Subtle detail in proving the existence of algebraic closure

axiom-of-choicefield-theory

The typical proof of existence of algebraic closure goes like this. Let $F_0$ be a field. Adjoin indeterminate $x_p$ to $F_0$ for each polynomial $p \in F_0[x]$, and quotient it with a maximal ideal containing all the $p(x_p)$s. Let $F_1$ be the resulting field. Repeat this recursively and we obtain a algebraically closed field $\varinjlim F_n = F$ where $F_0$ can be embedded. Let $E$ be the set of elements of $F$ which are algebraic over $F_0$, then $E$ is the desired algebraic closure. In this proof, we use choice not only to show the existence of maximal ideals containing $p(x_p)$s but also to choose one among them. Here is the subtlety: We can't use choice each step, so we should fix a choice function to use during recursion. I've came up with two ideas to do this.

  1. Fix a workspace $W \supset F_0$ which has cardinality $> \lvert F_0 \rvert + \aleph_0$. Since we make no sets of cardinality above $W$, we can uniformly construct tower of fields $F_0 \subset F_1 \subset F_2 \subset \dots \subset W$ with fixed choice functions on $\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{P}(W)) \setminus \{\varnothing\}$ and ${\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{P}(W \times W})) \setminus \{\varnothing\}$ etc.
  2. Calculate how many ranks rise for each step, and fix a choice function with adequate $V_\alpha$ as above where $\alpha$ depends on $F_0$(or $\operatorname{rank}(F_0)$).

Am I making things hard, or should we work like this?

Best Answer

Yes, both options are valid, with the latter one may be more confusing to people less familiar with the von Neumann hierarchy. You can also start by well-ordering $F_0[x]$, then always adding the necessarily elements as the smallest ordinals not already in your current field.

Since from the well-ordering of $F_0[x]$ (which includes a copy of $F_0$ as the constant "polynomials") we can compute a well-ordering of any single-step extension, we can compute a fairly-canonical well-ordered algebraic closure.

(Once again, transfinite recursion and sets of ordinals win the day.)

Usually, however, we don't really worry about that. To the extent that showing this much effort will often elicit some odd looks from people.