Every element of a finite field is a sum of 2 squares?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that every element of a finite field can be expressed as a sum of two squares. The original poster is exploring various approaches to establish this claim, particularly focusing on functions that map elements of the field.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the surjectivity of a function defined by squaring elements of the field and the implications of this for expressing elements as sums of squares. There are attempts to demonstrate that the product of sums of squares remains a sum of squares, and questions arise regarding the properties of square roots in the context of the field.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, offering various lines of reasoning and exploring the implications of their findings. Some guidance has been provided regarding the structure of subsets within the field and the relationship between elements and their squares, but no consensus has been reached on a definitive approach or conclusion.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of specific characteristics of the field, such as characteristic 2, which may influence the reasoning. The urgency of the homework deadline is also noted, indicating a time constraint on the discussion.

erogard
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone,

I have to prove that every element z of a finite field F is a sum of 2 squares.

Really not sure how to go about proving this, though I've done some research and it is suggested to start with a function that maps F* to itself, defined by [tex]f(x) = x^{2}[/tex].

I guess if I could show some kind of surjectivity, in the sense that any [tex]z \in F[/tex] can be written as [tex]z = f(a) + f(b)[/tex] for some a, b in F. Well I'll post here my progresses as I keep thinking about it, but in the meanwhile any hint or suggestion would be greatly appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First try showing that the product of (a^2+b^2) and (c^2 + d^2) is itself the sum of two squares. This tells you that the set of all nonzero numbers that can be written as the sum of two squares is a subgroup of F*. It contains the subgroup of all nonzero squares, which (away from characteristic 2) has index 2 (why?). Show the containment is proper.
 
Citan Uzuki said:
First try showing that the product of (a^2+b^2) and (c^2 + d^2) is itself the sum of two squares. This tells you that the set of all nonzero numbers that can be written as the sum of two squares is a subgroup of F*. It contains the subgroup of all nonzero squares, which (away from characteristic 2) has index 2 (why?). Show the containment is proper.

Ok, I'm almost there. All I need to show now is that if we define S as the subset of F containing all the elements of F squared, then |S| = ( |E| + 1 ) /2.

but I'm not sure how to show this (otherwise I could readily conclude using an inequality relating the cardinalities of subsets of F).
 
Go back your original idea and define f(x)=x^2. You know that if y=x^2 then y=(-x)^2 as well. So if y has one square root then it has two (forget characteristic two for the moment). Can it have three? If y=a^2 and y=b^2 can you show a=+/-b?
 
Dick said:
Go back your original idea and define f(x)=x^2. You know that if y=x^2 then y=(-x)^2 as well. So if y has one square root then it has two (forget characteristic two for the moment). Can it have three? If y=a^2 and y=b^2 can you show a=+/-b?

Yep, pretty easily. So y has at most two square roots (well precisely 2 if y is different from 0, besides the special case for y =1). So for each element squared and its inverse squared correspond to one and the same element. That divides |F| by two, I guess. Then we must account for 0 and 1... let's see. If I take a very simple example, say with { 0, 1, -1, x, -x }, then S = {0, 1, x} whose cardinality clearly is (5+1)/2 = 3. Well I think I can argue that this holds in the general case.

Edit: (n-3)/2 plus 2 (to account for 0 and 1) = (n+1)/2. I think I got it.

The HW is due today, so I'll do it this way whether it's right or not (it's just a small part of the HW), but thanks for your contribution Dick, once again.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

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