Construct a field with all positive intergers.

  • Thread starter Thread starter FallMonkey
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Field Positive
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the feasibility of constructing a field using only positive integers while adhering to the fundamental properties of fields. The original approach attempted to utilize finite fields but was deemed inappropriate for the infinite nature of positive integers. A professor suggested rephrasing the problem in terms of set theory, which could simplify the exploration of this concept. The participant expresses a desire to understand how to prove or disprove the possibility of such a field, indicating a growing interest in set theory. Overall, the conversation highlights the complexity of the problem and the potential for a clearer understanding through set theory.
FallMonkey
Messages
11
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Is it possible to construct a field, that satisfies all basic propeties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics)#Definition_and_illustration , the six bolded part ), with only and all positive integers?

Remeber, you don't have 0/negative numbers/fraction in positive integers, so you may have to redefine addition and multiplication to help.

And, quoted from my professor, "If you rephrase this question in terms of set theory, it would be rather easy then".

Homework Equations



None.

The Attempt at a Solution



OK first I tried finite field approach, and thought that I could be able to make a value table to enumerate all possible values of addition and multiplication, based on that we refer to Galois Extension to construct higher order of the table, until the p^n order of a finite field. But after speaking with professor, it was said to be wrong direction because I'm supposed to use all postive intergers, other than such special finite field case. Obviously what I'm trying to achieve is a infinite field, and I only know three of such, rational/real/complex.

And there I got a remark from him, that I wrote above, "If you rephrase this question in terms of set theory, it would be rather easy then". I'm only begnning in set theory as a junior math major, and I know I could probably be not able to answer it right now. But curiosity is killing me inside and I'd love to know even a little about what I should know for proving or disproving this postulate.

Thank you very much, and let me know if I do not make it clear somewhere.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Rephrase the question to: You have a countable set. Can you turn it into a field?
 
Office_Shredder said:
Rephrase the question to: You have a countable set. Can you turn it into a field?

That's such amazing rephrase, I suddenly feel I have more for it.

Thanks for the tips, I'll see what I can do now.
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
9K