MHB Prime Subfield of Field F: Isomorphic to $\mathbb{Q}$

  • Thread starter Thread starter evinda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Prime
Click For Summary
The prime subfield of any field F is isomorphic to the rationals, Q, if F has characteristic 0. This is established by considering the additive subgroup generated by 1_F, which forms an infinite cyclic group isomorphic to Z. The field of quotients of this integral domain leads to a subfield of F that behaves like Q. In fields with characteristic p, the additive subgroup generated by 1_F is cyclic of prime order, resulting in a structure isomorphic to Z_p, where multiplication acts like modulo p. Thus, the nature of the prime subfield depends on the characteristic of the field.
evinda
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
0
Hello! (Wave)

View attachment 5684

Could you explain to me why the prime subfield of any field $F$ could be isomorphic to $\mathbb{Q}$ ?

How do we find the prime subfield?
 

Attachments

  • field.JPG
    field.JPG
    10.2 KB · Views: 127
Physics news on Phys.org
This is true only when the characteristic of $F$ is 0.

Suppose the characteristic is indeed 0. Then the *additive* subgroup generated by $1_F$, which is:

$\{\dots,-1_F+(-1_F)+(-1_F),\ -1_F+(-1_F),\ -1_F,\ 0_F,\ 1_F,\ 1_F+1_F,\ 1_F+1_F+1_F,\dots\}$

is an infinite cyclic group isomorphic to $\Bbb Z$, which the explicit isomorphism being:

$n \cdot 1_F \mapsto n$ (here, $n \cdot 1_F$ is equal to:

$1_F + 1_F + \cdots + 1_F$ ($n$ summands), if $n > 0$

$0_F$, if $n = 0$

$-1_F + (-1_F) + \cdots + (-1_F)$ ($-n$ summands) if $n < 0$).

Since we thus have an integral domain contained in $F$ (isomorphic to $\Bbb Z$), we can form its field of quotients, which is the *smallest* field containing this integral domain (in the sense that if $K$ is a field containing our isomorph of $\Bbb Z$, there is an injective ring-homomorphism from the field of quotients into $K$).

The image of this ring-homomorphism is then isomorphic to $Q(\Bbb Z) = \Bbb Q$, and since $F$ is such a field containing our isomorph of the integers, it thus has a subfield which is an isomorph of the rationals.

All of this is a rather long-winded way of saying, if $F$ has characteristic 0, then the smallest field we can build up starting with $1_F$ "acts just like the rational numbers":

By closure (of addition) we see that we must have all sums of $1_F$'s, and since the additive group of a field is an abelian group, we must also have all additive inverses of such sums.

Since a field must have all multiplicative inverses of $n\cdot 1_F$ (for any $n\neq 0 \in \Bbb Z$), with closure of multiplication we see we must also have all elements of the form:

$(m\cdot 1_F)(n\cdot 1_F)^{-1}$, for $m \in \Bbb Z, n\neq 0 \in \Bbb Z$

Defining addition and multiplication of these kinds of elements in the usual way:

$(m\cdot 1_F)(n\cdot 1_F)^{-1} + (m'\cdot 1_F)(n'\cdot 1_F)^{-1} = ((mn' + m'n)\cdot 1_F)((nn'\cdot 1_F)^{-1}$

$(m\cdot 1_F)(n\cdot 1_F)^{-1} \cdot (m'\cdot 1_F)(n'\cdot 1_F)^{-1} = ((mm')\cdot 1_F)((nn'\cdot 1_F)^{-1}$

and noting that $(m\cdot 1_F)(n\cdot 1_F)^{-1} = (m'\cdot 1_F)(n'\cdot 1_F)^{-1}$, whenever $mn' = m'n$

and that also we can identify $n\cdot 1_F$ with $(n\cdot 1_F)(1\cdot 1_F)^{-1}$,

we can verify (although it is tedious) such elements indeed form a subfield of $F$ isomorphic to $\Bbb Q$, with the isomorphism being:

$(m\cdot 1_F)(n\cdot 1_F)^{-1} \mapsto \dfrac{m}{n}$.

With a field of characteristic $p$, it is a slightly different story-in this case, the additive subgroup generated by $1_F$ is cyclic of prime order (hence the name "prime subfield"), and thus isomorphic to $\Bbb Z_p$, the field axioms then force us to conclude the multiplication of $F$ restricted to $\langle 1_F\rangle$ acts "just like multiplication modulo $p$".
 
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 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
867
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K