Sum of fields is never a field

  • Thread starter Thread starter rainiscoming
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Field Fields Sum
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the mathematical proof that the direct sum of two or more fields, denoted as F × G, is never a field. Participants emphasize the need to demonstrate that F × G forms an Abelian group under addition and that F × G - {0,0} is an Abelian group under multiplication. A key point raised is the challenge of proving the existence of multiplicative inverses for all non-zero elements, specifically noting that the product of two elements may not yield an invertible element within F × G - {0,0}, thus confirming that F × G cannot satisfy the field properties.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of field theory and properties of fields
  • Familiarity with Abelian groups and their characteristics
  • Knowledge of multiplicative inverses and their role in algebraic structures
  • Basic proficiency in mathematical proofs and logical reasoning
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of fields and their definitions in abstract algebra
  • Learn about Abelian groups and their significance in group theory
  • Explore examples of direct sums of algebraic structures and their properties
  • Investigate common proof techniques used in abstract algebra, particularly in disproving field properties
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, educators, and researchers interested in abstract algebra, particularly those focusing on field theory and group theory concepts.

rainiscoming
Messages
1
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Prove that a direct sum of two or more field is never a field


Homework Equations



F X G = {(f,g): f in F, g in G}

The Attempt at a Solution



I know that I need to prove FXG is Abelian group under addition, and FXG - {0,0} is an Abelian group under mult.
And for mult,
I know I need to check 1) mult identity, 2) closure, 3) commutative, 4) mult inverse, 5) associativity

I have problem proving mult inverse,

let a1, a2, b1, b2 be elements in F XG - {0,0}, such that (a1,b1)*(a2,b2) = (a1a2, b1b2)
so (a1a2, b1b2) ^-1 = (1/(a1a2), 1/(b1b2)) which is not in FXG - (0,0)

Is this right?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
How do you know a1a2 is invertible?
 
Remember you're trying to prove that [itex]F\times G[/itex] is not a field.

So you're not actually trying to prove any of the things you say you're trying to prove. You're trying to disprove at least one of them. So if you've had a problem proving one of them, that might give you a clue.
 

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
14K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K