Conjugation Isomorphism

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sampras

Theorem. Suppose we have the conjugation isomorphism $\psi_{\alpha, \beta}: F(\alpha) \mapsto F(\beta)$ defined by $\psi_{\alpha, \beta}(a_0+a_{1} \alpha + \cdots + a_{n-1} \alpha^{n-1}) = a_0+a_{1} \beta + \cdots + a_{n-1} \beta^{n-1}$ (e.g. $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are conjugates). Then $\text{irr}(\alpha, F) = \text{irr}(\beta, F)$ .

The notion is that we have to show that $\text{irr}(\alpha, F)$ divides $\text{irr}(\beta, F)$ and $\text{irr}(\beta, F)$ divides $\text{irr}(\alpha, F)$ . But why can't we just stop and say $\text{irr}(\alpha, F)$ divides $\text{irr}(\beta, F)$ ? Because, by definition, if $\text{irr}(\alpha, F)$ divides $\text{irr}(\beta, F)$ , wouldn't that imply that $\text{irr}(\alpha, F) = \text{irr}(\beta, F)$ ?

If you already know that the corresponding irreducible polynomials are (monic, of course) and of the same degree, then yes: it is enough to show that one divides the other. Perhaps in this problem though they do not assume this...

Tonio