1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Abelian groups from the definition of a field

  1. Dec 4, 2007 #1
    Just a pregrad-level curiosity:

    I see often repeated (in the Wikipedia page defining "Field", for one) that, from the field's axioms, it can be deduced that F,+ and F\{0},* are both commutative groups.

    Yet, the closure property of * is only guaranteed on F, not necessarily on F\{0}. If I'm not mistaken, the finite field Z/6Z is a counter-example: 2*3=0 (mod 6), so {1,2,3,4,5} cannot be a group under multiplication. Is that correct?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 4, 2007 #2

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Z/6Z isn't a field...
     
  4. Dec 4, 2007 #3
    Hm, I think the trick here is that Z/6Z (assuming I understand your terminology... I think I would call this [tex]Z_6[/tex]) is not a finite field. The only finite fields of this type are of order p, where p is a prime number. When p is prime the multiplicative group will always be closed under multiplication.

    If you think about it, it would not make sense anyway for [tex]Z_6[/tex] to be a field. For example, if [tex]Z_6[/tex] is a field, then 2 would have to have a multiplicative inverse [tex]2^{-1}[/tex]. But what do we get when we multiply [tex]2^{-1}[/tex], whatever it is, by 0? We get... 0, not 3 as we should. I think there are other violations of the field axioms as well. [tex]Z_6[/tex] is only an additive group.
     
  5. Dec 4, 2007 #4

    mathwonk

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    so as you observe, it must be a theorem that in a field, F-{0} is closed for *. i recall that as one of the first lemmas proved in abstract algebra. i believe it uses the fact that every non zero element has an inverse, and the definition of a unit for multiplication, plus the distributive property of multiplication. ohh, and the fact that 0 and 1 are different elements.
     
  6. Dec 4, 2007 #5
    Thanks for all your answers; that the order of a finite field has to have some restrictions (being a prime is one) makes now more sense.

    I suppose the only think needed to show the closure of F\{0} under * is that, given two elements a,b of F, both non-zero, a*b cannot be zero. If a*b=0, since b is non-zero and therefore has an inverse b', then multiplying by b', a*b*b' = 0, and a=0, which contradicts the initial statement.
     
  7. Dec 4, 2007 #6

    morphism

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I want to point out that the order of a finite field can be a power of a prime. However, Z/nZ is a field iff n is a prime. If p is a prime divisor of n but n/p isn't 1, then p*(n/p)=0 (mod n), i.e. Z/nZ admits a zero divisor. So Z/nZ can be a field only if n is a prime. The converse follows from the fact that nZ is a maximal ideal in Z when n is a prime (it's trivially a prime ideal and hence a maximal ideal because Z is a PID).
     
  8. Dec 4, 2007 #7
    It is a curious asymmetry; then there cannot be any isomorphism from a finite field F of order 9 to Z/9Z; if a is an element of F such that f(a)=3, a*a would be the 0 element of F. I'll try to look up examples of such finite field.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2007
  9. Dec 4, 2007 #8

    JasonRox

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Well, 9 is not a prime therefore a finite field of order 9 does not exist.
     
  10. Dec 5, 2007 #9

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Except, of course, y'know, that one that does exist. :tongue:

    [tex]
    GF(3^2) \cong \mathbf{Z}[x] / \langle 3, x^2 + 1 \rangle
    [/tex]
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2007
  11. Dec 5, 2007 #10
  12. Dec 5, 2007 #11

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    [itex]\langle 3, x^2 + 1 \rangle[/itex] is the ideal generated by 3 and x² + 1. So, the example you linked is a ring of reduced representatives for the one I posted.

    (In fact, it turns out that all finite fields of order 9 are isomorphic)
     
  13. Dec 5, 2007 #12
    Yeah, when I said "The only finite fields of this type are of order p, where p is a prime number.", by "of this type" I meant the [tex]Z_n[/tex] fields, the ones obtained by applying a modulus to the integers. Sorry if I was unclear!
     
  14. Dec 5, 2007 #13

    JasonRox

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Thanks for pointing that out. o:)
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Abelian groups from the definition of a field
Loading...