The Stacks project

Lemma 10.44.2. Let $k$ be a field of characteristic $p > 0$. Let $K/k$ be a field extension. The following are equivalent:

  1. $K$ is separable over $k$,

  2. for every $k$-linearly independent subset $\{ a_1, \ldots , a_ m\} $ of $K$ the set $\{ a^ p_1, \ldots , a_ m^ p\} $ is $k$-linearly independent,

  3. the ring $K \otimes _ k k^{1/p}$ is reduced, and

  4. $K$ is geometrically reduced over $k$.

Proof. The implication (1) $\Rightarrow $ (4) follows from Lemma 10.43.6. The implication (4) $\Rightarrow $ (3) is immediate.

Assume (3). Consider the ring homomorphism $m : K \otimes _ k k^{1/p} \rightarrow K$ given by

\[ \lambda \otimes \mu \rightarrow \lambda ^ p \mu ^ p \]

Note that $x^ p = m(x) \otimes 1$ for all $x \in K \otimes _ k k^{1/p}$. Since $K \otimes _ k k^{1/p}$ is reduced we see $m$ is injective. If $\{ a_1, \ldots , a_ m\} \subset K$ is $k$-linearly independent, then $\{ a_1 \otimes 1, \ldots , a_ m \otimes 1\} $ is $k^{1/p}$-linearly independent. By injectivity of $m$ we deduce that no nontrivial $k$-linear combination of $a_1^ p, \ldots , a_ m^ p$ is is zero. Hence (3) implies (2).

Assume (2). To prove (1) we may assume that $K$ is finitely generated over $k$ and we have to prove that $K$ is separably generated over $k$. Let $\{ x_1, \ldots , x_ d\} $ be a transcendence base of $K/k$. By Fields, Lemma 9.8.6 we have $[K : K'] < \infty $ where $K' = k(x_1, \ldots , x_ d)$. Choose the transcendence base such that the degree of inseparability $[K : K']_ i$ is minimal. If $K / K'$ is separable then we win. Assume this is not the case to get a contradiction. Then there exists $x_{d + 1} \in K$ which is not separable over $K'$, and in particular $[K'(x_{d+1}) : K']_ i > 1$. Then by Lemma 10.44.1 there is $1 \leq j \leq n + 1$ such that $K'' = k(x_1, \ldots , \widehat{x}_ j, \ldots , x_{d+1})$ satisfies $[K'(x_{d+1}) : K'']_ i = 1$. By multiplicativity $[K : K'']_ i < [K : K']_ i$ and we obtain the contradiction. $\square$

Comments (21)

Comment #387 by Filip Chindea on

Is it really obvious that maps to a nonzero element of ? As far as I know there is a vanishing criterion for elements in a tensor product of modules, but nothing for fields (algebras). I've been thinking at this for some time, but I may be missing something. If the answer is trivial you can delete this altogether after my apologies, anyway thank you for your time.

Comment #388 by on

Yes, this needs a small argument. Say has degree in . Then the elements for of map to -linearly independent elements of . By construction of the tensor product, the same elements map to -linearly independent elements of . In particular, does not map to zero as the -degree of is . OK?

Comment #389 by Filip Chindea on

Thanks; you can delete this. It was just my ridiculous expectation that the irreducibility of in should turn up while calculating in the tensor product.

Comment #390 by on

OK, I went ahead and added the extra argument. The change is here.

If there is a misunderstanding about what the argument is supposed to be, then probably the argument deserves to be updated and/or extended.

Comment #740 by Keenan Kidwell on

Is it clear that the polynomial is non-zero, and that the fact that implies that (for some reason this kind of thing always really confuses me, so this might be a very dumb question)? I thought perhaps it followed from the linear independence of the monomials in the displayed equation, but I can't seem to make that work.

Comment #751 by on

It took me a while to understand your question, but you do have a valid point. I've tried to address your concern by adding a couple of lines explaing that is irreducible as a polynomial in over which is a purely transcendental extension of . Here is the commit which also includes fixing the other typos you found.

It seems that there is a curse on this proof as it keeps having to be modified! There is a still a last step in the proof that perhaps should be clarified a bit more, namely, why the inseparable degree is lessened...

