I am reading something about separable extensions and passed by the following definitions:
(Separable degree) Let $E$ be an algebraic extension of a field $F$. and let $\sigma :F\rightarrow L$ be an embedding of $F$ in an algebraically closed field $L$. Let $S_\sigma$ be the set of extensions of $\sigma$ to an embedding of $E$ in $L$. When we define $$card(S_\sigma):=[E:F]_S$$ and call it the separable degree of $E$ over $F$.
(Separable extension) Let $E$ be a finite extension of $k$. We shall say that $E$ is separable over $k$ if $$[E:k]_S=[E:k]$$
(Separable element) An element $\alpha$ algebraic over $k$ is said to be separable over $k$ if $k(\alpha)$ is separable over $k$. This is equivalent to say that the minimalpolynom of $\alpha$ has no multiple roots
I somehow don't see why in the third definition we have the equivalence, i.e. the statement written in bolt is equivalent to the one don't written in bolt.
Can someone maybe explain this to me?
Thanks for your help
Let $f(x)$ be the minimal polynomial of $\alpha$. An embedding $k(\alpha) \to L$ is completely determined by where it maps $\alpha$. $\alpha$ must be mapped to a root of $f$, and any root defines an embedding. Thus $[k(\alpha):k]_S$ is equal to the number of distinct roots of $f$. Whereas $[k(\alpha):k]$ is equal to the degree of $f$. If $f$ has a multiple root, then the number of distinct roots would be fewer.