Proving each nonzero element of a subfield of C has an inverse

In summary, the conversation discusses proving that the set S, defined as {p+qα+rα2 : p, q, r \in \mathbb{Q}} where α=\sqrt[3]{2} is a subfield of \mathbb{C}, has a multiplicative inverse for each nonzero element. The attempt at a solution involves expanding and using the fact that α3=2 and α4=2α to create a system of equations, but the equations become complicated. The conversation then turns to discussing different methods to solve the problem, including using Cramer's rule and linear independence. Finally, the conversation provides resources for further study on the topic.
  • #1
MissMoneypenny
17
0

Homework Statement



Let S={p+qα+rα2 : p, q, r [itex]\in \mathbb{Q}[/itex]}, where α=[itex]\sqrt[3]{2}[/itex]. Then S is a subfield of [itex]\mathbb{C}[/itex]. Prove that each nonzero element of S has a multiplicative inverse in S.

The Attempt at a Solution



Let p, q, r[itex]\in\mathbb{Q}[/itex] such that not all of p, q, r are zero. If each nonzero element of S has a multiplicative inverse in S, then there are rational numbers a, b, c so that

(p+qα+rα2)(a+bα+cα2)=1

Expanding and using the fact that α3=2 and α4=2α, we get:

(pa+2qc+2rb)+α(pb+qa+2rc)+α2(pc+qb+ra)=1

Since 1, α, and α2 are linearly independent we may equate coefficients to give a system of equations:

pa+2qc+2rb=1
pb+qa+2rc=0
pc+qb+ra=0

Now to finish the problem I want to show that this system always has a solution in [itex]\mathbb{Q}[/itex]. I tried using Cramer's rule (i.e. showing the determinant of the matrix whose entries are the coefficients of p, q, r is equal to zero only if p=q=r=0), but I had no luck and it just turned into a mess. Likewise, back substitution was a mess. Can anyone give me a hand on how to complete this problem?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
MissMoneypenny said:

Homework Statement



Let S={p+qα+rα2 : p, q, r [itex]\in \mathbb{Q}[/itex]}, where α=[itex]\sqrt[3]{2}[/itex]. Then S is a subfield of [itex]\mathbb{C}[/itex]. Prove that each nonzero element of S has a multiplicative inverse in S.

The Attempt at a Solution



Let p, q, r[itex]\in\mathbb{Q}[/itex] such that not all of p, q, r are zero. If each nonzero element of S has a multiplicative inverse in S, then there are rational numbers a, b, c so that

(p+qα+rα2)(a+bα+cα2)=1

Expanding and using the fact that α3=2 and α4=2α, we get:

(pa+2qc+2rb)+α(pb+qa+2rc)+α2(pc+qb+ra)=1

Since 1, α, and α2 are linearly independent we may equate coefficients to give a system of equations:

pa+2qc+2rb=1
pb+qa+2rc=0
pc+qb+ra=0

Now to finish the problem I want to show that this system always has a solution in [itex]\mathbb{Q}[/itex]. I tried using Cramer's rule (i.e. showing the determinant of the matrix whose entries are the coefficients of p, q, r is equal to zero only if p=q=r=0), but I had no luck and it just turned into a mess. Likewise, back substitution was a mess. Can anyone give me a hand on how to complete this problem?

Thanks!

If ##x, y \in S## have multiplicative inverses in ##S## and if ##x + y \neq 0##, can you prove that ##x+y## has a multiplicative inverse in ##S##? Can you prove that ##1, \alpha, \alpha^2## all have multiplicative inverses in ##S##?
 
  • #3
Thanks for the quick response! I think I see what you're getting at. If I can prove what you wrote, then since each element of S is a linear combination of 1, α, and α2 whose coefficients are in [itex]\mathbb{Q}[/itex], it follows that each element of S has an inverse in S. Unfortunately I really am not sure how to show that if [itex]x, y, x^{-1}, y^{-1} \in S[/itex] with [itex] x \ne y [/itex], then [itex] (x+y)^{-1} \in S[/itex]. I tried to solve the equation [itex](x+y)(ax^{-1}+bx^{-1})=1[/itex] for a and b, but that didn't get me anywhere, and I'm not sure what else to try. Is it possible for you to give me a small hint to get me going in the right direction?

Thanks again.
 
  • #4
Was that really the original statement of the problem? Saying "S is a subfield of [itex]mathbb{C}[/itex]. Prove that each nonzero element of S has a multiplicative inverse in S" seems very strange! A subfield is, by definition, a field so each non-zero element must have a multiplicative inverse. It would make more sense to first define S then ask to show that every nonzero element has a multiplicative inverse, as part of proving that S is a subfield.
 
  • #5
You're correct, what I wrote is a strange problem statement. It was my fault. The full problem was to show S is a subfield of C. However, I knew how to prove all of the other field axioms hold for S, so I changed the problem statement. As you correctly pointed out, I didn't change it very well. Would it be better if I wrote "confirm that each nonzero element of S has an identity"? Or should I just have written up the actual problem statement but mentioned I only need help proving the existence of multiplicative inverses?
 
  • #6
MissMoneypenny said:
Thanks for the quick response! I think I see what you're getting at. If I can prove what you wrote, then since each element of S is a linear combination of 1, α, and α2 whose coefficients are in [itex]\mathbb{Q}[/itex], it follows that each element of S has an inverse in S. Unfortunately I really am not sure how to show that if [itex]x, y, x^{-1}, y^{-1} \in S[/itex] with [itex] x \ne y [/itex], then [itex] (x+y)^{-1} \in S[/itex]. I tried to solve the equation [itex](x+y)(ax^{-1}+bx^{-1})=1[/itex] for a and b, but that didn't get me anywhere, and I'm not sure what else to try. Is it possible for you to give me a small hint to get me going in the right direction?

Thanks again.

Many of these issues are dealt with in
http://math.stackexchange.com/quest...proof-that-the-algebraic-numbers-form-a-field

If you Google 'algebraic numbers' or 'algebraic number fields' you will encounter loads of material on your topic.
 

1. What is a subfield of C?

A subfield of C is a subset of the complex numbers that is closed under addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. It is also a field in its own right, meaning that it satisfies all of the field axioms.

2. Why is it important to prove that each nonzero element of a subfield of C has an inverse?

Proving that each nonzero element of a subfield of C has an inverse is important because it guarantees that every element in the subfield can be multiplied by another element to produce the multiplicative identity (1). This is a necessary property for a field and allows for more complex mathematical operations to be carried out within the subfield.

3. What does it mean for an element to have an inverse in a subfield of C?

An element having an inverse in a subfield of C means that there is another element within the subfield that, when multiplied by the original element, results in the multiplicative identity (1). In other words, it is the reciprocal of the original element.

4. How can we prove that each nonzero element of a subfield of C has an inverse?

We can prove that each nonzero element of a subfield of C has an inverse by showing that for every element a in the subfield, there exists another element b in the subfield such that a*b = 1. This can be done through algebraic manipulation and using the properties of a field.

5. Can a subfield of C have more than one inverse for a given nonzero element?

No, a subfield of C can only have one inverse for a given nonzero element. This is because if an element has two inverses, say b and c, then b*c = 1 and b*c = 1. This would mean that b and c are both the inverses of a, which contradicts the definition of an inverse.

Similar threads

  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top