Quick question regarding isomorphic groups?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ishida52134
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Groups
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the properties of the matrix R defined over a field F, specifically regarding its structure as a commutative ring and conditions under which it is a field. Participants explore which fields, including Q, R, C, and finite fields like F5 and F7, allow R to be a field, with F2 identified as a prime subfield where this holds true. Additionally, the conversation delves into finding examples of fields that are isomorphic to formal fractions and demonstrating the existence of multiplicative inverses in the field Q[sqrt(2), sqrt(3)]. A method for showing the multiplicative inverse of elements in Q[sqrt(2), sqrt(3)] is provided, emphasizing the algebraic manipulation required. Overall, the thread addresses key concepts in field theory and matrix algebra.
Ishida52134
Messages
138
Reaction score
0
Let F be a field. R is an element of Mat(2,2)
[a -b
b a]
for a, b in F with matrix operations.
a. Show that R is a commutative ring with 1 and the set of diagonal matrices are
naturally isomorphic to F .
b. For which of the fields Q , R , C , F5
, F7
is R a field?
c. Characterize which elements of R have a multiplicative inverse.
d. Characterize the fields F for which R will be a fi eld.
e. For which Fp
( p prime) is R a field?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That looks like an entire homework problem.
So where do you get stuck? What have you tried already?
 
Just wanted to confirm my answer.only F2 would be a prime subfield such that R is a field right?

There's just one problem I can't figure out. Give examples of fields F such that
f is isomorphic to f(t) where f(t) is the set of formal fractions.

And just one more thing. How would you show Q[sqrt2 sqrt3] is a field? I'm having trouble showing multiplicative inverse.

Thanks
 
If you want to "confirm an answer", then tell us what your answer is!
 
inverse element for field a + bsqrt(2) + c(sqrt(3)

Yes there is an inverse element, you just have to work at it a little. Let's say your element is a + b√2 + c√3 and you want to show that 1/( a + b√2 + c√3) is in the field. As a first step multiply top and bottom of that fraction by a + b√2 - c√3 giving you

( a + b√2 + c√3)/((a + b√2)^2 +3c^{2})

the denominator becomes a^{2} + 2b^{2} +3c^{2} + ab√2.

Now multiply numerator and denominator by
a^{2} + 2b^{2} +3c^{2} - ab√2

Your denominator will be all real and the numerator will have various terms that can be simplified down to something in your field.
 
Last edited:
For some reason the answer up above got placed in this topic. But it was the answer to another question. I wonder if I managed to actually do this, or is there a bug somewhere?
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
940
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
853
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
878
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
531