MHB Fermat's Little Theorem .... Anderson and Feil, Theorem 8.7 .... ....

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Anderson and Feil - A First Course in Abstract Algebra.

I am currently focused on Ch. 8: Integral Domains and Fields ...

I need some help with an aspect of the proof of Theorem 8.7 (Fermat's Little Theorem) ...

Theorem 8.7 and its proof read as follows:
View attachment 6435
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/6436

My questions regarding the above are as follows:
Question 1

In the above text from Anderson and Feil we read the following:

" ... ... Because a field has no zero divisors, each element of $$S$$ is non-zero ... "Can someone please demonstrate exactly why this follows ... ?

Question 2

In the above text from Anderson and Feil we read the following:" ... ... Because a field satisfies multiplicative cancellation, no two of these elements are the same .. ... "Can someone please demonstrate exactly why it follows that no two of the elements of $$S$$ are the same .. ... "
Help will be appreciated ...

Peter*** EDIT ***
oh dear ... can see that the answer to Question 1 is obvious ... indeed it follows from the definition of zero divisor ... apologies ... brain not in gear ...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
" ... ... Because a field satisfies multiplicative cancellation, no two of these elements are the same .. ... "Can someone please demonstrate exactly why it follows that no two of the elements of $$S$$ are the same .. ... "
If $[x\cdot i]=[x\cdot j]$, then $x$ can be canceled and we have $i=j$.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
If $[x\cdot i]=[x\cdot j]$, then $x$ can be canceled and we have $i=j$.
Thanks Evgeny ... grateful for your help ...

Peter
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K