MHB Finite Fields - F_4 - Galois Field of Order 2^2

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the assertion in Beachy and Blair's "Abstract Algebra" that the multiplicative group of non-zero elements in the finite field F_4, which has order 3, is cyclic. This follows from group theory, specifically a theorem stating that any group of prime order is cyclic. The proof relies on Lagrange's theorem, which indicates that the order of any subgroup must divide the order of the group. Since 3 is prime, any group of this order must be generated by a single element, confirming its cyclic nature. Thus, the multiplicative group of non-zero elements in F_4 is indeed cyclic.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Beachy and Blair's book: Abstract Algebra (3rd Edition) and am currently studying Section 6.5: Finite Fields,

I need help with a statement of Beachy & Blair in Example 6.5.2 on page 298.

Example 6.5.2 reads as follows:https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/2858In the above example, Beachy and Blair write the following:

" ... ... Note that since the multiplicative group of non-zero elements has order 3, it is cyclic. ... ... "

Can someone explain why this assertion follows?

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is elementary group theory.

Theorem:

If $G$ is a group of order $p$, then $G$ is cyclic.

Proof:

Let $x \neq e$ be any non-identity element of $G$.

By Lagrange's theorem, the order of $\langle x\rangle$, the cyclic subgroup generated by $x$, has order dividing the order of $G$.

Since this is prime, either $|x| = 1$, or $|x| = p$ (by definition, the order of $x$ as an element, is also the order of $\langle x\rangle$ as a subgroup*).

If the order of $x$ is 1, then $x^1 = x = e$, contradicting our choice of $x$. Hence $|x| = p$, so that $\langle x\rangle = G$, so that $G$ is cyclic (with generator $x$).

*****************

Since 3 is prime, any group of order 3 is cyclic, QED.

*****************

*Note: perhaps this is not obvious. Suppose that $k$ is the smallest positive integer for which we have: $x^k = e$.

Now if $\{e,x,x^2,\dots,x^{k-1}\}$ are not all distinct, we have: $x^m = x^n$ for some $0 \leq m < n \leq k-1$.

Then $0 < n-m < k-1$, and we have:

$x^{n-m} = x^n(x^{-m}) = (x^n)(x^m)^{-1} = (x^n)(x^n)^{-1} = e$, contradicting our choice of $k$.

On the other hand, suppose $\langle x\rangle = \{e,x,x^2,\dots,x^{k-1}\}$, and these are distinct.

Since a group is closed under multiplication, we have $x^k \in \langle x\rangle$.

If $x^k = x^m$, for $0 < m \leq k-1$, then:

$e = (x^k)(x^k)^{-1} = (x^k)(x^m)^{-1} = x^k(x^{-m}) = x^{k-m}$, where $0 < k-m \leq k-1$, contradicting distinctness.

Thus the only viable possibility is $m = 0$, that is $x^k = e$, and no smaller positive integer has this property.
 
Last edited:
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 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K