Finally why can't we define a splitting field for a polynomial defined over any general ring as opposed to over fields as the article Splitting field says?
22.
Finally why can't we define a splitting field for a polynomial defined over any general ring as opposed to over fields as the article Splitting field says?
23.
The splitting of primes in extensions that are not Galois may be studied by using a splitting field initially, i . e . a Galois extension that is somewhat larger.
24.
But, since the Galois group of the splitting field of a quintic polynomial has at most elements, and since is a splitting field of, it follows that is isomorphic to.
25.
But, since the Galois group of the splitting field of a quintic polynomial has at most elements, and since is a splitting field of, it follows that is isomorphic to.
26.
Map " A " to a matrix ring over a splitting field and define the reduced norm and trace to be the composite of this map with determinant and trace respectively.
27.
*PM : splitting field of a finite set of polynomials, id = 9140 new !-- WP guess : splitting field of a finite set of polynomials-- Status:
28.
*PM : splitting field of a finite set of polynomials, id = 9140 new !-- WP guess : splitting field of a finite set of polynomials-- Status:
29.
It follows that a splitting field of will contain ? 2, as well as the real cube root of 2; conversely, any extension of containing these elements contains all the roots of.
30.
That is, the automorphisms of F fixing " F " are described by the inverse limit, as we take larger and larger finite splitting fields over " F ".
