I am trying to show thatand
are not isomorphic.
My question is this... Isomorphisms preserve subfields (including, in this case,), and I WANT to say something like '
must be preserved so the mapping acts as the identity on
but then it must act as the identity on the whole field, but then clearly it is not an isomorphism so
and
cannot be isomorphic.'
But, is any of this true, or even a useful way of thinking about it? Sadly, I suspect not...


LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks




