Fields and Groups: Proving a Set is a Field vs Non-Abelian Group

  • Thread starter Thread starter MikeDietrich
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fields Groups
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem context involves determining the differences between proving a set is a field and proving it is a non-abelian group, specifically in relation to a matrix representation. The subject area pertains to abstract algebra, focusing on fields and groups.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster questions the distinction between the properties required for a set to be classified as a field versus those for a non-abelian group. Some participants provide definitions and examples of fields, while others clarify the requirements for groups and fields, including the roles of addition and multiplication.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants exploring definitions and properties of fields and groups. Some guidance has been provided regarding the necessary conditions for a set to be a field, including the requirement for additive and multiplicative structures.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of a specific matrix and its relation to the problem, but the original poster clarifies that this is not the focus of their inquiry. Additionally, there is a correction regarding terminology from "non-Abelian" to "Abelian," indicating a potential misunderstanding that is being addressed.

MikeDietrich
Messages
31
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


The problem asks me to determine if the matrix [p -q ## q p] is a field with addition and multiplication. However, that is not my question.

My question is: How is proving a set is a field different from proving a set is a non-abelian group (under addition then separately under multiplication)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
From CRC Standard Math Tables, 15th Ed.
"A field is an integral domain in which every element except z is a unit. In other words, the non-z elements form an Abelian group relative to multiplication (X).
Example 1. Therational field consiting of ordinary fractions, addition, and multiplication.
Example 2. The se of all real numbers a + b\sqrt{2}, a and b rational. Then
(a + b\sqrt{2}) + (c + d\sqrt{2}) = (a + c) + (b + d)\sqrt{2} and
(a + b\sqrt{2}) X (c + d\sqrt{2}) = (ac + 2bd) + (ad + bc)\sqrt{2}."
 
sorry... I meant "Abelian" not "non-Abelian" (for some reason, I cannot edit my original post). Thank you Mark.
 
A field will never be a group under multiplication- the additive identity never has a multiplicative inverse. Also, a field requires the distributive law a(b+ c)= ab+ ac which involves both addition and multiplication.
 
What you DO have is that F is a field if and only if
1) F is an abelian group for addition
2) F\{0} is an abelian group for multiplication
3) the distributive laws hold.
 
Thank you. That is exactly what I was looking to know!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K