Comment #756 by Keenan Kidwell on

I looked at the commit, but I'm still confused. How are we concluding that is algebraically independent before knowing that is algebraic over ? Once we know that is algebraic over , then because is algebraic over , is algebraic over , and thus , which forces to be algebraically independent. The argument as it is now uses this algebraic independence to prove that is algebraic over (by proving that the relevant polynomial relation with coefficients in is non-trivial). Also, in the commit, there is a typo: the second is missing from "independent."

Comment #759 by on

There is a nontrivial algebraic relation between which involves , namely . The fact that involves is proved before we point out that are algebraically independent. (When you read the commit you have to remove the red lines.) OK?

Comment #760 by on

OK, I guess what I said wasn't good enough because for example, if for some , then it wouldn't work. But we also know that is irreducible in the polynomial ring on variables and then it is enough.

Actually the way I think about the situation of the proof is, as soon as we have found in a minimal polynomial for over , then I think of the irreducible hypersurface and I replace by the function field of . Then after we show that is nonzero, I think of that as saying that the projection gotten by forgetting the first variable, is generically \'etale, i.e., that the function field extension is (finite) separable. So certainly, as soon as you agree that at least one variable occurs in a term of with an exponent not divisible by , then I am completely sure that the proof is correct.

The problem is that we also need to keep the proof readable, understandable, etc. A good way to do this would probably be to have a discussion of the relationship between multivariable polynomials and (nonalgebraic) field extensions and then to refer to that. I encourage you to write your own and submit it! Thanks.

Comment #761 by on

The displayed equation should be

Comment #763 by on

Another thing we need is a statement and proof of Gauss's lemma, maybe somewhere in the chapter on fields?

Comment #764 by Keenan Kidwell on

Yes! I understand now. The whole point is that the derivative in is non-zero, so shows up, and we can write with of degree less than in , . Written this way, it's then obvious that (as a polynomial in ). I don't know why this kind of thing confuses me so much. Thank you for explaining it!

Comment #765 by on

OK, yes, that is a good way to see it. I really appreciate reporting back here. Thanks!

Comment #5562 by DatPham on

I don't understand why is algebraic over . I know that is a root of the polynomial . But how do we know this polynomial is nonzero? If we write for , and of degree , then it might happen that .

Comment #5821 by DatPham on

@#5745: Dear Professor Johan, I did read comment #764 many times, but I still cannot understand why when because may be algebraically dependent over k (of course if is algebraic over then has to be algebraically independent but this seems to be circular ...) .

Comment #5823 by on

To help me understand the confusion, please read the proof from the beginning and point out the first sentence in the proof where you do not understand the assertion. Because each time I read your comment, I think you are pointing to something in the second paragraph of the proof where we already know that is monic in , is nonzero and is irreducible in over . Hence is irreducible in over by Gauss lemma. Hence are algebraically independent. So the polynomial cannot be zero as a polynomial in because this would mean we get an algebraic relation between by looking at the coefficients of powers of . (I am just repeating the proof here, so this probably doesn't help.)

Comment #5824 by DatPham on

@#5823: Dear Professor Johan, thank you for being patient with me. In your comment above, I start getting confused from the sentence ''Hence are algebraically independent...'' I don't understand how we can deduce this from the fact that is irreducible in over .

Comment #5825 by on

Otherwise the transcendence degree of the field generated by over would be less than !

Comment #8750 by David R on

I was confused by this too. I believe the following clarifies the argument: given we may choose to be irreducible (for the full polynomial ring) by defining where is the gcd of the coefficients (well-defined because is a UFD). This subsequently shows that the given polynomial for is irreducible and therefore that is separable.

Comment #9327 by on

OK, I got a nice exposition of the heart of this proof isolated in a separate lemma which I have accepted and edited here. Hopefully this will be online soon.

Post a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked.

In your comment you can use Markdown and LaTeX style mathematics (enclose it like $\pi$). A preview option is available if you wish to see how it works out (just click on the eye in the toolbar).

Unfortunately JavaScript is disabled in your browser, so the comment preview function will not work.

All contributions are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.

In order to prevent bots from posting comments, we would like you to prove that you are human. You can do this by filling in the name of the current tag in the following input field. As a reminder, this is tag 030W. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.