Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-categories 2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry beauty bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science connection constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality education elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory infinity integration integration-theory k-theory lie lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology multicategories noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pasting philosophy physics planar pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string-theory subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJul 5th 2015

    Created splitting field.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJul 5th 2015

    Made improvements to splitting field, noting in particular that existence and uniqueness up to isomorphism of splitting fields of arbitrary sets of polynomials doesn’t require the full axiom of choice, but only the ultrafilter principle. This applies in particular to algebraic closures.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeJul 6th 2015

    Is it worth pointing out that for a countable field (and so a countable set SS of polynomials) one doesn’t need such a strong axiom to get algebraic closure etc? Or better, that for a set of polynomials with bounded cardinality, there much be an ultrafilter principle (for sets up to a certain size) that implies the existence of splitting fields.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJul 6th 2015

    Sure, there are a number of such statements one could make: for finite fields no choice is required, and for any field (such as \mathbb{Q}) which sits canonically inside \mathbb{C} you don’t need choice, in addition to the statements you gave. Please feel free to add such, or I might do so sometime later.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeJul 6th 2015

    Isn’t there some subtlety even in the countable case? I vaguely recall something terrible like, a countable field has a unique countable algebraic closure, but there may also be uncountable algebraic closures.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJul 6th 2015
    • (edited Jul 6th 2015)

    Right, there was this thread on FOM started by Timothy Chow about uniqueness of algebraic closure of even \mathbb{Q} if one doesn’t assume some amount of choice or choice-consequence, perhaps such as the statement that the union of countably many finite sets is countable. I haven’t looked at the cited paper, but it sounds like Lauchli has constructed these monsters that Zhen Lin is referring to. I didn’t trace through to the end of the discussion there, which proceeds by fits and (false) starts. (Sorting by thread is highly recommended.)

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeJul 7th 2015
    • (edited Jul 7th 2015)

    Let me point out for completeness that the thread continues, at times, in the following month. No conclusion seems to be reached!

    Note that the contention is mostly around the definition of algebraic closure.

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)