Determining the Characteristic of a Field Containing Z_p

  • Thread starter Thread starter ehrenfest
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fields
Click For Summary
A field containing Z_p must have prime characteristic p, as established in the theorem discussed. If the field had a different prime characteristic q, it would also contain Z_q, leading to contradictions regarding the sums of elements in Z_p and Z_q. The proof confirms that if p and q are distinct primes, the algebraic properties of both fields cannot coexist without conflict. The discussion also addresses the necessity of stating certain algebraic conditions, with participants agreeing that the original proof is valid despite some confusion. Overall, the corollary and proof effectively demonstrate the relationship between fields and their characteristics.
ehrenfest
Messages
2,001
Reaction score
1
[SOLVED] fields containing Z_p

Homework Statement


Here is a theorem in my book: "A field F is either of prime characteristic p and contains a subfield isomorphic to Z_p or of characteristic 0 and contains a subfield isomorphic to Q."


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


Here is my corollary: "If a field contains a copy of Z_p, then it must be of prime characteristic p."
Here is the proof: If the field has prime characteristic q not equal to p, then it must contain a copy of Z_q. If q > p, then since the field contains Z_p, we have (p-1)+1 = 0, which is not true in Z_q. If the q < p, we have (q-1) + 1 = 0, which is not true in Z_p. Therefore, the field cannot contain Z_q where q is not equal to p. Furthermore, if the field contains Q, then (p-1)+1=0 is a contradiction. Therefore, the only possibility that the above theorem gives is that the characteristic is p.

Please confirm that this is correct.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The corollary is correct, but I don't quite understand what you're doing when you say things like "(p-1)+1 = 0, which is not true in Z_q". I mean, why is this even necessary to state?
 
If the field contains both Z_p and Z_q, where q>p, then the algebra of Z_p requires that (p-1) and 1 sum to 0. But the algebra of Z_q requires that (p-1) and 1 sum to p which is a contradiction.

Do you have a better way to prove the corollary?
 
I guess I would just say, since p & q are distinct primes, p!=0 in Z_q. But it doesn't really matter, and what you did is fine.
 
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
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
6K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K