at 15:03









roi_saumonroi_saumon

56938




56938












  • $begingroup$
    The point is that ${1,w,w^2,ldots, w^{n-1}}$ is a group under multiplication. This clearly is not the case when $w$ is just algebraic.
    $endgroup$
    – freakish
    Dec 1 '18 at 17:21










  • $begingroup$
    @freakish: Surely the powers of any element of $F(w)$ form a group under multiplication irrespective of whether $w$ is a root of unity or not. I think this is more about the group of units of order dividing $n$ being unique, and hence fixed by $sigma$ (as a set).
    $endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Dec 1 '18 at 20:12






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    So what could wrong is that unless $w$ has finite order it may happen that $sigma(w)$ is not a power of $w$ at all. For example, let $F=Bbb{F}_2(x)$ be a field of rational functions, $x$ transcental over the prime field. Assume that $w$ satisfies the equation $w^2+w=x$. Then $w$ is algebraic over $F$ and the only non-trivial automorphism of $F(w)/F$ is determined by $sigma(w)=w+1$. We cannot have $w+1=w^k$ for any $kinBbb{Z}$ for then $w$ would be algebraic over the prime field.
    $endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Dec 1 '18 at 20:19










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks, but why the only non-trivial F-automorphism is $sigma(w)=w+1$? Shouldn't it send $w$ to a root of the minimal polynomial $y^2+y-x$?
    $endgroup$
    – roi_saumon
    Dec 1 '18 at 21:10






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The roots of $y^2+y-x$ are $w$ and $w+1$. Characteristic two is essential.
    $endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Dec 2 '18 at 5:30




















  • $begingroup$
    The point is that ${1,w,w^2,ldots, w^{n-1}}$ is a group under multiplication. This clearly is not the case when $w$ is just algebraic.
    $endgroup$
    – freakish
    Dec 1 '18 at 17:21










  • $begingroup$
    @freakish: Surely the powers of any element of $F(w)$ form a group under multiplication irrespective of whether $w$ is a root of unity or not. I think this is more about the group of units of order dividing $n$ being unique, and hence fixed by $sigma$ (as a set).
    $endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Dec 1 '18 at 20:12






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    So what could wrong is that unless $w$ has finite order it may happen that $sigma(w)$ is not a power of $w$ at all. For example, let $F=Bbb{F}_2(x)$ be a field of rational functions, $x$ transcental over the prime field. Assume that $w$ satisfies the equation $w^2+w=x$. Then $w$ is algebraic over $F$ and the only non-trivial automorphism of $F(w)/F$ is determined by $sigma(w)=w+1$. We cannot have $w+1=w^k$ for any $kinBbb{Z}$ for then $w$ would be algebraic over the prime field.
    $endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Dec 1 '18 at 20:19










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks, but why the only non-trivial F-automorphism is $sigma(w)=w+1$? Shouldn't it send $w$ to a root of the minimal polynomial $y^2+y-x$?
    $endgroup$
    – roi_saumon
    Dec 1 '18 at 21:10






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The roots of $y^2+y-x$ are $w$ and $w+1$. Characteristic two is essential.
    $endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Dec 2 '18 at 5:30


















$begingroup$
The point is that ${1,w,w^2,ldots, w^{n-1}}$ is a group under multiplication. This clearly is not the case when $w$ is just algebraic.
$endgroup$
– freakish
Dec 1 '18 at 17:21




$begingroup$
The point is that ${1,w,w^2,ldots, w^{n-1}}$ is a group under multiplication. This clearly is not the case when $w$ is just algebraic.
$endgroup$
– freakish
Dec 1 '18 at 17:21












$begingroup$
@freakish: Surely the powers of any element of $F(w)$ form a group under multiplication irrespective of whether $w$ is a root of unity or not. I think this is more about the group of units of order dividing $n$ being unique, and hence fixed by $sigma$ (as a set).
$endgroup$
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Dec 1 '18 at 20:12




$begingroup$
@freakish: Surely the powers of any element of $F(w)$ form a group under multiplication irrespective of whether $w$ is a root of unity or not. I think this is more about the group of units of order dividing $n$ being unique, and hence fixed by $sigma$ (as a set).
$endgroup$
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Dec 1 '18 at 20:12




