Every feild has a subset isomorphic to rational numbers?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Tyler314
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Numbers Rational
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the claim that every field has a subset isomorphic to the rational numbers. Participants explore the implications of this statement in the context of linear algebra, particularly referencing a text by Georgi Shilov. The conversation touches on the characteristics of fields, isomorphisms, and specific cases where the statement may hold true.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the connection between fields and subsets isomorphic to rational numbers, questioning the validity of the statement.
  • Another participant argues that the statement may not apply to fields with a finite number of elements, suggesting a misinterpretation or error in the claim.
  • A different participant notes that the statement likely requires a qualification, such as the field being of characteristic 0, to hold true.
  • It is proposed that every field has a subfield isomorphic to either the rational numbers or to the field of integers modulo a prime.
  • A participant cites Shilov's text, indicating that it assumes fields of characteristic zero, which would allow for the embedding of rational numbers in such fields.
  • Another participant suggests that while the embedding of rational numbers is not "immediate," it can be proven by defining a function based on the field's properties, though this requires further validation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of the statement regarding fields and rational numbers. Some agree that the statement requires specific conditions, while others challenge its validity in broader contexts. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the need for clarification on the characteristics of fields being discussed, particularly regarding finite fields and the implications of characteristic zero. The exact conditions under which the statement holds are not fully established.

Tyler314
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I am reading linear algebra by Georgi Shilov. It is my first encounter with linear algebra. After defining what a field is and what isomorphism means he says that it follows that every field has a subset isomorphic to rational numbers. I don't see the connection.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Tyler314 said:
I am reading linear algebra by Georgi Shilov. It is my first encounter with linear algebra. After defining what a field is and what isomorphism means he says that it follows that every field has a subset isomorphic to rational numbers. I don't see the connection.

Either you're misinterpreting the statement or it's very wrong. I can't see how a field with a finite number of elements could be isomorphic to Q. Could directly quote the section?
 
That is a good book. As a recall that statement does not apply to the most general field, there is some qualification. With a qualification (perhaps the field must be of characteristic 0 so that Ʃ1=0 only when the sum is empty) it is obviously true a/b is just a 1's divided by b 1's.
 
What is true is that every field has a subfield which is isomorphic to either ##Q## or to the field ##Z_p## (integers modulo ##p##) for some prime ##p##.
 
I've got a copy of Shilov in front of me, and on page 2 while defining a field (or number field, as he calls it) he writes

"The numbers 1, 1+1=2, 2+1=3, etc. are said to be natural; it is assumed that none of these numbers is zero."

That is, he is only working with fields of characteristic zero. In this case, it is immediate that every such field contains a subfield isomorphic to the field of rational numbers, i.e. the rationals can be isomorphically embedded in any field of characteristic zero.
 
I wouldn't say that it's "immediate", but it's fairly easy to prove. Denote the field by ##\mathbb F##. For each positive integer n, define n1=1+...+1, where 1 is the multiplicative identity of ##\mathbb F##, and there are n copies of 1 on the right. Also define (-n)1=(-1)+...+(-1), and 01=0, where the 0 on the left is the additive identity in the field of integers, and the 0 on the right is the additive identity of ##\mathbb F##.

Now you can define a function ##f:\mathbb Q\to\mathbb F## by
$$f\left(\frac p q\right)=(p1)(q1)^{-1}.$$ This only makes sense if we can prove that the right-hand side depends only on the quotient p/q, so you would have to do that. Then you would of course also have to prove that this f is a field isomorphism.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K