1




1




$begingroup$
So what could wrong is that unless $w$ has finite order it may happen that $sigma(w)$ is not a power of $w$ at all. For example, let $F=Bbb{F}_2(x)$ be a field of rational functions, $x$ transcental over the prime field. Assume that $w$ satisfies the equation $w^2+w=x$. Then $w$ is algebraic over $F$ and the only non-trivial automorphism of $F(w)/F$ is determined by $sigma(w)=w+1$. We cannot have $w+1=w^k$ for any $kinBbb{Z}$ for then $w$ would be algebraic over the prime field.
$endgroup$
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Dec 1 '18 at 20:19




$begingroup$
So what could wrong is that unless $w$ has finite order it may happen that $sigma(w)$ is not a power of $w$ at all. For example, let $F=Bbb{F}_2(x)$ be a field of rational functions, $x$ transcental over the prime field. Assume that $w$ satisfies the equation $w^2+w=x$. Then $w$ is algebraic over $F$ and the only non-trivial automorphism of $F(w)/F$ is determined by $sigma(w)=w+1$. We cannot have $w+1=w^k$ for any $kinBbb{Z}$ for then $w$ would be algebraic over the prime field.
$endgroup$
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Dec 1 '18 at 20:19












$begingroup$
Thanks, but why the only non-trivial F-automorphism is $sigma(w)=w+1$? Shouldn't it send $w$ to a root of the minimal polynomial $y^2+y-x$?
$endgroup$
– roi_saumon
Dec 1 '18 at 21:10




$begingroup$
Thanks, but why the only non-trivial F-automorphism is $sigma(w)=w+1$? Shouldn't it send $w$ to a root of the minimal polynomial $y^2+y-x$?
$endgroup$
– roi_saumon
Dec 1 '18 at 21:10




1




1




$begingroup$
The roots of $y^2+y-x$ are $w$ and $w+1$. Characteristic two is essential.
$endgroup$
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Dec 2 '18 at 5:30






$begingroup$
The roots of $y^2+y-x$ are $w$ and $w+1$. Characteristic two is essential.
$endgroup$
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Dec 2 '18 at 5:30












0






active

oldest

votes











Your Answer





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

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

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

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


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3021449%2ff-automorphism-of-fw-induces-automorphism-on-1-w-w2-wn-1-on%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























0






active

oldest

votes








0






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes
















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


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

But avoid …



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

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


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


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




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3021449%2ff-automorphism-of-fw-induces-automorphism-on-1-w-w2-wn-1-on%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

How to change which sound is reproduced for terminal bell?

Image
3 Recently upgrade to 18.10 from 18.04, and using the terminal is becoming annoying: the new alert sound is a drip ( /usr/share/sounds/gnome/default/alerts/drip.ogg ), and the previous one is still located at ( /usr/share/sounds/ubuntu/stereo/bell.ogg ). My issue is that at the gnome-terminal, when autocompleting or pressing left BOTH sounds are reproduced, at the same time. I want to just have ubuntu/stereo/bell.ogg active, not both . At the moment I have been only able to reduce the volume of the alerts (but still both are played), or turn the alerts down (but I dislike both "solutions"). gnome-terminal 18.10 teminal-bell share | improve this question
Read more

Can I use Tabulator js library in my java Spring + Thymeleaf project?

Image
0 I want to add Tabulator js to my java project. I added tabulator.min.js, tabulator.min.css to resources folder. After that added to my html page these dependencies as recommending in readme.md. <link rel="stylesheet" th:href="@{/css/tabulator.min.css}"> <script type="text/javascript" th:src="@{/js/tabulator.min.js}"></script> Now my tables view all elements, that I have in the html page, but not correct. In the documentation of Tabulator is example how to create header and table, var table = new Tabulator("#example-table", { columns:[ {title:"Name", field:"name", sorter:"string", width:200, editor:true}, {title:"Age", field:"age", sorter:"
Read more

Title Spacing in Bjornstrup Chapter, Removing Chapter Number From Contents

Image
up vote 5 down vote favorite 2 I would like to make it so that the vertical space below the title of each chapter is the same when using the Bjornstrup package (i.e. so that the descenders do not affect the spacing - as shown by the red arrow in the picture below). I think I'm fairly happy with the spacing around "A chapter", so I'd really like titles without descenders (e.g. "Contents") to have the same vertical spacing as "A chapter" below the title. I would also like to remove the large "0" in the contents title. Any help appreciated, as always. documentclass[11pt,a4paper]{book} % Packages[![enter image description here][1]][1] usepackage[left=3.5cm, right=3.5cm, top=4.3cm, bottom=4.25cm]{geometry} usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} usepackage{libertine} usepackage[libertine]{newtx
Read more